Politics & Government

School Board Election: Roger Bonuchi Answers Our Questions

Plainfield village and School District 202 candidates in the April 5 election answer questions posed by Plainfield Patch.

 

Editor's note: Candidates for Plainfield Village Board and Plainfield School District 202 have been asked to complete questionnaires about who they are, why they're running and their positions on some of the key issues. Plainfield Patch will run them as they are received and they will be available up through the April 5 election.

These are the candidates' own words, written specifically for the benefit of those who are deciding how they will vote.

Find out what's happening in Plainfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

 

PLAINFIELD DISTRICT 202  SCHOOL BOARD QUESTIONNAIRE

Find out what's happening in Plainfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Name:  Roger Bonuchi

Address:  23702 W Spring Hill, Plainfield

Age: 54

Marital status:  Married

Name of spouse: Margie Bonuchi

Names, ages of children: Tony Bonuchi, age 31

Education (please name degree attained and school):

-        Joliet West High School

-        Master Board Member, second level – Illinois Association of School Boards

-        4000+ hours of computer hardware & software class room education

-        Illinois Professional Development Series

-        Illinois Professional Emergency Manager – IEMA

-        Illinois Search & Rescue Manager

Profession and employer:  Managing Senior Technical Architect

Community (non-elected) groups of which you are a member:

-        Plainfield Emergency Management Agency – Captain

-        Plainfield Band Boosters – craft show fundraiser co-chair

-        President – Plainfield Radio League

Previous and current elected political office history (please include the years of terms):

-        Member, 6 years, Plainfield District 202 Board of Education

        Vice President, 1 year, Plainfield District 202 Board of Education

-        Chair/member, 6 years, Site Management Committee, Plainfield District 202 Board of Education

-        Member, 4 years, Ways & Means Committee, Plainfield District 202 Board of Education

Why are you seeking this office?

I’ve been an elected member of the District 202 Board of Education for the past six years. I would like to be re-elected to complete some projects that I started as well as to see the district through the current financial crisis. I’ve been involved in District 202 Band Boosters since 1993 and have been very close to school teachers and administrators for many years. 

After my son graduated from Plainfield High School - Central Campus in 1997, I felt a need to do something of value beyond my job and family. The Board of Education has proven to be a good fit for me. I’ve learned a great deal and have contributed in many facets of board service.

Why should someone choose you instead of those you are running against?

At one of the most difficult times in the district’s history, experience is important. I was on the board during our explosive growth. We built two to three new schools a year for several years, all of which came in under budget and on time. Much was learned about staffing, fund management and organizational structure by sitting board members during that time. 

Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the perfect storm today. So far, the board and administration have cut some $33 million from the budget over the last two years, yet academic achievement has continued to grow. I would like to see that process through and start planning for the superintendent’s retirement.

What do you see as the issues in this election?

Without question the “elephant” in the room is money. As with nearly all school districts across the nation, money to fund teachers and programs is slim. With the state of Illinois taking away or delaying funding for transportation, categorical programs and general state aid, we’ve got to continue to find ways to keep costs down. As with any school system, the primary expense, around 80 percent in our case, is labor. Negotiating reasonable and sustainable new labor contracts, working through school programs for the most effective tools and making the best we can of staff and facilities must be our goal. At the same time, student achievement must continue to improve.    

What would you like to accomplish if elected to this position? Please be specific.

1) Two years ago a project that I promoted over the years was adopted. The project replaces the current outdated current student and HR/finance software packages used by the district. The HR/finance portion is nearly finished, and the student information system is next.

2) I’d like to see the district through the current financial constraints. I’ve been an integral part of the district budget changes to date and want to continue taking responsibility for that effort. 

3) At the end of 2011, the board will begin looking for a new superintendent. Having been on the board for six years, I have valuable experience with the board/superintendent relationship and feel a duty to see this process through.  This is an important time to retain veteran Board members.

What is your opinion of the current budget deficit? What would be your proposal for how to eliminate it? What budget cuts do you support? Be as specific as possible.

As stated above, a school district’s expense is primarily labor. Labor expense is paid out the “education fund” by state law. However, many other things are also paid from this “wallet.” Since 2009, as a board of education member, we as a board have done as much as we could to save jobs, as we try and keep the quality of educational services steady or improved. We’ve saved some good programs and weeded out some others.

For example, I’m a band supporter, but fifth-grade band was a large expense. As we researched other bands in other states such as Indiana, we found that they do not have fifth-grade band and yet their programs excel in high school and college levels. So we made the difficult decision to cut fifth-grade band. We are however offering an optional band camp for fifth-graders during the summer so that their transition into sixth-grade band is easier.

 I supported a vote to have administrators pay 10 percent of their own health care costs, and froze their pay for the past two years. I’ve joined other board members in seeking a sustainable new contract with the teachers' union, and made material cutbacks where need be. I’ve supported an effort that combined some classes, which enabled teacher’s aides to be consolidated yet reduced class sizes.

Our software project (see  above) will provide a better view of district expenses so we can manage our portfolio better. I’ve supported joining an energy consortium to save money on gas and electricity and revamped the fee schedule for use of school buildings so that the district is not underwriting non-student groups or activities. As a board, we have revamped departments, reducing headcount where need be but with care so that the student environment was not harmed any more than need be.

With all this cutting, the district has still maintained academic growth within the Federal No Child Left Behind Act scope and within state testing standards.

What is your opinion of the school board’s recent decision to use federal grant money to retain jobs for a year instead of using it to pay down debt owned on land purchases? Please explain.

I voted “yes” on Feb. 28 to a new proposal that saved all but a few of the jobs on the original cut list. I helped formulate this new proposal with some of my fellow board members.  My vote was based on these factors:

  • The federal government intended this money to retain teachers.  That is mandated by federal law.
  • Even though we could have legally added this $5.7 million to our education fund and taken the same amount out the other side, calling it “unbudgeted money,” and used it to pay off land debt, I felt that was a betrayal of the original intent of the federal government.
  • There is no guarantee that we’ll have a deficit next year. All of our projections are based on factors that are far less predictable that in past years. If we can stave off any layoffs of teachers or staff now, we can deal with what we know for a fact next year.
  • These “unbudgeted monies” that were proposed to be used to pay off land debt were said to have saved three to four jobs a year over a 10-year period starting in 2014. That may or may not happen, since no one really knows what the situation will be in 2014. Yes, the targeted debt restructuring could have saved $2 million in hard money over a 10-year period, but there are other ways to refinance this debt without taking away anyone’s job.
  • The 40-plus jobs we saved with this $5.7 million are mostly student-affecting positions, such as nurses, deans, social workers and attendance clerks. By keeping these positions, we also saved the catalyst program. This program, although targeting only 2 percent of the student population, is a very effective discipline tool that saves kids, a factor beyond money.
  • As we enter negotiations with the teachers' union in the next few months, we’ve demonstrated our good faith in retaining teachers toward a common goal: education.

Do you think the school boundaries need to be redrawn because of shifts in enrollment? If yes, how would you propose doing so? If no, how can you ensure that every school provides the same opportunities if one has more students than another?

District 202 has had no choice but to change attendance boundaries in the past. Our staff has done their best to keep up with new subdivisions being built and locations for new schools. The number of new students coming into District 202 over the last two years has greatly declined. The administration is responsible for formulating attendance boundary changes, which are then reviewed and approved by the board. 

Our work over the last several years to present a common curriculum across all of over schools addresses the need to make sure all students have the same educational opportunities. Targeted assessments point out what additional needs a student may have. Other programs are then applied to these needs.

Would you support a switch in school funding that would increase income tax in exchange for a drop in property tax?

That depends on how that new law would be formulated. Education funding reform in Illinois was been a hot topic for years.  Little has been done because education is one of the big three entitlements in the state budget, the other two being welfare and pensions.  The political will in Springfield has not turned into any real work in this area.

If new funding comes with new unfunded mandates, new money from increased state income tax may not make any different in our budget problems. One other serious concern for all districts, which could come with any sort of new statewide school funding, is the possibility of redistribution of such collected income taxes to other districts adding up to a loss of funding for some.  

I am open-minded and would look at all possibilities, but trading one tax for another by itself does not seem like the solution. The bigger financial issues that are controlled in Springfield need to be addressed to have true reform.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here