Since Mary Davis was fired from District 150, I’ve been wondering if the taxpayers would be getting their money back from all those months she was on paid administrative leave. Today I got the answer from the district’s spokesperson Stacey Shangraw: Only if she’s convicted:
Mary [Davis] will be required to pay back the salary she received while she was on administrative leave if she is convicted of a crime. The pay back requirement does not come into play when a person is indicted or charged. Her trial for the criminal charges has been set to begin August 16.
So we will not know if she is required to pay back the salary she received while on leave until the criminal proceedings are finished. It is outlined in the Illinois State Statute, the state officials and employees ethics act, under 5 ILCS 430/5-60 that she will be required to pay the salary back, however it is not part of the criminal code.
If convicted, we will ask the State’s Attorney to include a request to include payments as part of her sentencing, but the Judge is not required to include that in the sentence or order. If the Judge does not include this payment requirement in the criminal sentencing order then the district would have to seek payment by first demanding it pursuant to the statute.
Here’s what 5 ILCS 430/5-60(b) says:
As a matter of law and without the necessity of the adoption of an ordinance or resolution under Section 70?5, if any officer or government employee of a governmental entity is placed on administrative leave, either voluntarily or involuntarily, pending the outcome of a criminal investigation or prosecution and that officer or government employee is removed from office or employment due to his or her resultant criminal conviction, then the officer or government employee is indebted to the governmental entity for all compensation and the value of all benefits received during the administrative leave and must forthwith pay the full amount to the governmental entity.
Sounds complicated. It also sounds like District 150 won’t be getting that money back. Read the wording of that statute again, especially the part that says, “and that officer or government employee is removed from office or employment due to his or her resultant criminal conviction, then the officer or government employee is indebted….” They fired her before she was convicted of anything, not because of a criminal conviction. So, I’ll bet the statute is moot and the district doesn’t get that money back, unless they can get it included as part of her sentencing.
Any lawyers out there, feel free to correct me if I’m reading the statute incorrectly. I’d really like to be wrong about this.
She won’t go away quietly. Should be interesting! C.J., can you obtain a copy of her compaint and post it?
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x50591695/Ex-principal-files-suit-against-D150
Hahah…I hope she blows the damn lid off the District 150 machine and takes down everyone and everything she can find. It’s about time!!!! Go Mary Davis!!!! Yeah…I’m a disgruntled teacher in the district…so what?
Stirthepot you make an excellent point. I don’t know Davis, but I know many who do know her personally. Until all of this mess began she had an excellent work record with regular promotion and in her last position it would seem to me that she would have had virtually unlimited access to files and confidential issues discussed in closed door meetings. I find it interesting that she has yet to go public, but then again any attorney worth his salt would probably tell her to keep her mouth shut for the time being. I’m guessing that Davis knows things that will shake District 150 to its core and make some people wish that they had done right and not been bullied by the former attorney and human resource director into making so many mistakes. Regardless of outcome for either side I’m sure the process will be entertaining as it usually is when the sideshow that is District 150 is involved. Can’t wait to watch…where’s the popcorn!!!???
In Agreement: Mary Davis is a snake. She has been a snake her entire career at D150. She sued the district for over $300,000.00 back in 2000. She is a MEAN, hateful person, not to mention a narcisistic LIAR. The district should NEVER have promoted that “person” to any kind of position of power. Talk to some of her former students from Richwoods. Some are even teachers in D150. They HATED her. No one could believe she became a Dean after she sued the district. I’m sure she has “the goods” on someone, but realistically, why would she wait until NOW to spill the beans. Could it be because she has a “date” with a jury next Tuesday?
Mary Davis has a date with a jury in two days. Yea!
Mary Davis news on PJStar.com. Pleases guilty to a misdemeanor. All other charges dropped.
What does restitution encompass? Do innocent people pay restitution? Please enlighten.
Kate-
Great question. Paying restitution implies that you are making amends for something you did wrong. I would guess that if Davis did not believe she misued D150 money she would not agree to pay $15,000 in restitution. Bottom line, she has admitted she is guilty of a crime!
Do not think there is a question of innocence or guilt here. By pleading guilty of the misdeamonor she is admitting that she is not “innocent”. This will mean she has a criminal record and it will make it difficult to find employment. AMEN to an admission of guilt!!
Is it possible for her to lose her teaching certification because of this?
Kate: Not possible….PROBABLE. She is a convicted criminal…convicted of crimes against a school district. Would you hire her! Oh, to all those “cheerleaders” for Mary, you can all KISS MY ASS!
http://pundit.blogpeoria.com/2012/02/21/peoria-county-states-attorney-jerry-brady-lets-mary-davis-skate-on-16-theft-charges/
I wonder if schools have seen an increase in the “principals’ funds” since the district began overseeing these accounts. There is probably ALOT less pilfering of student and parent $$ going on at D150, thanks to Julie.
My response to Jerry Brady is Frank Ierulli, candidate for State’s Attorney. Mr. Ierulli would be a terrific state’s attorney.
Are principals bonded? I would hope that any educator that has any contact at all with student funds would be bonded. I guess the real question is, “Should principals be bonded to avoid this kind of morass in the future?” Would the outcome of MD’s legal issues have been different, more severe? I guess we can speculate until the cows come home and it won’t change a thing. We can only hope the ISBE has been made aware of her integrity or lack thereof. Maybe 150 can put some kind of policy that would eliminate people like MD pleading stupidity?
First of all…the administrators in the district should be just a little concerned about what this will do to them. What does Davis know? Second…”attemped” means ‘to make an effort’ meaning really didn’t complete it or follow through with. Third….people think about this….Brady dumped 16 felony charges against this lady…obviously didn’t have any evidence after 2 years of investigation. Ok maybe her story changed just a little bit from one meeting with the police to another, but it was about things that had happened years before…..
How do explain this from the Journal Star? “A few months later, she admitted she did use money for her own use, according to a factual basis read by Assistant State’s Attorney Seth Uphoff.”
She is the queen of deception and she found a lawyer that bought her bullshit.
Believe everything printed in Journal Star…then I have some land to sell you in the swamps of GA.
On line it reads “provided false information”……not ‘use district $ for personal use’
My quote was copy and pasted from the on-line story!