These are good questions. I think this is newsworthy for the following reasons:
1. It indicates poor financial controls on the district's part, including questions about their alignment to ISBE's rules governing reasonable spending from the Superintendent.
2. Evidence that has been gathered indicates Horton's pattern of spending was, at be…
These are good questions. I think this is newsworthy for the following reasons:
1. It indicates poor financial controls on the district's part, including questions about their alignment to ISBE's rules governing reasonable spending from the Superintendent.
2. Evidence that has been gathered indicates Horton's pattern of spending was, at best, stretching those rules, and at worst openly violating them.
3. If the District made an arrangement with Horton around reimbursing these expenses to help float a move to Atlanta, that arrangement involved giving a person no longer employed by the Board open access to spend public dollars - and accrue interest on those purchases to also be paid by Evanston taxpayers - while not being under contract to the Board. That's kind of a big deal.
4. There is already evidence of financial largesse given to Horton by the Board and district administration in the form of reducing Horton's contractual kill fee, paying for travel that was largely based on enriching his personal profile, allowing or overlooking perks like expensive meals.
5. The District was essentially bankrupted during Horton's tenure, there is evidence of soft manipulation of financial records to improve the appearance of financial stability at critical times (floating bills etc.), now this.
6. And behind all of this, you have a Board - and specific Board members - who provided endless cover fire for Horton, essentially shutting down effective public oversight, and signaling to him and his staff that they could pretty much do what they pleased, because the Board wasn't going to actually hold him accountable.
7. While also not being forthcoming about how they hired him, what that process was, and what metrics were being used to extend his contract.
8. Even though there was publicly available evidence that he might not be the best steward of public dollars.
9. And in the end, all of this has resulted in an emerging avalanche of financial mud that is going to bury Evanston.
10. While Horton has moved on, leveraging a few "sugar high" initiatives into a bigger opportunity, but ultimately leaving Evanston even less financially equipped to support the very kids Horton claimed most to care about.
These are good questions. I think this is newsworthy for the following reasons:
1. It indicates poor financial controls on the district's part, including questions about their alignment to ISBE's rules governing reasonable spending from the Superintendent.
2. Evidence that has been gathered indicates Horton's pattern of spending was, at best, stretching those rules, and at worst openly violating them.
3. If the District made an arrangement with Horton around reimbursing these expenses to help float a move to Atlanta, that arrangement involved giving a person no longer employed by the Board open access to spend public dollars - and accrue interest on those purchases to also be paid by Evanston taxpayers - while not being under contract to the Board. That's kind of a big deal.
4. There is already evidence of financial largesse given to Horton by the Board and district administration in the form of reducing Horton's contractual kill fee, paying for travel that was largely based on enriching his personal profile, allowing or overlooking perks like expensive meals.
5. The District was essentially bankrupted during Horton's tenure, there is evidence of soft manipulation of financial records to improve the appearance of financial stability at critical times (floating bills etc.), now this.
6. And behind all of this, you have a Board - and specific Board members - who provided endless cover fire for Horton, essentially shutting down effective public oversight, and signaling to him and his staff that they could pretty much do what they pleased, because the Board wasn't going to actually hold him accountable.
7. While also not being forthcoming about how they hired him, what that process was, and what metrics were being used to extend his contract.
8. Even though there was publicly available evidence that he might not be the best steward of public dollars.
9. And in the end, all of this has resulted in an emerging avalanche of financial mud that is going to bury Evanston.
10. While Horton has moved on, leveraging a few "sugar high" initiatives into a bigger opportunity, but ultimately leaving Evanston even less financially equipped to support the very kids Horton claimed most to care about.
I don't know, seems pretty newsworthy to me.