As my sources indicated last week, Norm Durflinger was approved as interim Superintendent starting December 1, when current Superintendent Ken Hinton retires. Additionally, Durflinger was hired as a part-time Deputy Superintendent between October 19 and December 1. This addition prompted a “no” vote from Board of Education member Laura Petelle.
I agree. Hinton is still supposed to be on the job until December, and if he’s going to take his remaining vacation or sick time between now and then, we also have an Associate Superintendent (Hershel Hannah) on the payroll. Why the need to hire Durflinger as a Deputy Superintendent during this time? How many Superintendents does one district need?
Did you watch Wolfmeyer on the news? She said the board had been advised (by whom, she did not say) that bringing someone up from within would hamper any good candidates applying for the job.
No, I didn’t hear that. Was Debbie “It’s-not-my-job-to-listen-to-my-constituents” Wolfmeyer talking about why they need an outsider for interim Superintendent (from Dec. 1) or why they supposedly need an outsider as Deputy Superintendent (between Oct. 19 and Dec. 1)?
They created an entirely new position!!! Deputy Superintendent!! I am sure he starts now….. heck, he may even get back pay!
To the tune of $673 a day!!
Oh my goodness! $673 a day??????? Since this is an interim position, I just can’t believe we couldn’t appoint from within? The decisions continue to be down right comical. Maybe it will take a person being paid $673 to help with name change of Manual? God forbid we deal with the issue of closing a high school. I truly think that they feel the students and faculty of the closed high school will just disappear so that they don’t have to attempt to come up with a plan for these displaced families. Again, the “red carpet” is being laid down for our families to walk right on out of Peoria 🙁
I think Norm Durflinger will bring some integrity to Wisconsin Avenue. Couple of questions though:
1) Why the rush to hire an interim /deputy superintendent? Why did this happen yesterday instead of next Monday during the regular meeting?
2) Why did they create a deputy position that will begin on Monday, when Mr. Hinton does not retire until December 1st?
3)Couldn’t Dr. Hannah hold down the fort/ assume extra duties until Dec 1st if there were concerns of Mr. Hinton being able to do the job until December 1st?
4) Has this all happened because the Board has lost confidence in Mr. Hinton’s ability to lead the district?
5) Does all of this have anything to do with the police report that is now in the hands of Mr. Lyon’s office?
Keith: What a good question! What was the rush–Monday should have been plenty of time? Someone explain to me why Hinton would be more or less culpable in the Mary Davis case whether or not he is or is not superintendent?
MAWB: On the radio this morning, Wolfmeyer stated that the search firm made the recommendation that selecting a temporary superintendent from within would hurt the seach.
Keith; all excellent questions. anyone have any answers? this smells worse than a chicken coop in the middle of the summer!
What else would you expect?
I’m sure Hinton has vacation time coming. If he’s out December 1st, he probably wants to get that in. He will obviously be gone before December 1st, but yes, it is strange it couldn’t wait til Monday. do do do do do do do do (music from Jaws)
I wonder how Hannah is feeling about all of this. Is there any truth to the rumor that there is a rift between Hinton and Hannah? That might explain some of it.
So, now, all 3 will be gone…. Davis, Broderick (where did he go, anyway) and now Hinton.
do do do do do do do do (more Jaw’s music)
Why is it that we have no money to keep schools open, but when there is an administrative need, the money magically appears? Where can I get one of these genies?
with the money tree in full bloom over on wisconsin ave. my guess is the teachers should end up with a healthy pay raise….shouldnt it seem?
…just look for the magic genie, Who me.
I hope the overlap is for training and transition purposes. It’s only 6 weeks (or so) of overlap. Nothing to get that worked up over.
tulip. you are right $19000.00 isnt really anything to get worked up about…..right!
Probably $19,000 isn’t that much, but $19,000 here and $19,000 there and you’re talking real money (ala Dirkson).
sharon: I was being facetious. basically following d150s montra…….which appears to be…..its only money!
Who me, I knew that! I was agreeing with your facetiousness.
love ya Sharon.
For all interested in 150, come to the Godfather’s meeting at 6 p.m. on Sunday.
FYI – Terry Knapp asked me to put this on the blog–he just filed this complaint with the State’s Attorney’s office:
1. On Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 6:30 p.m., District 150’s School Board held a meeting illegally. The board started their meeting in executive session and did not appear to the public until almost 7:00 p.m., when they began their public meeting. I believe this order of events was a violation of the Open Meetings Act. A copy of the act that was violated is included .
2. As can be seen from the agenda for this meeting, a time for public comment was clearly to be provided. I was speaking for about one minute when School Board President, Debbie Wolfmeyer, and Attorney, David Walvoord, ruled that I was to cease my comments. I objected, was ruled out of order by the same two people, and took my seat. I believe this is a violation of the Open Meetings Act and that the law was violated.
3. Others in the audience who wanted to speak were denied the right to speak as President Wolfmeyer simply ended the board meeting. Immediately after the board meeting, she e-mailed at least one of the potential speakers to apologize for her oversight, saying “I just wanted to apologize for not asking if anyone else wanted to speak at tonight’s meeting. I just got so caught up on moving on that I totally forgot to go back and ask for other speakers. So, if you intended to speak, please forgive the unintentional slight.” Again, excluding speakers is a violation of the act and, therefore, the law.
4. Please consider this complaint and keep me informed as to your thoughts and actions.
What remedy is he seeking?
I assume it is up to the State’s Attorney. I am not certain. I don’t understand legal actions all that well–with regard to Point 1. It is my understanding that the board should have met in public and then voted to go into executive session. As it happened, the board just didn’t appear at the scheduled 6:30 meeting time–people just sat wondering what was going on. However, the point about not allowing speakers is clearly a violation that we all can understand. I believe that the Open Meetings Act states that if a time for the public to speak is on the agenda then the board cannot take the time away. If nothing else, Terry hopes the board will be more careful in the future to see to it that speakers are not denied their right to speak–purposely or inadvertently. That, I assume, is why the president always asks if anyone else wishes to speak before the public time is closed. What I definitely do not understand is why the PJS didn’t pick up on this–there is nothing in the article that indicates that Terry’s comments were cut short and/or that there was no offer to others to speak.
I think the remedy Terry is seeking is for D150 school board to follow their own policy, Roberts rules of order. and the open meetings act. which is a law, emerge
Emerge may have wanted to know if there will be any repercussions for the board. Probably they will only be warned–which is a good thing since, I would assume, they would have to be more careful in the future–and if not, I would hope that there would be consequences for repeat “errors.” If I am not mistaken, at the end of the meeting (after adjournment) a few words may have been exchanged. I believe the board lawyer may have said something to the effect that Terry needs to know more about the law. Red flag! If Terry had been allowed to finish his comments, I believe he was planning to ask the same question C.J. asked in his post–why couldn’t the Associate Superintendent who is already on the payroll have taken over until a new superintendent is hired.
Terry claims it was a violation of the Open Meetings Act and stated he attached a copy of the Act to his complaint.
Here is a link to the Act itself:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=84&ChapAct=5%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B120%2F&ChapterID=2&ChapterName=GENERAL+PROVISIONS&ActName=Open+Meetings+Act.
First of all, I don’t see where there is any requirement that people be allowed to speak. In other words, it seems to me the school board is not REQUIRED to hear from the public, they CHOOSE to. They are required to have their meetings, with certain execptions, OPEN to the public.
Here is the pertinent exception on the matter at hand:
(c) Exceptions. A public body may hold closed meetings to consider the following subjects:
(1) The appointment, employment, compensation,
discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity.
So, Terry, can you or anyone else point to the pertinent sections of the Open Meetings Act that you think were violated? I’m not a lawyer, but I did read through the Act, though quickly, and just do not see where you have a legal point.
Jon: You can wait and see how it turns out; I believe Terry did his homework and talked to those who have knowledge about the law, including the State’s Attorney (I think), before filing the complaint. You are right that the board does not have to allow the public to speak, but if the time is noted on the agenda (and it was), then it is a violation to “change their minds.” Read carefully, Terry did not question their right to meet in executive session.
Sharon, you sound convinced that it is a violation to “change their minds” from what was stated on the agenda. Why? Is there a section of the statute or a case that justifies your statement? Here is a section of the statute that I believe is relevant that likely no violation occurred:
“The requirement of a regular meeting agenda shall not preclude the consideration of items not specifically set forth in the agenda. Public notice of any special meeting except a meeting held in the event of a bona fide emergency, or of any rescheduled regular meeting, or of any reconvened meeting, shall be given at least 48 hours before such meeting, which notice shall also include the agenda for the special, rescheduled, or reconvened meeting, but the validity of any action taken by the public body which is germane to a subject on the agenda shall not be affected by other errors or omissions in the agenda.”
I’ve seen you post things on behalf of Terry a few times. Is there some reason he doesn’t do it himself?
Jon–I am the messenger and not in the mood right now to spar with someone whose identity I don’t know. Also, Terry is willing to put his reputation and credibility on the line–and not as an unnamed source–so it will be what it is. You are now on the record as saying that Terry has no case. You could be right; you could be wrong. Terry just doesn’t want to waste his time on the computer–he doesn’t feel the need to respond to all of his critics; I guess he still has that freedom–and, of course, this way he doesn’t have to waste his time and energy sparring with nameless people. And he doesn’t have his own blog where you could go to harrass him. Consider me to be his secretary–I will transmit messages I feel are important enough for him to hear.
OK–Jon, know I’m ready to present a question–have no idea if I’m right or wrong, so no attacks are necessary. Just a point to consider.
E. Closed Sessions
Public bodies may hold closed meetings provided that they state a legally sufficient reason in an open session for holding a closed session. A majority of a quorum
present during an open session must also vote to close the meeting. While the Act allows public bodies to convene in closed session, public bodies are not
required to go into closed session. The following are the broad categories for when a meeting may be closed. • Employment Matters • Land/Investment Deals • Security Matters • Student Records • Litigation/Legal Claims
One more, Jon: Illinois law requires school boards to allow for public comment
(105 ILCS 5/10-16),
So when Wolfmeyer stopped the first speaker, Terry, and did not ask if anyone else wanted to speak, did she violate the law? Why else would she imediately write an apology to a person who may have wanted to speak? When you questioned a board’s right to change its mind, do you think the board can decide not to hear public comments. I did read somewhere that school board are the only public bodies that must allow time for public comment.
Thanks for the references, Sharon. Now I see the point Terry was making. It does seem that having an executive meeting as outlined in the agenda (presumably to decide on Durflinger) occurred without vote in an open meeting, as required in Section 2a of the Open Meetings Act (and logically couldn’t have occurred at a prior meeting since the issue just came a few days before the meeting). As for not being able to speak at an open meeting, that does seem to be a violation of the School Code, (not the Open Meetings Act).
Further, here is what the Open Meetings Act has to say about any potential remedy, if the court finds that the provisions were not complied with:
“c) The court, having due regard for orderly administration and the public interest, as well as for the interests of the parties, may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including granting a relief by mandamus requiring that a meeting be open to the public, granting an injunction against future violations of this Act, ordering the public body to make available to the public such portion of the minutes of a meeting as is not authorized to be kept confidential under this Act, or declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act. ”
and,
“Sec. 4. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. ”
Makes you want to be a school board member.
Thanks, Jon–that is undoubtedly the point Terry is making–that there should have been a public vote to go into executive session. I know only what I read today–so I’m not that knowledgeable, but I want to attempt to disagree about the School Code vs. the Open Meeting Act with regard to allowing the public to speak. I believe I read that other government bodies have the option but that school boards, according to the Open Meeting Act, must provide time for the public to speak. Now there might be some exceptions, but obviously Wednesday night was not an exception because the time for the public was on the agenda. I guess the punishment, if any, would be up to the State’s Attorney, right?
In a PJS article for tomorrow (giving board members a chance to declare what important issues face the district), Linda Butler says,
Professional development. “The students must continue to show academic performance in many of our schools. This issue largely depends on the professional skills of the teachers. We have beeninformedby anevaluation of the early release initiative it is a good tool to address this issue.Three yearsneeds to be dedicated to this initiative to determine how effective it can be.”
I won’t argue the insinuation that teachers alone are responsible for the academic performance of students. However, I do want clarification as to how it has been determined that Wacky Wednesdays are a good tool to address this issue. Last we heard in June was that only 22 teachers filled out the questionnaire, indicating whether they did or did not feel losing time with students was beneficial.
Jon says sarcastically:
If the States Attorney rules against the school district on this, the first thing I would do as a school board member is immediately fire David Walvoord. The whole purpose of his being there is to give legal advice; if he doesn’t know the Open Meetings Act or the School Code well enough to give simple advice like this — especially after the number of years he’s been in this position — he should be tossed out forthwith.
Yes, you would think he would have slipped Debbie a note when he realized she had cut off any other speakers. I ran into an interesting side note: Question: Can a school board institute a policy starting that comments made during public comment cannot be “defamatory” in nature?
Answer: No! Even though defamation is not protected speech, federal courts have held that public bodies may not implement policies that prohibit defamatory statements. A federal court held “the board could not censor speech even if speech was, or might be, defamatory.” Baca v. Moreno Valley School District 1996.
Not that I recommend defamatory speech (depending on the interpretation); however, it seems to me that Gorenz cut people off for being critical of 150 administrators. I know he stopped one speaker from criticizing the errors in a written communication by a 150 administrator.
Sharon, the County Board does the same thing. Hopefully, the SA will give them a copy of the memo.
Hey–does anyone know if the teachers have a contract yet? If not, do you think that the issue will be resolved before Hinton leaves or will he leave that for the new interim superintendent to work out?
No., we do not have a contract…..another TINY mess left by our illustrious leader..lol
Where were all of the D150 administrators tonight? There is so much on their plate and Hinton, Hannah, and Shau couldn’t make it, nor their new to be appointed Super Durflinger? And even Gorenz was AWOL. Funny the way they flip off the public’s input anyway and now they aren’t even attending the meeting? What gives? We watched from the beginning and Wolfmeyer never explained the admin missing. Talk about a sorry, sick joke – that whole group needs to leave.
I thought Wolfmeyer said everyone was sick… did I hear that right?
The board just approved the Johns Hopkins (dummy down) program at Manual. I didn’t even recognize Kherat up there speaking. She evidently went to the Hinton/Hannah school of DOUBLESPEAK. She could not answer the question of how many teachers ask for a transfer out of the school. Well, for one, our previous union president signed a memorandum of understanding with the admin. stating that teachers could not leave within the first few years(it had to do with all the “training”). So, tenured teachers couldn’t leave unless Kherat wanted them gone, which from my understanding was around 13 or 14. Then the rest of the teachers were brand new and got pink-slipped, although several of them said they wouldn’t come back to Manual even if they were recalled. They have an average daily absence of over 200 students. They spend over a million dollars a year on EIGHT administrators, running 4 separate academies. She now claims it will take at least 7 or 8 years to see a turn around. Hey, why don’t we just disperse those kids into PHS and Woodruff, loose 8 administrators, save over 200,000 a year to Johns Hopkins and CALL IT A DAY?
OR, as Sharon continues to suggest, open up an alternative school (at Manual?)and forget about all the bells and whistles of John Hopkins. No program of learning is going to be effective if the student do not regularly participate. That is a lot of money to spend on a bunch of students that do not show up.
Maybe dollars would be better spent on an enhanced truancy program. With absences like those reported by d150teach, this area must be understaffed.
I really believed that Sharon Kherat would try to refute my accusations about the Johns Hopkins program being a watered-down curricula for at-risk and/or non-performing students (and the unfairness to the students who are not at-risk). Jim gave her the opportunity to do that and she skirted the issue. Jim did a good job of asking the right questions, but there’s no way to fight the spin of all those meaningless and deceptive statistics. I already refuted the 91% attendance rate from last year at an earlier board meeting when I reported that 200+ of the 516 students had been absent for a minimum of 2 weeks in a semester. I wish I knew how they figure the statistics for the state report card–because the percentage has always been off–not just under Kherat’s regime. d150 teach is right in everything she just posted. Of course, I picked up on and cringed how Kherat put the blame for discipline problems on teachers. Manual teachers are having a terrible time because none of the “way too many,” overpaid administrators support them in any way.
Sharon – not to take away from the notion that teachers are not supported in disciplinary matters – but I’m willing to bet that there were few if any discipline problems in your classroom when you taught (perhaps Jim Stowell excluded 🙂 ) What I mean to say is that good teachers can overcome most of those issues, can they not? I know you believe in the alternative school, and on the surface (I don’t claim to know too much about it) it sounds like a good idea. But in the absence of that, you do target the current administrators which must include Kherat. Was she not successful at Whittier? What has changed?
You say you like to write a lot 🙂 , so here is one for you to jump at: Can you give us some examples of how Manual (or other schools) administrators have not supported teachers in disciplinary matters? It would help me to understand the situation better. Thanks.
Jon, I used to be associated, in a fashion, with diciplinary matters at the District and I do not believe that “good teachers” can control the disciplinary issues in many classrooms. Students frequently have to be removed by force, even in middle school classrooms, because they refuse to obey the teacher. I believe there are many troubled students that attend District 150 whose behavior is beyond the scope of what a regular classroom teacher should have to deal with.
Jon –
At the last D150 Watch meeting the topic of rude, disrespectful students who constantly threaten and smart-off to their teachers was a main topic of discussion.
The students continue to do it because they know that even if the teacher reports the behavior they will be right back in the classroom shortly thereafter.
Until the teachers have an adminstration that supports them and doesn’t perpetually make excuses for inexcusable student behavior the situation will never improve.
A lot of Admin double speak during that segment. Very transparent.
Frustrated – That is why we need the alternative environment.
Fair enough, Frustrated, but I assume you are saying that “problem children” are worse now than 10 or 20 years ago – and perhaps so. If that is the case, is the cause likely within the home? And what can a high school administrator do about this problem any more or less than a teacher?
Ok diane, but I was hoping to see something more specific (Sharon is probably on her third page right now). Just saying that:
“until the teachers have an administration that supports them” is kind of like saying “taxes are too high” or “real estate developers are not friendly to pedestrians”.
When you say administration, are you saying ALL levels of administration (Sorry Steve P if you’re reading) from the vice principal, principal, assistant super, superintendent up to the school board itself – and how? Sure, I get the alternative school idea, but without that, what are the administrators within the schools, like at Manual, supposed to do? What are some examples of what you believe they did wrong and what should they have done?
I’m not defending them. I’m just asking.