Today's News-Gazette:
The judge overseeing the Champaign school district's consent-decree case will hold a status conference Wednesday to discuss the progress toward meeting the goals of the decree.
The conference at the U.S. District Court in Peoria will be held in Judge Joe Billy McDade's chambers and is closed to the public.
The conference is being held at the request of the plaintiffs in the case, to update the judge "on efforts to ensure the last scheduled year of the consent decree will enable the district to accelerate progress."
The plaintiffs also requested the hearing be held in chambers rather than in open court. Last week, McDade granted the request to hold the status conference in chambers "to facilitate discussion."
Carol Ashley, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said previous hearings in 2002 and 2006 were open to the public.
"The community's presence was very valuable. Our request was not dismissive of that," she said.
But with this the last school year before the consent decree is scheduled to end, she thought the two parties could work together better and do more problem-solving in a smaller, less formal, less adversarial setting.
Discuss.
Once again,,,the public, that is forced to send their children to this school district ,,,and the people that have to ante up to pay for it are frozen out. From the start to now the information shared with the public has been scant to say the least. I do not even count the filtered info trickled out by the school board. I also do not count the noble yet what did it conclude,,,Commitee of Blurred Visions, that was much blown up. I realize we are near the end of this decree,,,and it would be a shame for anything to extend it, but again, the lack of info about it, at least to me anyway,is a clear example of one of the main problems with Unit 4.
Is this the same group of people who want the citizens of Champaign to vote for the 1% sales tax increase on 4 Nov. because they have told us our property taxes will be reduced? Sunshine cures mold.
Pattsi Petrie
There is absolutely no good reason for this hearing to be held out of the public eye. At a time when public confidence and investment in Unit 4 is very low, this is inexcusable. I hope that the District fought (or fights) to have this hearing in public.
When is Mr. Culver going to finish the degree work that he contractually obligated to achieve? Why is he being kept on long past the time when this was supposed to be accomplished?
"When is Mr. Culver going to finish the degree work that he contractually obligated to achieve? Why is he being kept on long past the time when this was supposed to be accomplished?"
This has been addressed a number of times on here. Here is just one instance, from former Board member Margie Skirvin:
Here is another, from current Unit 4 Board President Dave Tomlinson:
There are lots of valid reasons to criticize the leadership of Unit 4. Culver's supposed violating his contract by not having a a PhD isn't one of them.
I'd think he'd want the PhD more than anyone else wants him to have it. After being ABD for 5 years, I'd imagine he's trying to find time to write his dissertation.
Do you really want him to spend less time doing his job and more time writing his dissertation? I thought he was hired to be an administrator, not a graduate student.
At this point in his life,,,,why should he bother, plenty of time after he is done with his stint at Unit 4, he will be set retirement wise,,,,so that should be enough,,I want him to concentrate on getting us out from under this consent decree, then after his last two years are up, I shall wish him well.
thanks IP. my bad.
thanks IP. my bad.
PB, you'd better retract that! Remember, despite your screaming tendencies (or whatever the phrasing), you NEVER admit being "wrong" even when you're "proven" wrong! You cyber-bully.
;-)
"thanks IP. my bad."
No worries. You're certainly not the only one who thinks it was a hiring condition for him.
Maybe some of the board members who comment on this board would like to comment on why this is being held in chambers, what Unit 4 did to avoid this, and why the public shouldn't be downright angry about why public business is being conducted behind closed doors without, apparently, any good reason being offered.
TP-
heh.
I'm never wrong. I'm either right or I'm close, but I'm never wrong.
"Maybe some of the board members who comment on this board would like to comment on why this is being held in chambers, what Unit 4 did to avoid this, and why the public shouldn't be downright angry about why public business is being conducted behind closed doors without, apparently, any good reason being offered. "
Let's not blame the Board for this being held in private just yet. It may be that because the plaintiffs asked for it to be private, the judge made it so. Until we know more, I don't think it's right to blame the Board.
But the lack of public participation and scrutiny just perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the Consent Decree - decisions are being made about the District and its students, parents, employees and taxpayers by a Federal judge completely removed from the public eye. It's no wonder that so many families are disinvesting from Unit 4, and I don't blame them one bit.
No blame--just asking if they have some explanation. Maybe their attorney agreed to this without asking, and without understanding the ramifications?
Here's what's going to happen, plaintiffs are going to dump on unit 4 and drop that they want the consent decree to continue in private, they'll probably get a gag order on unit 4, and they don't want to sabotage their chances for snaking a 60 mil handout to build empty buildings north of university by letting the public know they're going to screw them anyway. Vote no on the sales tax, no on the bonds and vote in 7 knuckledragger thugs on the school board who will throw the chicago lawyers and their carpetbagger super out of our school.
"Maybe their attorney agreed to this without asking, and without understanding the ramifications?"
Maybe they agreed to it to try and appease the plaintiffs on (what they perceive to be) a small issue so that it's easier to fight them on a big one (non-extension of the Consent Decree)?
Who knows. But IMHO there is no reason that the judge should have allowed this hearing to be conducted in private. It's a disservice to the District, its students and employees and the community, including the plaintiffs.
It appears that the bottom line is what has been discussed many times on this blog--communication. The reasons for the closed session could be any of the above speculations. This ought not deter the Unit 4 board from communicating to the citizens the reason for such and encourage means of input before the closed meeting. This pervasive proclivity throughout the elected and appointed populations within this community to stone wall/not communicate and use close meetings extensively ought to be brought to an abrupt halt through citizen expressing their concerns not only on this blog but also in a more public manner.
Pattsi Petrie
You should picket the meeting and demand entry. That's certainly what I would organize. You are right, but being right in a vacuum accomplishes nothing.
Not every hearing in a multi-year case like this needs to be in public. Getting parties to figure it out cooperatively is a lot easier in private than public. Less posturing and more trying to figure it out.
in the for what its worth department.
This is NOT a meeting of the Unit 4 Board or a committee of the Board and therefore it is not subject to the Open Meetings Act Laws. Even if it was a meeting of the Board, again it's not, It would be covered under the actual/potential litigation sections of the allowable closed meeting items for discussion. I realize that some will only negatively focus on the above sentences and not the ones below, but...
That being said. I am the only board member going. This is very similar to NUMEROUS meetings that are held between plaintiffs and the district. In fact there are meetings held every quarter between the Judge's rep (the court monitor), the plaintiffs and the district. The Quarterly Meetings are always between the district and our attorneys, the plaintiff's and their attorneys and the Court Assigned Monitors. Rarely if ever do board members attend. I asked to go in this case because I want to know what is being said by the parties and the Judge. I can only think of one other time when a board member attended a quarterly meeting since I have been on the board. I could be wrong on that number though. I never hear complaints about these meetings being held private or public.
My understanding of this meeting is that it is a simple status report/discussion as we enter the last year of the decree. The judge can very easily say that he wants a closed meeting with the district and the plaintiffs. I am going as a listener in this case and a participant where needed. At some time in the future we will have evidentiary hearings which I will absolutely fight for being in the public as was the large hearing in 2006 held at the UI law school.
Should it be held in public? YES FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS. This is a working meeting of the parties. The elected officials are not going to be there except for me.
EVERY meeting of the Board should be held in public and they are!
Folks, none of us want to hold meetings in the dark or hold more meetings. but if a meeting every week will help us meet the needs of all of our kids and satisfy what the then Board agreed to in 2002/1998... I am all for it.
Dave Tomlinson, President
Unit 4 Board of Education
Dave, mine is just one voice; nonetheless, a suggestion--why not put the above explanation with a bit of historic time table in a N-G guest editorial to help everyone in the community better understand what and why.
Pattsi Petrie
Despite the good intentions President Tomlinson insists are the case regarding the upcoming "working meeting", there seems to be some dirt still being swept under the rugs as the Consent Decree heads toward its last year. A good example, for the last 5-7 years, the Unit 4 school district had created a "problem" school at Columbia, herding its worst of the worst to that facility. Now that the Decree has come due, surprise! Columbia, by Tomlinson's own admission, was not serving students and needs to be closed. Instead of owning a failed program that clunked along for years, Tomlinson shifted the blame onto the students, saying, "Some students just won't do school." Now they have to figure out where to put the students they didn't want in the regular schools. Get ready white parents, those unruly black kids are coming back to your child's classroom! Run for Mahomet, quick!
The discipline numbers continue to have huge racial disparities, and we have not seen the numbers rising in academic achievement for minorities. Oh yeah, I forgot, it's the parents' fault.
Yes, it's not a public meeting subject to the Open Meetings Act, but virtually all court hearings are open to the public, with very few exceptions. I wonder why the newspapers aren't challenging this? And just because it's not subject to the Open Meetings Act doesn't mean that it should be closed--we have far too little transparency in our local government as it is.
If it's just a simple status hearing or report, then why the need for secrecy and a closed hearing? I suspect it's because the plaintiffs' attorney is going to complain again about the progress of Unit 4 and ask that the consent decree be extended or something else be done to build buildings that Unit 4 can't afford without a bond referendum or a tax increase. Frankly, one of the major reasons why the school district is performing so poorly, although there are others, is because of the consent decree--and the public is bailing.
I am presently reading the Unit 4 web page dedicated to the consent decree http://www.champaignschools.org/index2.php?header=./&file=consentdecree#Participants_Involved
There is certainly a great deal of reading materials on the web page. Nevertheless, I notice a number of omissions--1) recent quarterly reports are not posted; 2) original voluntary decision not posted; 3) information about the Planning Implementation Committee is sketchy at best, no year date for meeting schedule and no listing of individuals involved with the committee so one does not know if there is any consistency; and 4) a timeline would be helpful for the citizens to follow exactly when what occurred.
In any case, reading these materials gives further understanding of the involved human time, human energy, and district funds to placate something that never ought to have occurred in this community.
Pattsi Petrie
Better get used to the concent decree...it's never ending. Judge BILLY BOB has made a nice career out of this mess, why should he end the free lunch?
That's ludicrous. The judge is a Federal appointee for life, and will get paid until he retires regardless of the status of the consent decree.
Again, there are lots of legit reasons to criticize it. There's no reason for the nonsense.
Better get used to the consent decree...it's never ending.
My understanding (which may be flawed) is that when the consent decree expires, it is over. At that time there will be one of several outcomes... The plaintiffs will be satisfied with the actions of Unit 4 (let’s hope) or the plaintiffs will not be satisfied and will request that it be extended or bring a law suit. Then Unit 4 will have a decision, continue under the consent decree (potentially with modifications) or fight a potential law suit in court. (Dave, Greg, or other U-4 Board IP regular please correct or expand my understanding)
I'm hopeful that we will see satisfaction by the plaintiffs, but if not I hope that Unit 4 stands up and fights so that there is no longer a consent decree, particularly one that requires unconstitutional programs (schools of choice).
The cot of the consent decree is greater than most could imagine, and I'm not speaking only of attorney fees. The biggest cost is the loss of greater community support and flight from U-4 to the private schools and outlying communities. While I don't claim to understand the ramifications of the case of long ago, I'm guessing that the cost to the school in $ and in community support would have been much less had the U-4 board put up a fight. We need to get this consent decree weight off our neck so that we can soar.
Given the resources in this community, from the University to the businesses and concerned citizens, it is a shame that we do not have the best schools in Illinois. For this community to thrive and business to grow and attract the brightest employees we need top notch schools, public and private. Given how the private schools are doing with enrollment and waiting lists the focus needs to be on all levels of high quality public education.
Remember that the consent decree was a VOLUNTARY agreement entered into by the then School Board in 2002 - and it expires on June 30, 2009. At that point in theory one of three things can happen.
OPTION 1 - The judge agrees that the School District has made a good faith effort to meet the goals stated in the agreement - and it ends. The district will remain under observation to ensure that it does not backside, but the days of paying large sums of money to lawyers and consultants should end.
OPTION 2 - The judge determines that the District has not made a good faith effort, and requests that the district VOLUNTARY extend its agreement. I can see this offer being made - but I don't see the current Board going along with it - but I think it will show up as an option
OPTION 3 - The judge determines that the district has not made a good faith effort - and imposes a court order on the district continuing the terms of the consent decree. That decision can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals by the district - as it is no longer a voluntary decision. Based on other decisions rendered by the different courts - I would doubt that the judges ruling be upheld -but that will require spending more money in court - but at least in that case the district is not paying for both sides as we are now.
Its going to be an interesting time till June 30th, 2009
Greg Novak
Sure he gets paid regardless of the consent decree... my point is this.....the time and logistics of his decisions on the decree pull time away from other matters. With BILLY BOB devoting all this time, meetings,travel, etc to the consent decree it becomes more of his focus than other court matters.
The consent decree was fatally flawed from the beginning because it was premised upon the proposition that too many black kids were enrolled in special education. In order to become elgible for special education services you have to have an educational evaluation. (elgibility hearing) This is a condition precedent to obtaining Individualized Educational Services (IEP). A great deal of federal and State of Illinois money supplements special education services. Federal law requires every child to receive a free public and appropriate eduation. If he is not getting it, he or she is entitled to special education services. Many parents, especially those whose kids require a "residential placement" in places like Cunningham, often have to demand due process hearings to get those services. Federal law even allows attorney's fees in cases where services are wrongfully denied. What special education does is get more services for the kid. So why would the consent degree suggest that blacks are "over represented in special education"? So Unit 4 won't have to pay.
I was on Representative Winkel's Alternative School Committee when it was first being discussed. Marty Barrett was also on with me. Both of us demanded that the legislation include Alternative Educational Plans for students when sent to the Alternative Schools. It was built into the legislation. The consent degree was able to somehow rip this provision out of the heart of Alternative School legislation. This is why you have so many problems at Columbia because it has gotten away, by virtue of this consent degree, from individualized planning. Mr.Tomlinson may argue with this view, but if you screened all the Columbia admits, many of them, if they hadn't been sold this bill of goods, would be entitled to planning through special education.
I am more than a little confused at this last post, because I believe that the plaintiffs, not the district, complained about the over-representation of African American student in special ed. Your post seems to indicate that the district somehow did this to save money. I just don't belive that that is true. in addition, I believe that there were a fair number of special ed students enrolled at Columbia and therefore have an IEP. I just don't think that you have any correct data to prove your point, because I don't the data would prove your point.