In August 2023, School District 65 administrators presented a memo summarizing the budget for its fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 (FY’24). The memo said the district’s staff would increase by 12.9 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) in FY’24, compared to FY’23.
Yet, five months later, in February 2024, the district’s financial consultant presented data showing there was an increase of 140 FTEs in FY’24, or about 127 more than stated in the budget memo.
Despite two Freedom of Information Act requests and multiple email requests to Kathy Zalewski, then the district’s business manager; Melissa Messinger, chief communications officer; Joey Hailpern, the chair of the school board’s Finance Committee; and Robert Grossi, the district’s financial consultant, the district has not provided the RoundTable with information showing why the district’s staff increased by an additional 127 FTEs in FY’24 over budget, and what positions those FTEs held or what services they rendered.
At an April Finance Committee meeting, the district laid out a plan to reduce staff by 40 FTEs in FY’25. District administrators, though, were not able to say how many FTEs the district would have in FY’25 if there was a reduction of 40 FTEs for that year.
Budget documents for FY’24
On Aug. 16, 2023, administrators presented a tentative budget to the District 65 Finance Committee. In a memo dated Aug. 10, 2023, and titled “FY24 Tentative Budget Assumptions,” Zalewski presented a table showing the district planned to increase the number of FTEs for FY’24 by a net total of 12.9 FTEs. A table reflecting both the added and the reduced positions contained in the memo is reprinted below.
The school board approved the final budget for FY’24 at its meeting on Sept. 18, 2023. There were no changes to the number of FTEs between the tentative and final budgets.
Thus, the budget for FY’24 included an increase of 12.9 FTEs.
February 2024 data
On Feb. 12, 2024, Robert Grossi of Illuminate, a financial consultant retained by District 65, presented the district’s historical financial data to the district’s Finance Committee, together with financial projections for subsequent years. The historical data reflected that student enrollment in the district had significantly declined from 7,943 students in the 2018-19 school year to 6,316 students in the 2023-24 school year, a decline of 1,627 students or 20.5%.
During the same period, though, the number of FTEs increased from 1,220 to 1,426, an increase of 206 FTEs or 16.9%.
A chart presented by Grossi at that meeting is reprinted below:
In addition to the long-term trends, Grossi’s chart showed there was an increase in staff from 1,286 FTEs in the 2022-23 school year (FY’23) to 1,426 FTEs in the 2023-24 school year (FY’24), or an increase of 140 FTEs in the one-year period.
This was far more than the net increase of 12.9 FTEs stated in the district’s FY’24 budget memo.
Grossi told the RoundTable in a voice message on June 28 that he obtained the number of FTEs from the district’s HR Department. Messinger told the RoundTable in an email on July 10 that the total number of FTEs provided by the HR Department was accurate as of Feb. 12.
Grossi projected in February that the district would operate at a deficit of $4.3 million in FY’25, which would grow to $14.5 million by FY’29 unless steps were taken to reduce the deficits.
FOIA requests
On April 29 and April 30, the RoundTable submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to District 65 in an effort to determine why District 65 increased its staff by 127 FTEs over budget, and what positions those FTEs held. The requests asked the district to provide:
- “All tables, lists or other records showing the total number of FTEs employed by School District 65 and/or the total number of FTEs by position (or category) that were prepared by District 65 or any consultant at any time during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. This includes all revisions that were prepared during the period.” (FOIA Request dated April 29)
- “Page 8 in the Historical Financial Summary presented at the District 65 Finance Committee meeting on Feb. 12, 2024, reflected that the total number of FTE staff was 1,426 in 2023. Please provide all tables, lists, memoranda, and other records that were used in arriving at the number 1,426, and all tables, lists, memoranda and other records that show the number of FTE staff by category.” (FOIA Request dated April 30)
On May 7, 2024, the district responded to both requests: “Attached you will find a record responsive to your request. Please note that the data in the attached table does not include figures for Park School which has a separate budget.”
The record attached to the district’s response is reprinted below:
While the table contains a breakdown for four categories of employees (i.e. members of the District Educators Council (DEC, the teachers union), school administrators, central office administrators and other FTEs, it does not provide information showing where the 127 additional FTEs were assigned or what positions they held. For example:
- The number of “Other FTEs” increased from 457.75 in FY’23 to 561 in FY’24, or by 103.25 FTEs in FY’24. There is no indication what positions these FTEs filled or what services they provided, or why they were added.
- The chart reflects that the number of DEC FTEs increased by 33 in FY’24, or about 18 more than budgeted. There is no indication, though, if the 18 FTEs were general education teachers, special education teachers, English as a second language teachers, substitute teachers, librarians or other members of DEC.
- The chart also reflects that school administrators increased by five FTEs in FY’24, or five more than budgeted. It is unclear whether they were principals or assistant principals, or whether they served another function.
On May 16, the RoundTable asked the district’s FOIA officer if there were any other records responsive to the FOIA requests dated April 29 and 30.
On June 4, District 65 responded: “After checking with both the HR department and the business office and subsequent records – in regards to your request this was the only record responsive to your request.”
So, apparently, District 65 has no records that provide a more detailed breakdown of what positions the additional 127 FTEs held or what types of services they were providing. This was a break from prior practice, in which the district published a table showing changes in FTEs by category from year to year as part of its budget documents. For example, the table below shows the number of FTEs by category in 2021-2022 (FY’22) and in 2022-23 (FY’23), together with the change. The table was included in the district’s final budget report for FY’23. The district did not prepare a similar table for FY’24.
Requests for additional information
On June 14, the RoundTable sent an email to Zalewski seeking information about the increase in FTEs for the 2023-24 school year (FY’24). The email noted that according to District 65 records, “There were a total of 1,285.5 FTEs in FY’23, and the number increased to 1,426 in FY’24. There was an increase of 140.25 FTEs.”
The email asked:
“a. Can you tell me why these increases occurred?
“b. Can you tell what the changes in FTEs were between FY’23 and FY’24 by category of employees, using the categories listed in the attached ‘Table 1: Changes in District 65 personnel in FTEs (by category),’ and if there were new categories what they were and the changes in the new categories?”
The table referred to in the email is the table prepared by District 65 for FY’22 and FY’23, which is reprinted above. The table lists 29 categories of employees, such as “teachers”; “support staff” (which is defined at the bottom of the table to include school secretaries, central office secretaries, executive assistants and miscellaneous staff); “central office administrators”; “custodians”; “principals”; social workers,” etc.
On June 17, Zalewski emailed the RoundTable that “someone for the District will reply with the answers.” She subsequently said she referred the RoundTable’s June 14 email to Messinger. After several follow up emails, Messinger provided the following response on July 10:
“I am very, very sorry for the delay and appreciate your patience as we coordinated within our team to respond. As you likely know, the district has undergone a significant transition in our leadership over the past 12 months. This includes the superintendent, assistant superintendent of human resources, chief financial officer, and most recently the business manager. Additionally during this time the District changed its employee resource planning system and staffing information is organized, coded, and reported differently. This makes drawing comparisons year-over-year, particularly by employee category, especially difficult.
“It is our goal to be as responsive as possible to your request; however, we do not want to provide inaccurate or incomplete information especially for hiring or programmatic decisions by members of the prior administrative team. This being said, staffing decisions are based on meeting students’ diverse learning needs and organizational priorities. Staffing fluctuates based on these needs and it is our belief that the prior administration made decisions based on what they believed was best to meet student needs. Beginning in FY21 and in subsequent years, we know that staffing was increased to meet academic and social emotional needs exacerbated by the pandemic. This includes increased numbers of students with individualized education and 504 plans.
“The information used in the February Financial Projections included high level information about the total FTEs, not necessarily specific employee categories. These totals were accurate (as of that date) and based on the information in the new ERP system which was provided by the HR team.”
The district’s response cites changes in administrators, changes in the “employee resource planning system,” staffing information is “organized, coded, and reported differently,” and a reluctance to comment on a prior administration’s “hiring or programmatic decisions” as reasons for not providing the information asked for in the RoundTable’s June 14 email.
But adding 140 additional FTEs in FY’24 after the budget for FY’24 called for an increase of only 12.9 FTEs is no small matter. And the district’s July 10 response does not explain why an extra 127 FTEs were added and does not explain what positions these 127 FTEs filled or what type of services they provided.
The district also says that “beginning in FY21 and in subsequent years, we know staffing was increased to meet academic and social emotional needs exacerbated by the pandemic.” But the district increased its staffing to meet students’ needs that were exacerbated by the pandemic in FY’21, FY’22 and FY’23, and those increases are included in the total number of FTEs for FY’23; and those increases were made at a time of decreasing student enrollment. When the school board approved the budget for FY’24 in September 2023, it took into account the needs of students and decided to increase staff by 12.9 students. Yet, according to data presented by the district’s consultant in February 2024, the district’s total staff increased by 140 employees in FY’24.
The question is, “Why the increase?”
On June 14, the RoundTable also sent an email to Joey Hailpern, a member of the District 65 school board and chair of the board’s Finance Committee for several years. The email asked Hailpern to provide answers to the same questions asked in the June 14 email to Zalewski.
On June 21, Hailpern responded that he had been out of the country for the past week and would respond in the coming days. On June 28, the RoundTable noted in an email to Hailpern that Messinger planned to provide information to the RoundTable about the additional FTEs, but asked Hailpern to provide a response as chair of the board’s Finance Committee by July 5. Hailpern did not respond.
On June 28, the RoundTable asked Grossi in an email about the increase in FTEs in FY’24. Grossi left a phone message that the data about FTEs he provided at the February District 65 Finance Committee meeting was provided to him by the district’s HR department, and that he would work with the HR Department to provide the information requested by the RoundTable.
In a subsequent email, the RoundTable asked Grossi to respond by July 5. He did not directly provide any additional information.
Budget reduction strategies
At an April 15 Finance Committee meeting, district administrators laid out budget reduction strategies for FY’25. The strategies included eliminating 51 existing positions: 21 teaching positions, 12 administrative and 18 central office. The district, however, also plans to create 11 new positions: two in the administration and nine in the central office. Overall, this reflects a net reduction of 40 staff members.
The RoundTable asked district administrators and Hailpern what the total estimated number of FTEs in District 65 would be in FY’25, if 40 positions were eliminated as part of the budget reduction strategies. The RoundTable also asked what the estimated number of FTEs would be by category in FY’25.
Messinger responded on July 10: “The budget balancing strategies for FY25 were based on reducing overall expenditures and considering responsibilities within the central office to create efficiencies and increase productivity in alignment with overall goals. The overall number of FTEs and employee type were not of specific consideration other than through the mindset of reducing overall salary costs, focusing reductions on administration and central office to minimize the direct impact on schools. Additionally, nearly all school level staffing reductions were based on attrition, retirements, and ensuring the district remains within class size guidelines.”
Messinger added: “The FY25 tentative budget is still in development and will be overseen by our new Chief Financial Officer, Tamara Mitchell, SFO, with guidance from Dr. Grossi and Illuminate, Inc. More detailed information will be presented in August. Ultimately, all decisions in District 65, including staffing, are made with students in mind.”
So, at this point, the district has not estimated how many FTEs it will have in FY’25 and not estimated what the number of FTEs by category will be.
One way to look at this fact is this: If the district reduces the number of FTEs in FY’24 (which was 1,426 per Grossi’s chart) by 40 FTEs in FY’25, that would leave a total of 1,386 FTEs in FY’25. That would still be 100 FTEs more than the district had in FY’23.
Maybe in its budget memos, the district will explain what’s going on in more detail. There may be good reasons for the additional FTEs in FY’24. The reasons have just not been provided yet.
An Analysis: Why the increase of 140 District 65 employees in FY’24? is from Evanston RoundTable, Evanston's most trusted source for unbiased, in-depth journalism.