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.
You could always ask Walvoord!
What a UN-surprise.
CJ – I basically said the same thing back in November. At that time, in multiple private conversations and e-mails, Top Brass in Central Admin as well as board members chanted statements out of David Walvoords office to basically not worry my silly little head over it – all is right in Who-ville and they can collect later. I called B.S. then, and I call B.S now.
http://peoriarocks.blogspot.com/2009/10/d150-rules-we-dont-need-no-stinkin.html
Did it occur to anyone that Davis was fired for not following district policies? You don’t have to be convicted of a crime to be fired. That being said, the district is mostly likely not expecting their money back anyway. The appoximately $80,000 she received is cheaper than the lawyer fees, had she filed a suit prior to her indictment. Go figure?
Unfortunately, from what C.J. has written, I don’t think 150 had much choice after McArdle took action–sounds like they would have had to jump through many legal hoops to fire Davis (of course, with the possibility of being sued by Davis and Mcardle). What would happen IF (big If) Davis were found innocent or had never been charged? District 150’s biggest mistake is not keeping better track of the finances of individual schools. Of course, they should have listened to McArdle’s accusations (and taken action) and should not have fired McArdle. Hindsight doesn’t do much good once things get out of hand and beyond 150’s control. However, 150 keeps shooting itself in the foot by not offering explanations for their actions. Hopefully, though the judge will require Davis to pay the money back–since the money is owed a public body perhaps the judge will consider the taxpayers.
Time for the district to get new lawyers. Someone gave some bad advice to fire McCardle before the truth was known. Her firing came too quick before any investigation. They should have known they would be sued by McCardle for her accusations(whistle blowing), whether it was true or not, which resulted in her firing. Now the truth will be known in court and McCardle will get a nice pay off either way because she should not have been fired.
“Did it occur to anyone that Davis was fired for not following district policies? ”
Someone in District 150 Administration fired for not following district policies????
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…. THAT is what gets you promoted!
Yeah…..but………
Won’t the new museum and hotel be enough to draw people to Peoria…?
I mean who needs a reputable school district when we have all of those……. ‘quality of life’ projects in the works?
Did I mention the trail?
Wonder why Walvoord did not pursue her termination when it came to light that she violated the district policy that states (paraphrasing) that the district can only be legally bound to a contract by action of the BOE? Remember when Hinton went all Lone Ranger and “purchased” the Prospect Road properties before the BOE voted and then they had to scurry around, call a special meeting, and vote on the purchase?
There seems to be little question that Davis entered into an installment credit contract for the Sam’s Club Discover Card in the name of Lindbergh School. So, Walvoord could have pushed for her termination months ago and saved the district at least $100K. But then, perhaps he was nervous about doing that since she sued the district several years ago and won a six-figure settlement. Of course, Walvoord and his firm were key figures in the district’s defense in that case.
Hmmm . . . hope the rumors of his impending retirement July 1st are true. The district could benefit from better, or at least different, legal counsel and advice.
With NOTHING to go on, they fired McArdle–no hesitation. With MOUNDS of evidence shoved right under their noses, they waited A WHOLE YEAR to fire Davis. Wow. No flies on them.
“The district could benefit from better, or at least different, legal counsel and advice.”
Is it the quality of advice, or is it just that the administration disregards it and does what they want…?
Charlie – good guess, but not true. Walvoord reassured the board that they could fire McArdle. Ask them.
What he forgot to say was… “it will probably cost you a cool half mil though…” Then sent them a bill for another fifty grand.
In the know, it is still to be determined whether McArdle will prevail in her suit, so Walvoord could have indeed provided correct advice to the District.
As to Davis, I am thinking the evidence that she committed criminal acts must not be all that clear or else her attorney would have advised her to settle the matter before going to trial??
Frustrated, what an ignorant comment. How much will it cost the District in the meantime to defend this lawsuit? If I’m not mistaken the District is ponying up for at least 5 different lawyers.
As to Davis, I am thinking the evidence that she committed criminal acts must not be all that clear or else her attorney would have advised her to settle the matter before going to trial??
Obviously, somenone who is willing to steal from kids is not in full control of their senses.
CJ – you appear to be taking a very strict, literal interpretation of the statute.
“Judges are often called upon to make a construction, or interpretation, of an unclear term in cases that involve a dispute over the term’s legal significance. The common-law tradition has produced various precepts, maxims, and rules that guide judges in construing statutes or private written agreements such as contracts. Strict construction occurs when ambiguous language is given its exact and technical meaning, and no other equitable considerations or reasonable implications are made.
A judge may make a construction only if the language is ambiguous or unclear. If the language is plain and clear, a judge must apply the plain meaning of the language and cannot consider other evidence that would change the meaning. If, however, the judge finds that the words produce absurdity, ambiguity, or a literalness never intended, the plain meaning does not apply and a construction may be made.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/strict+construction
I doubt the intent of the statute is to require governmental bodies to always wait for a resultant conviction. Often, evidence continues to mount until a point is reached wherein the governmental body decides it now has the grounds to terminate the employee. Under the strict interpretation of the statute, the governmental body would be required to keep the employee on paid leave, even after the “smoking gun” is later found, if it wanted to recoup that pay. Sounds to me like a “literalness never intended”.
Frustrated, didn’t Blagojevich plead innocent? Seriously, I know that you really are hanging on to the hope that Davis will be innocent and stranger things have happened in the legal system. However, doesn’t it bother you that earlier Lindbergh financial records have been “lost”? And isn’t it true that Davis’ computer, also, disappeared? Jon, what did you just say? Layman’s terms, please.
“Ask them.”
I am less likely to trust a school administrator than a lawyer… as hard as that is to believe.
Sharon – the courts do not find people “innocent”. That is between the accused and their God (if they have one).
Pfft, I understand your point and agree, but we do have a system that makes an attempt at justice, which is all that humans can do.
And they say crime doesn’t pay. Ha ha ha
Can someone tell me WHY Davis was terminated Monday night? What was the BoE reasoning behind terminating her NOW? What was Davis told as to why she was terminated? I am confused because if she was terminated due to criminal acts, she hasn’t been tried yet or found guilty. On the other hand, if she was terminated for breaking board policy (on numerous occasions) then why was she not terminated last May 2009 after giving her a 10 day notice and a hearing? Also, who is the attorney giving the BoE this advice?
My guess–and guesses. First, I have a question–I thought that a few weeks ago (when all the other administrators were being shuffled, etc.) Davis’ status changed to classroom teacher. Does anyone else remember that action? Second guess, this is the end of the school year. Third guess–she was arraigned. I think that everything the BOE did was to avoid a lawsuit–more cautious than they were with McArdle; I don’t think they believed she would go this far. I am not even sure that I believe they were doing this to protect Davis or to give her a year’s salary.
Common sense-
Please get your facts straight. McArdle was fired. She was wrapping up her first year of a two year contract. Her contract did not have to be renewed between her second and first year.
Also, she was fired before the first year was completed. I have never understood the justification for firing McArdle before the school year was over (or firing her at all). The principal who followed her was fired immediately because of activities that warranted immediate firing. District 150 never gave any specific reason for McArdle’s firing and there was absolutely no reason why she should not have finished out the year. Firing her early only added to confusion for parents and students. The timing of her firing seems to me to indicate that they wanted to get rid of her ASAP before she uncovered any other wrongdoing–they had no justifiable reason. She certainly wasn’t doing anything to harm students in those last few weeks (such as telling students to take a walk on I-74). 🙂
Sharon I am sure you are correct in that they fired McArdle before she stumbled upon additional damaging evidence to the district.
Before I forget: District Watch will be meeting on Sunday, June 13, at Monical’s at 6 p.m. New people interested in District 150 are always welcome–that’s why we have meetings at a public place.
Sharon-
You are right about McArdle not finishing her first year. Her last day was June 9th and the first year of the contract ran through June 30th. I do believe that the students were done by June 9th.
It would be interesting to determine how much money has been spent on the Davis fiasco.
The following would need to be included:
Fees for attorney representing D150, Broderick and Hinton in civil case ???
Fees for attorney representng Davis (paid by D150) in civil case ???
Fees for house attorneys regarding Davis employment ???????
Fees for house attorneys regarding McArdle temination ????????
Amount spent by D150 conducting their stellar internal investigation on Davis???
Davis paid leave, approximately $76,500 plus benefits
Total?????????
It would be interesting to FOIA this info from D150 to see how money has been spent.
Dave Barnwell received a call and was told to be at Lindbergh that next school day. He didn’t know what was happening.
didn’t the contract allow for her or the District to terminate before year 2 – for no cause -if they gave the other party sufficient notice – 30 days or something? Fired, non-renewal……same thing?
Barnwell is a good little soldier and he does just what the district tells him to do.
Common Sense-
“Fired, non-renewal……same thing?”
Nope! Not legally.
Have a good day 🙂
Merle Widmer is reporting on his blog that Valda Shipp was terminated today.
http://widmer-peoria-watch.blogspot.com/
Bert – haven’t heard the “why” of her termination, but remember, the district has a new superintendent and it certainly appears that she has a low tolerance for junk. Always heard that Hinton was Davis’ protector and he is long gone, so it does make some sense to finally terminate her employment.
Throwing $ Away: you left some out – the lawsuits brought by (1) the campus police officer and (2) some members of the Trewyn staff. Think Broderick and Hinton were named in these also. That’s good revenue for a law firm – just think of all those months of discovery, interrogatories, depositions, witness interviews, etc., etc. all running up the district’s tab!
Dr. Mary O’Brian has run up quite a bill with the lawyers also.
I was told by a reliable source that Taunya(sp) Jenkins was escorted out of Manual today. If this is true….. oh what a revelation!!!
Need to get a better source, not true, nor will it be true!
Hey Throwing $ away: You hit the nail on the head. More $ will continue to be thrown away by this district until there are people working for this district who have at least a little bit of integrity. Only then, maybe all the lying, cheating, stealing, and bullying will stop. And Sharon: I74 – That’s a good one.
Several reputable sources within the District have reported that the rumors regarding the Principal and Asst. Principal of Manual High School are categorically false.
That is correct, they are untrue. And it is disgusting that these rumors are being spread. Leave the Principal and Asst. Principal of MHS alone. Talk about other schools and spread rumors on them.
The only reason that I could see that Lathan would be eliminating any of the Manual “high command” was to simply rid herself of any competing egos. Other than that the two “super educators” at Manual are right in line with the new superintendent, so there wouldn’t be any need to eliminate them. After all falsifying records is what District 150 is all about.
Lynn-
“fasifying records”?
Pretty serious accusation. You have something to back that up??
Lynn, it’s one thing to analyze people’s actions, but it is quite another to impute their motives based on your own thinking. You have absolutely no evidence to prove that Lathan would get rid of people so as to eliminate competition. I am curious–you seem to hold a position that allows you to know much about District 150. Do you cover up these kinds of feelings that you express anonymously or are those around you aware of your animosities?
I also hear there is nothing to the Manual rumors.
A friend shared that the district is eliminating the position of high school treasurer. However, the district is creating 2-3 jobs at the administration building to make up for the loss. Is this action supposed to save money? How? Also, who will handle the money at the school level? How many headaches might this create? Any ideas?
I had the questions as maddy did, so I went to the high school to see if I could pay 2010-2011 fees NOW and the treasurer had already left. They left as soon as the school audits were complete. Down to Wisconsin Ave to pay for fees and they had no idea that the treasurers had already left. Said they couldn’t take my fee monies yet. I foresee fee day at the high schools to be a major PITA!
Fee day is the least of our worries. Especially, if we keep some of the administators,consultants and board members that have lead us so famously to the point we find ourselves now. Blogging is a great way to vent but, it is better to go to board meetings to let the masses know our opinions.