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.
Serious accusation…..all I can say to your question is 🙂
Sharon I beg a thousand pardons from you as I should have known that YOU and ONLY YOU are allowed to question any of Lathan’s motives. The next time I wish to comment on Lathan I shall consult with you before I make a mistake and step outside of my boundaries.
District 150 board agenda is posted. Number 18 states that a certified employed is to be terminated……who could that be????????
Valda Shipp could it be?
And do you all believe that all board members will vote for the termination of this certified employee? In other words, I am not too certain that the employee will be terminated. Aaron Shock did advise Dr. Lathan that she should always be sure she has 4 votes–so maybe she took his advice.
You think there was a problem with the money situation with Mary Davis. Wait until the Treasurers are eliminated and the District takes over. There will probably be very few controls in place; don’t know how it could be otherwise. I believe they think there’s big money in the high schools and they will have the Treasurers back after they’ve taken the money and made a mess of things.
Lynn Smith: Here is a lesson for you. People have the right to their opinions and the right express them. What they do NOT have a right to is there own facts. When you state specifically that a person did something that they did not do, you are claiming the right to your own facts. It makes everything you say suspect. If you want to report a rumor, fine, report it as such. But when you hear a rumor and report is as the truth, unattributed to someone else, you “own” that statement of fact and are responsible for its accuracy
Billy Dennis….Well aren’t you stern blog disciplinarian!! Perhaps you need to get out of your parents basement more often so you can recognize that not everything that someone says that you disagree with qualifies that person as a liar.
Feel free to post some more prattle but I’ll tell you right now you won’t get another response from me concerning what your mind drivels out onto this blog.
I hope you know, at this point, how little, your opinion matters to me. I’m sure my FACTS and opinions matter as little to you too and I’m okay with that too.
Lynn–We all have differing opinions on here at sometime or another. IF you have facts to present, then present them with the credit to which they belong. IF it is your opinion, then say that.
It is bad protocol to disparage others. You have now been rude/disrespectful to both Billy and Sharon. Lighten up.
Lynn Smith: Me? A “stern blog disciplinarian?” No, I just have a low tolerance for bull crap.
…and yet you have at least three times published your BS about Rachel Corrie and the “unwashed”, the “smelly hippies” and Holy Blameless Israel.
Since I am not allowed to post on your blog, perhaps you can give your “explanation as to why Israel is the good guys” (sic)
…and I think Billy moved out of his Mom’s basement months ago! 😉
Trouble with blogs, people take themselves too seriously. Pointing fingers, disputing what is fact and what is rumor. Whatever you do, don’t try and express an opinion against the grain of the topic. It’s easy to be an “in your face” type person when one hides behind a screen name.
Randall said: “It’s easy to be an “in your face” type person when one hides behind a screen name.”
You pegged Charlie right there.
District Watcher: True. These days I’m sleeping on an air mattress in C.J.s garage.
150 observer: You may be right but I think my statement could belong to you to.
Come visit me anytime..2405 W Kellogg
my phone number i s648-2562
How REAL are you, 150 observer?
If you all knew Charlie’s real name, you would think he made it up. Very early on, Charlie saw to it that some of the regulars on this blog knew his identity, so he’s never done much hiding. Personally, I don’t find it necessary to know the identity of bloggers–I know there are circumstances when being anonymous is necessary. However, I don’t appreciate bloggers who use their anonymity as a license to be vicious. This particular blog has been graced with exceptionally rational, civil responders.
Charlie has never been shy about who he is and in fact has met many of us.
I know for a fact that Charlie is an “in your face” type even in real life. Does he bother you? If so, ask yourself why. Does he bother me? Of course, every chance I give him. Why? Because he challenges my reasons for my beliefs. Do we always agree? Heavens no! As a matter of fact, I so pissed him off that he removed me from his Facebook friends list. Did I deserve it? At the time, absolutely. I’ve also never asked for forgiveness for being a b*tch!
I give Randall credit for putting his name to his comments. I know that some folks feel their jobs might be in jeopardy if they do, but a lot of others just like being able to take anonymous potshots.
For those of us that teach in the district, we are well aware of the ramifications of speaking out too harshly.
BTW, I’m Beth McDaniel, I am an English Teacher.
Charlie bothers me because he makes wild unfounded accusations and personal attacks. I prefer to discuss issues and do it in a civil manner. That is why I ignore Charlie.
I certainly give Randall credit, also. I am certainly sorry to hear that any blogger would be threatened with physical harm because of his/her opinions.
To mama… Yes I have been rude to Sharon and Billy because without any evidence they have labeled what I say as lies. If you review my posts you will see I don’t attack others for their blog posts UNLESS they attack me. I am FAR more tolerant of other peoples blog post than those two are of mine.
Lynn, no one has accused you of telling lies. At least, I have just questioned how you can predict the future. For instance, your predictions of Dr. Lathan’s future actions are based on some very bigoted assumptions. Not only do you predict her future actions but you also imput motives that you have no way of knowing without being a mind reader. For instance, I could make some wild guesses as to what your motives are for making some of the statements you make, but I have absolutely no idea what your motives are. Also, you report about how many people were interviewed for the security chief (and their racial identity) doesn’t match what someone else told me. However, I can’t say that either of you were telling the truth–because both accounts are just the opinions of two people. I have no way of knowing which is what really happened. Please clarify, when did I call you a liar or say that what you said was a lie? For instance, you said that Johnna Timmes was on the 150 payroll; then I told you that Johnns said she wasn’t on 150’s payroll. Then you stated that the source of your info was John Timmes. Once you clarified your “source,” then the matter was a bit clearer–it was no longer your truth or your “lie.” You were just reporting what you heard as was I. If I disagree with you that doesn’t mean I’m calling you a liar. Most of the time we are stating our opinions. However, as Billy stated, we can’t treat our opinions as though they are facts.
150 observer, you don’t discuss, you present the establishment line that we have heard over and over again. I’m really happy you believe it. It adds nothing. You, and Precinct Committeeman and a couple of others are the voice of the status quo. Whatever the administration does is the right thing because they are God’s chosen vessels to lead us, to be our “heads”. We all know that be a good little serf routine. That is, as long as it YOUR administration. When the other side or the other guy gets in power or acts then it is terrible.
Regarding specifically the School District… being a teacher is not a job, it is calling for which society is grateful enough to pay you. Being an administrator or staff in a school district is a job. There are specific parameters within which that job is performed. The establishment of these bureaucracies was to facilitate the calling of teachers. They are the servants of the teachers, who are, in turn, in service to the students, in a symbiotic relationship we call learning or education. You can neither define nor predict the outcome of that education relationship. I teach the same course 2, 3 or 4 times a semester and yet, I NEVER teach the same course. It changes from day to day, week to week and often times from moment to moment.
Here is the bottom line (for those of you who love bottom lines)
The problem with public education is administrators are running the show, and they don’t seem to know what the teachers can do, the students want or society needs.
They are really good at creating “programs” with exotic and official sounding names…RTTT, NCLB, Workforce Education, etc, but these are all ineffective because education is not a product of behavioral psychology, it is a RELATIONSHIP. I can quote this over and over again, and it will never resonate with you because you are tone deaf:
“I insist that the object of all true education is not to make men carpenters, it is to make carpenters men; there are two means of making the carpenter a man, each equally important: the first is to give the group and community in which he works, liberally trained teachers and leaders to TEACH HIM AND HIS FAMILY WHAT LIFE MEANS; the second is to give him sufficient INTELLIGENCE AND TECHNICAL SKILL to make him an efficient workman…”
http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1148.htm [Emphasis mine]
We ARE teaching them to be efficient workmen, but efficient for whom? Themselves or efficient for the employers? “Take this minimum wage job, run up your credit to the banks, buy an over priced house and pay three or four times the market price to the banks, buy that new “efficient” car that get nearly 30 mpg!!! even though cars built 10 years ago were getting 35 mpg or more, and electric cars like the EV1 and others are NO LONGER available because they were not “efficient” enough for GM’s bottom line. Spend thousands on school to get a degree so you get a better paying job (what ever it is, it doesn’t matter, that job may not be in here 4 years… what am I saying, it is almost impossible to get a 4 year degree in 4 years!) but you’ll have a degree… would you like fries with that?”
Health care? Vacation? Retirement? Redress for grievances? Personal life? FORGET IT. You belong to your employer (if you have followed the previous lessons well) because you are in debt to your eyes and can’t afford to quit or get fired. So 75% of our working people earn less than $45,000 a year with over 1/2 earning less than $20,000. Why did I say “earn”… that is amount the employer says you are worth… most of us EARN much more than we are paid.
Here’s a “personal attack”: “You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny”.
“Your ideas suck” is not a personal attack.
We used to live in a society that valued people and used things, now we value things and use people.
[paraphrased from Karl Marx]
Not only am I a liar, I am a bigot too…..Thanks Sharon for your DIVERSITY.
When I said that the final four applicants that were interviewed were a w/m, w/f, h/m and a b/m that is fact not fiction. Now, Sharon do you really think that is how the “top” four really turned out to be based on education, experience, training etc.? Sounds like someone BESIDES ME arrived at a bigoted list of “top” four applicants…Doesn’t it? What are the odds that your “top” four applicants for a position just happen to be a w/m, w/f, h/m and a b/m????? Amazing how that would work out…isn’t it?
It is possible that more applicants have been interviewed or will be interviewed since three of the applicants have consulted with an attorney over this hiring process discrimination.
I PERSONALLY have seen five instances where the new superintendent has exhibited quasi-discriminatory behavior to white employees of District 150. These particular white employees that I refer to don’t have any “power or ability” to further her ambitions so therefore they can be treated differently. I am sure you will tell me that I didn’t witness what I saw and heard, but I surely did witness these acts. If you want to label me as a bigot and liar because I base my beliefs of the new superintendents motives on WHAT I HAVE WITNESSED, then go ahead and place yourself on the “high moral ground” and call me those names.
Is there anyone who can say how much a D150 school pays to rent the sound system for the spring musical? If so, can you give the name of the business that leases the equipment to the school? Thanks.
The high schools use their own sound systems for the plays.
purchased a Bose sound system for their school last year. It comes in really handy to make sure the kids can hear you when you tell them to be quiet.
Is anyone going to be live blogging tonight’s Dist. 150 Board Meeting?
Since it’s no longer televised live, having online updates would be nice.
Dennis – I do believe that someone will be taping it to go on Channel 31’s website. The May 24 and the joint city and District 150 meetings are still on, also. I’m wondering how many other people are having difficulty accessing the videos–I know that I still can’t view it. However, most other people have been able to do so–so it must just be my lack of technological skills.
I am amused at how difficult the BOE is making it for anyone to see their meetings. One would think the new superintendent wouldn’t want a “Politburo/Central Committee” atmosphere.
It would be nice for someone to ask why seniority and certification were not firmly adhered to during the certified staff placement process for both tenured and non-tenured teachers.
However, what do you expect when union executive board members have accepted positions that are listed as administrative positions for themselves and Non certified coaches are placed months ahead of displaced teacher placement.
We need more than a couple of union executive board members to stand up for the rights of all teachers instead of just the ones that run in their elite circle of friends.
All displaced/pink-slipped teachers should have positions before the hiring of noncertified coaches who don’t even report athletic code violations until forced to do so and do not stay in their assigned study hall duty during the school day for one example of skewed priorities and poor judgement in placement.
But, hey we all know the ticket out is athletics not academics, right?
But then again I view the priotity for our students to be expressed as student/athlete not athlete/student.
Too bad there aren’t more that feel the order of priorities in our district are way out of whack.
This is why I will remain skeptical!!!
There is no pubic wifi at the district hq. Therefore, no liveblogging.
Nice “Freudian” slip—“pubic” It is appropriate since most board members and adminstrators resemble anatomy parts in that locale or close at least. Funny how typo’s can be interpreted!!!!
It’s only Freudian if you SAY it. When it’s typed, it’s a mnatter of fat fingers trying to use a small netbook keyboard.
I hope someone asks the BoE tonight if they have ever done a Dot-to-Dot. My reason for asking is simple: Mary Davis tells the BoE to fire Julie McArdle for no reason, in the middle of a two year contract, even though they all knew that Julie McArdle had filed a police report identifying Mary Davis as having stolen school funds. They also knew that she had falsified addresses, and paid people overtime using the activity fund, not to mention that she was paying a student teacher. The very odd thing about all of this is that the BoE does not see any connection between McArdle being fired and McArdle accusing Davis of theft and unethical behavior(breaking Board Policy). Hence, dot-to-dot. My suggestion to the BoE, go out to Walmart, or KMART, if you prefer, and buy a book of dot-to-dot, so you will learn how to MAKE A CONNECTION! DUH…
REBEL YELL: Very well put!!! The sad thing is, that is only the half of it.
Rebel Yell……When the BOE is doing DOT to DOT connections they are only concerned with doing it the dishonest way. Their philosophy is “we’ll do things the way we want and to heck with what YOU think.”
I’ve noticed that none of the “defenders of the empire” have commented on why they think the new superintendent isn’t trying to have the BOE meetings televised like they used to be.
I keep hearing all of this yap yap yap about “don’t prejudge her” but pulling the plug on the televised BOE meetings doesn’t bolster ones hopes of things being done on top of the table instead of the usual under the table dealings.
Shipp’s termination was pulled from the agenda. OMG. Please do not send her back to Glen Oak. There would be a mass mutiny of staff and students.
We need a Merle Widmer update!
Elaine Hopkins has a great summary of last nights D150 meeting.
http://peoriastory.typepad.com/peoriastory/
I love the comment regarding Activity Fund money from the schools
“Hundreds of thousands of dollars” flow through the high school activity funds, apparently without adequate oversight, according to controller Pam Schau.
Really? Do you think the same is true for the middle schools? Maybe not hundrends of thousands of dollars, but certainly enough to be concerned about. Lindbergh Middle School comes to mind. Would hope that adequate oversight take place immediately at these schools.
Several years ago when I was teaching at Manual I asked Elaine, then a PJS reporter, to see what she could find out about how much money was generated through the soda and candy machines alone and how that was spent. She hit a brick wall–no FOIAs in that day.
Don’t look past the possibility that Shipp will retire. She has 34 years in and that may be the vehicle to move her out without a huge embarassment to her and the district.
Shipp was never on the agenda, it was another employee involving a settled workmans comp claim. Movin’ on…..
Actually, it wasn’t a workers comp claim at all. But it wasn’t Shipp on the agenda. The employee who was on the agenda resigned before the meeting began.
“When I said that the final four applicants that were interviewed were a w/m, w/f, h/m and a b/m that is fact not fiction. Now, Sharon do you really think that is how the “top” four really turned out to be based on education, experience, training etc.?”
Lynn, when you first raised this accusation, I specifically asked Dr. Lathan about the status of the hiring process for the new security chief. At the time you initially made your accusation that the four final candidates had been chosen and interviewed with racial preferences in mind, there were seven candidates, no interviews had yet occurred, and Dr. Lathan thought there might be a couple more applications coming forward. The racial and gender mix of the seven candidates was unexceptionable, similar to the mix found in the District 150 and city security/police forces. There was no single standout candidate whose resume was far beyond the others; there was also not a group of clear “loser” candidates whose resumes were inappropriately light; there was not an “obvious” choice who’d been engineered to “win.”
While I take seriously allegations of racial bias, I was unable to find anything to support your claims of racial bias in this hiring process so far as it has proceeded. I was also unable to confirm the truth of any single statement you made about this process — the number of candidates, their racial and gender makeup, that interviews had already occurred when you first posted (or, your first post that I saw on the topic, at least), that the candidate pool was engineered with a clear winner, etc. None of these claims appeared to be accurate.
These are very serious accusations, and if you have concerns about Dr. Lathan’s leadership, as you quite obviously do, I invite you to contact me personally and discuss them. We would be remiss not to investigate accusations of wrongdoing of such magnitude. However, based on your specific allegations thus far, I have not been able to corroborate any of your claims.
Thank you Laura Petelle for looking into this issue.
Good to see a board member that is showing some interest in the concerns of her constituents. I still think you made a huge mistake in closing Woodruff, considering all of the extra money we will be spending now instead of saving money as the board proposed in their decision to close a high school.
Actions speak louder than words.
Keep trying and I may not have to be skeptical.