PEORIA -- A very long Peoria District 150 School Board meeting on Sept. 23 should have been awarded a grade of C, if grades were given for transparency.
Though it was never stated outright, district officials implied that passage of a referedum next March which would give all schools in Peoria County revenue from a 1 percent sales tax to spend on facilities could be the price paid to keep the Stadium site green.
Athletic directors at the high schools made it clear that each school wants its own football field, and they don't like having to bus teams to the Stadium site.
There was a lot of obvious talk about the benefits of school sports on student achievement and attendance -- all of which had nothing to do with the Stadium site.
Controller Dave Kinney gave an over-long presentation stating that upgrading Manual's field would cost $1 million, upgrading Peoria High's field would cost $3 million, and renovating the Stadium site would cost $1.5 million or up to $3 million if all the amenities were added there.
Finally he admitted the money to upgrade Manual and Peoria High could come from selling the Stadium, implying that would be the option if the sales tax referendum fails.But he never said how much that sales tax would generate for District 150.
Here are recordings of the discussion of the Stadium and related talk, in two sessions. It was interrupted by a public hearing on the budget.
The public comments began with activist Terry Knapp saying "this reminds me of the Woodruff (High School) closure, no community meetings," just a rushed decision.
"Have you talked to the city about riverboat (gambling) revenue? (A source of funds.) Convey the Stadium to the park district."
"Keep the Stadium green.... Keep the public happy," he said.
Here are the public comments in two sections, the budget hearing and the 2 minute comments at the end of the meeting.
Sevino Sierra's comments focused on the destruction of Peoria's historic landmarks. "You sold Harrison (School). It's still standing and will outlive the new Harrison," because of better construction materials, he said. The Stadium is a similar site, he said, as is the Peoria Alternative School/Adult Center, which the board declared as surplus property, to be sold at public auction.
That decision drew a comment from Jim Evenhuis who had sent the board a letter from the Moss Bradley Association. "We hope we can sit at the table and influence who buys it," he said.
He reminded the board of the situation with the former Pekin HIgh School. "A slumlord bought it and sat on it. We want it repurposed," he said, adding the board should be concerned about maintaining quality neighborhoods.
Peoria Federation of Teachers president Jeff Atkins Dutro also urged the board to "proceed with caution" on this sale. "The old Harrison is crumbling and dangerous," he said.
Earlier at the separate budget hearing, he urged the board to place "a moratorium on administrative travel and central office creature comforts until all student needs are met."
A recording of the budget comments will be posted here soon. They include activist Sharon Crews revelation that her Freedom of Information Act requests from July 2008 until July 2013 cost $44,000 in legal fees, wasting taxpayer money.
"Most do not require legal opinions, she said. "I never ask for student or employee names."
The board could hire an in-house lawyer or paralegal to replace the expensive out-of-town law firm that apparently reviews every request, she said. A transcript of her remarks will be posted below, soon.
A couple, Matthew and Trina Leary, both spoke during the public comment session, and said they have been trying to talk to district officials since July about their daughter's entrance into pre-kindergarten. No one calls back, no one meets with them, the wrong screening test was administered, and the child was denied entrance though she qualified, they said.
Supt. Grenita Lathan had no response to the comments. But board members revealed that someone recently sent an email to the four white board members but excluded the three black members.
Board member Linda Butler said such emails should be forwarded to all members. Martha Ross criticized board president Rick Cloyd for not exerting better leadership "If I had been president I would have forwarded it," she said.
Board member Laura Petelle said leaving out the black members was "in incredibly poor taste."
Poor taste? How about 'racist!'
Update 9/25/13? (Note -- later it was learned that this email did not involve race, and was sent to the writer's representatives plus the top two board officers in hopes something would be done. The racial aspect was inadvertent. Petelle's comment about the 4 white members receiving the email but not the 3 black members was out of context and out of line, and left the wrong impression!)
Then board member Chris Crawford attacked Sierra' for using the word 'damn' in his comments. And he accused Knapp of saying something that Knapp never said. Guess he'd had a long day.
Earlier Cloyd clashed with Knapp during Knapp's budget comments, claiming he was off topic, which he was not. Knapp is not one to be intimidated, however and stood his ground.
-- Elaine Hopkins
Here are the comments from Sharon Crews:
I am speaking to the budget with regard to legal services. Last year over $900,000 was spent with one law firm. I have searched the budget and found legal services on p. 17 for $100,000 for salaries and $16,647 for benefits. Where have you hidden the other budgeted legal services?
At the last board meeting Dr. Lathan and Mr. Cloyd tried to belittle me for writing so many FOIAs and accused me of wasting money from the Education Fund, although no lawyer fees were mentioned—just the cost for the FOIA officer and other employees.
Of course, I had already sent a FOIA asking how much the lawyers were paid to review and make decisions with regard to my FOIA requests. Both the records of my FOIA topics and the lawyers’ fees apparently charged for my FOIAs are posted on EmergePeoria’s blog and on Facebook.
I say “apparently” because my name does not appear on any of the lawyers’ billing statements. In fact, almost all content has been redacted—except the billable hours and total fees. I contend that it is the District that is wasting money on lawyers’ fees and that the District should be embarrassed or even held culpable.
According to the FOIA’d records, District lawyers received $44,000 for FOIAs I sent from July 2008 to July 2013. I believe that most FOIA requests, especially mine, do not require a legal opinion at all. I question your priorities when you pay $44,000 to lawyers to protect yourselves in some way I can’t quite understand, yet you budget only $2000 for summer school. I found summer school mentioned on page 11 and 15—did I overlook some other entry?
Are there any FOIA laws or guidelines that encourage public bodies to hire lawyers to protect themselves from the results of information discovered through FOIA requests?
Certainly, I understand that some FOIA requests are seeking very personal information that could result in a lawsuit against the District. Shouldn’t those kinds of requests be easily distinguished from most, if not all, of the requests that I make? Is any of my requested data a legitimate threat that requires legal advice before providing the data? I never ask for student names or employee names.
The board and administration do know that I gather information to share it, and that gives my FOIAs a legitimate purpose because forcing public bodies to be transparent is the very heart of the FOIA law.
My earnest suggestion is that the board needs to decrease expenditures for legal services by hiring an in-house lawyer and/or a paralegal to handle mundane FOIA requests. Of course, my other suggestion is that the board and administration come to grips with the fact that they work for a public body that should have nothing to hide. They can agree and disagree with the public, but they should not hide their business from the public.
____________________
At the September 9 board meeting, Dr. Lathan issued a bit of a reprimand to me by telling the audience that I had omitted some important information from my comments.
As word for word as I could transcribe it from the recording, Dr. Lathan stated, “What was omitted tonight as it related to the credit card purchases, the FOIA that was attached to the request shared that purchases on the superintendent’s charge card is also for purposes of other District department programs and individual programs, so not just the superintendent’s credit card that she purchased these items. Very clearly outlined in the FOIA, that these are for other departments as well, not just for Woodruff, for books, IPads, you name it.
None of that information was shared, attached, or clearly or unclearly outlined in the letter accompanying the charge card records. To what document were you referring?
The only explanatory statement in the August 28 FOIA response letter reads, “Please note that each and every charge itemized on the statements enclosed are for school district related expenses and not personal expenses of the Superintendent.” I have no doubt that a lawyer—for a fee--advised that such a statement was appropriate and necessary. - 30 -
Here's the PJS story on the meeting. Be sure to read the comments.
Just want to say your article is as amazing. The clearness on your publish is simply cool and that i can assume you are knowledgeable in this subject. Fine together with your permission allow me to seize your RSS feed to stay up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks 1,000,000 and please keep up the gratifying work.
Posted by: legal highs uk | September 24, 2013 at 06:28 PM
Usually I do not read article on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to check out and do so! Your writing style has been amazed me. Thanks, very great post.
Posted by: Fitness News | October 19, 2013 at 03:34 PM