Do you interpret the “we have deep litigation experience” line in their letter to be code for “we will sue if you vote to close it based on the circumstances that led to this decision”?
Yeah, I think so (I don't have any inside information). I've been thinking about suing them for the OMA violations, but I decided to let the IL AG PAC see if they can render a decision first, because it will improve my case. The OMA has clauses in it that can cause a public body to undo decisions if they acted in violation of the law, so if they vote to close and it's found out this was done in violation of the OMA, the whole thing can be reversed and will just make an even bigger mess.
It doesn’t seem to me like this board is afraid of getting sued. They have Franczek on retainer, a big firm that represents many districts, and they're experienced litigators too.
I will say this. Franczek is very expensive and I haven't been impressed by their work. Consider some evidence:
- Dr. Turner's contract contains the clause regarding the residency requirement - why the hell was that put in her contract? It was such an obvious violation of the OMA and makes no sense to include in an employment contract!
- That same clause contains a very obvious typo - did Franczek even read it?
- Lease certificate terms (for redemption) don't line up with the resolution the board passed. Where was Franczek on this?
- SAP is a very obvious violation of the OMA. Where was Franczek on this to say they had to comply?
The 5th ward school is the magnum opus of this and the previous board but Franczek couldn't be bothered to dot the is and cross the ts on the certificate. Isn't that the whole reason you hire a good lawyer? If I was on this board, I'd send them packing so fast and potentially even consider litigation against them for errors and omissions.
That's true but in some of these cases, the lawyer is actually in the room during the closed session where they put this stuff together. Especially the contract negotiations with Turner - like, the lawyer was in the room the whole time if it was a closed session board meeting.
I mean, they know there will be lawsuits. They probably think that the marginalized community wouldn’t be the ones to bring them. Frankly, Tom, you should sue. And perhaps a loose organization should be formed of likeminded concerned citizens which could raise money in order to do so. The poor decision making was one thing (hiring Horton). The blatant flouting laws is another. Then again, people willing to break the laws in the first place are also willing to cover up their tracks and do it again to save face. I don’t trust these guys one bit.
I'm working on a story right now involving D65 RIF'ing people arbitrarily - black and hispanic admins with 20+ years of experience, while keeping the white staffers. This was done outside the purview of the Board and the letters weren't even signed by the Board President! Again, I think it's the kind of thing where they assume people from marginalized communities don't have a voice and won't sue. And the (holier than thou) Board just continues to pretend like they don't see any of this.
Do you interpret the “we have deep litigation experience” line in their letter to be code for “we will sue if you vote to close it based on the circumstances that led to this decision”?
Yeah, I think so (I don't have any inside information). I've been thinking about suing them for the OMA violations, but I decided to let the IL AG PAC see if they can render a decision first, because it will improve my case. The OMA has clauses in it that can cause a public body to undo decisions if they acted in violation of the law, so if they vote to close and it's found out this was done in violation of the OMA, the whole thing can be reversed and will just make an even bigger mess.
It doesn’t seem to me like this board is afraid of getting sued. They have Franczek on retainer, a big firm that represents many districts, and they're experienced litigators too.
I will say this. Franczek is very expensive and I haven't been impressed by their work. Consider some evidence:
- Dr. Turner's contract contains the clause regarding the residency requirement - why the hell was that put in her contract? It was such an obvious violation of the OMA and makes no sense to include in an employment contract!
- That same clause contains a very obvious typo - did Franczek even read it?
- Lease certificate terms (for redemption) don't line up with the resolution the board passed. Where was Franczek on this?
- SAP is a very obvious violation of the OMA. Where was Franczek on this to say they had to comply?
The 5th ward school is the magnum opus of this and the previous board but Franczek couldn't be bothered to dot the is and cross the ts on the certificate. Isn't that the whole reason you hire a good lawyer? If I was on this board, I'd send them packing so fast and potentially even consider litigation against them for errors and omissions.
Haha don’t assume they run everything past their lawyers, I believe this board shoots first and asks questions later (metaphorically) 🤣
That's true but in some of these cases, the lawyer is actually in the room during the closed session where they put this stuff together. Especially the contract negotiations with Turner - like, the lawyer was in the room the whole time if it was a closed session board meeting.
I mean, they know there will be lawsuits. They probably think that the marginalized community wouldn’t be the ones to bring them. Frankly, Tom, you should sue. And perhaps a loose organization should be formed of likeminded concerned citizens which could raise money in order to do so. The poor decision making was one thing (hiring Horton). The blatant flouting laws is another. Then again, people willing to break the laws in the first place are also willing to cover up their tracks and do it again to save face. I don’t trust these guys one bit.
I'm working on a story right now involving D65 RIF'ing people arbitrarily - black and hispanic admins with 20+ years of experience, while keeping the white staffers. This was done outside the purview of the Board and the letters weren't even signed by the Board President! Again, I think it's the kind of thing where they assume people from marginalized communities don't have a voice and won't sue. And the (holier than thou) Board just continues to pretend like they don't see any of this.