Northwest Indiana Discussion

Northwest Indiana's Leading Discussion Forum
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:47 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:45 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
chugar52 wrote:
The Center will be open from 4 to 6 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays and is available to children between the ages of preschool through high school. The program will include instruction in dance, drill team, drama, drum corps, vocals and more.


This is NOT a DAY CARE program. It is a program instructing dance, vocals, etc. As to how it will benefit the taxpayer - it is the taxpayers children that will be getting the instruction and it is only costing them $20. Will it benefit all taxpayers? No, it won't, but most programs do not benefit all the taxpayers. The district had Champions for several years, which was an after school program for the children. It was basically an after school day care. It benefited the taxpayers whose children were in the program. It didn't benefit all of the taxpayers, yet you never complained about that. The Board approved that program also. Why the negativity about the Board on this program? What is your probelm with this Board? What have they done to you? Or are you one of the "old" Board Members and you're just being nasty because you didn't get elected?
I have a big problem with this board, that has almost $4 million dollars left at the end of a fiscal year. $4 million left out of an estimated $11 million budget. That's more than 25%. This board levies taxes of 25% MORE than it needs? Doesn't sound legal. Why not rebate it back to the taxpayers, then adjust the levy so there is $0.00 left? Remember, it's NOT your money...

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:32 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:03 am
Posts: 50
LoisLane wrote:
chugar52 wrote:
The Center will be open from 4 to 6 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays and is available to children between the ages of preschool through high school. The program will include instruction in dance, drill team, drama, drum corps, vocals and more.


This is NOT a DAY CARE program. It is a program instructing dance, vocals, etc. As to how it will benefit the taxpayer - it is the taxpayers children that will be getting the instruction and it is only costing them $20. Will it benefit all taxpayers? No, it won't, but most programs do not benefit all the taxpayers. The district had Champions for several years, which was an after school program for the children. It was basically an after school day care. It benefited the taxpayers whose children were in the program. It didn't benefit all of the taxpayers, yet you never complained about that. The Board approved that program also. Why the negativity about the Board on this program? What is your probelm with this Board? What have they done to you? Or are you one of the "old" Board Members and you're just being nasty because you didn't get elected?
I have a big problem with this board, that has almost $4 million dollars left at the end of a fiscal year. $4 million left out of an estimated $11 million budget. That's more than 25%. This board levies taxes of 25% MORE than it needs? Doesn't sound legal. Why not rebate it back to the taxpayers, then adjust the levy so there is $0.00 left? Remember, it's NOT your money...


It wasn't money left from THIS budget. THIS budget is $800,000 short of expected revenue. The money that is left is from previous years because the board has been very cautious in spending money. Since the Board got hit with almost $1,000,000 bill from Sears, it's a damn good thing that there is money to cover payroll. If the board didn't have a surplus, then they would have to borrow money and you'd be bitching about that because it would cost interest. YOU have a savings account I assume. Then ONLY reason that there is some money in the "savings" account is because this Board has been frugal and cautious, but you have never understood school finance.

GO TO A MEETING AND VOICE YOUR CONCERN AND ASK FOR A REFUND!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe someone there can explain the school finances better than I can.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:58 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
chugar52 wrote:
LoisLane wrote:
chugar52 wrote:
The Center will be open from 4 to 6 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays and is available to children between the ages of preschool through high school. The program will include instruction in dance, drill team, drama, drum corps, vocals and more.


This is NOT a DAY CARE program. It is a program instructing dance, vocals, etc. As to how it will benefit the taxpayer - it is the taxpayers children that will be getting the instruction and it is only costing them $20. Will it benefit all taxpayers? No, it won't, but most programs do not benefit all the taxpayers. The district had Champions for several years, which was an after school program for the children. It was basically an after school day care. It benefited the taxpayers whose children were in the program. It didn't benefit all of the taxpayers, yet you never complained about that. The Board approved that program also. Why the negativity about the Board on this program? What is your probelm with this Board? What have they done to you? Or are you one of the "old" Board Members and you're just being nasty because you didn't get elected?
I have a big problem with this board, that has almost $4 million dollars left at the end of a fiscal year. $4 million left out of an estimated $11 million budget. That's more than 25%. This board levies taxes of 25% MORE than it needs? Doesn't sound legal. Why not rebate it back to the taxpayers, then adjust the levy so there is $0.00 left? Remember, it's NOT your money...


It wasn't money left from THIS budget. THIS budget is $800,000 short of expected revenue. The money that is left is from previous years because the board has been very cautious in spending money. Since the Board got hit with almost $1,000,000 bill from Sears, it's a damn good thing that there is money to cover payroll. If the board didn't have a surplus, then they would have to borrow money and you'd be bitching about that because it would cost interest. YOU have a savings account I assume. Then ONLY reason that there is some money in the "savings" account is because this Board has been frugal and cautious, but you have never understood school finance.

GO TO A MEETING AND VOICE YOUR CONCERN AND ASK FOR A REFUND!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe someone there can explain the school finances better than I can.
This is totally illegal...there should be a balance of $0.00 at the end of EVERY fiscal year...you cannot put my money in your bank. Perhaps the State Board of Education would be interested in this. This money should go back to the taxpayer, NOT in a convenience account.

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:38 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
chugar52 wrote:
It wasn't money left from THIS budget. THIS budget is $800,000 short of expected revenue. The money that is left is from previous years because the board has been very cautious in spending money. Since the Board got hit with almost $1,000,000 bill from Sears, it's a damn good thing that there is money to cover payroll. If the board didn't have a surplus, then they would have to borrow money and you'd be bitching about that because it would cost interest. YOU have a savings account I assume. Then ONLY reason that there is some money in the "savings" account is because this Board has been frugal and cautious, but you have never understood school finance.
The board has been very cautious in spending money? That's it? The board has been very irresponsible in OVER TAXING the residents in this school district. I don't have to attend a board meeting for you or anyone else to attempt to justify being taxed beyond YOUR needs. That is total irresponsible fiscal management.

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:20 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 48
Lois… a school system cannot have a budget that is zeroed out every year. The schools never know what their revenues will be from the different revenue bases such as Federal and State aid and never knows that the revenue if from tax levys. It’s always has been and always will be a guessing game just like any company. There is such a thing as overtaxing though. The School district has multiple funds such as education, transportation, tort, building to name a few. Each fund is like a separate business and what certain established percentages from the property tax goes into each fund. There are rules as to fund carry over and I believe it cannot exceed 1.5X the amount of a yearly spending for a particular year. That can protect a school district from having to lose revenues for a PTAB case. If a particular fund it above the allowable carry over rate an objection can be filed and the school has to give the money back to the taxpayers.. perhaps that is done by lowering the levy the next year, not certain. So there are laws in place to prevent school systems from building up the funds or as you would call it overtaxing. I will also add that the tax caps also restrict the amount of taxes that can be levied and school system that you read about that are having financial difficulty are victims of the tax caps. What I don’t understand is why you think having heath fund balances is bad. It’s much better than not having healthy fund balances, running out of money because revenues were reduced by having state aid taken away or not getting referendums pasts and then having the school district borrow money to make ends meet and in the long run cost the tax payer even more money. If you like in D157, which I’m assuming you do since you seem to have so much interest, you should be pleased that the tax rate for D157 is much lower than neighboring School Districts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:09 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
funnyman wrote:
Lois… a school system cannot have a budget that is zeroed out every year. The schools never know what their revenues will be from the different revenue bases such as Federal and State aid and never knows that the revenue if from tax levys. It’s always has been and always will be a guessing game just like any company. There is such a thing as overtaxing though. The School district has multiple funds such as education, transportation, tort, building to name a few. Each fund is like a separate business and what certain established percentages from the property tax goes into each fund. There are rules as to fund carry over and I believe it cannot exceed 1.5X the amount of a yearly spending for a particular year. That can protect a school district from having to lose revenues for a PTAB case. If a particular fund it above the allowable carry over rate an objection can be filed and the school has to give the money back to the taxpayers.. perhaps that is done by lowering the levy the next year, not certain. So there are laws in place to prevent school systems from building up the funds or as you would call it overtaxing. I will also add that the tax caps also restrict the amount of taxes that can be levied and school system that you read about that are having financial difficulty are victims of the tax caps. What I don’t understand is why you think having heath fund balances is bad. It’s much better than not having healthy fund balances, running out of money because revenues were reduced by having state aid taken away or not getting referendums pasts and then having the school district borrow money to make ends meet and in the long run cost the tax payer even more money. If you like in D157, which I’m assuming you do since you seem to have so much interest, you should be pleased that the tax rate for D157 is much lower than neighboring School Districts.
OK, try to understand...It's NOT your money...stuffing $3.85 million in a savings account, and building that account is ILLEGAL. The money HAS to be used, not socked into an account. The tax levy MUST be reduced, until this surplus money is gone...now do you get it?

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:42 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:03 pm
Posts: 48
LoisLane wrote:
funnyman wrote:
Lois… a school system cannot have a budget that is zeroed out every year. The schools never know what their revenues will be from the different revenue bases such as Federal and State aid and never knows that the revenue if from tax levys. It’s always has been and always will be a guessing game just like any company. There is such a thing as overtaxing though. The School district has multiple funds such as education, transportation, tort, building to name a few. Each fund is like a separate business and what certain established percentages from the property tax goes into each fund. There are rules as to fund carry over and I believe it cannot exceed 1.5X the amount of a yearly spending for a particular year. That can protect a school district from having to lose revenues for a PTAB case. If a particular fund it above the allowable carry over rate an objection can be filed and the school has to give the money back to the taxpayers.. perhaps that is done by lowering the levy the next year, not certain. So there are laws in place to prevent school systems from building up the funds or as you would call it overtaxing. I will also add that the tax caps also restrict the amount of taxes that can be levied and school system that you read about that are having financial difficulty are victims of the tax caps. What I don’t understand is why you think having heath fund balances is bad. It’s much better than not having healthy fund balances, running out of money because revenues were reduced by having state aid taken away or not getting referendums pasts and then having the school district borrow money to make ends meet and in the long run cost the tax payer even more money. If you like in D157, which I’m assuming you do since you seem to have so much interest, you should be pleased that the tax rate for D157 is much lower than neighboring School Districts.
OK, try to understand...It's NOT your money...stuffing $3.85 million in a savings account, and building that account is ILLEGAL. The money HAS to be used, not socked into an account. The tax levy MUST be reduced, until this surplus money is gone...now do you get it?


First of all… it is my money as much as yours assuming you pay taxes to D157. I’m an not a employed of D157 nor am I a board member. I’m a tax payer who knows a lot about school district business. Not so long about you were complying that the district was paying teachers to much money with their 4% annual increases because the district was going to lose so much money because of foreclosures and anticipating that River Oaks was going close, but now that you see that the district, as I have been telling you, is financially sound and you’re complaining about that. It is not illegal to carry over funds in these accounts don’t know why you keep using that term. Perhaps unethical in your mind might be a better choice of word. But I don’t blame you for questioning the amount of surplus and you have the right to question it. There are certain accounts that having a health surplus is good, there are other funds where it is not required. But what if D157 zeroed out there balance every year as you suggest they should do, what financial position would they be in this year with the PTAB Sears just won with the County holding $1 million to pay back Sears? The District would be forced to borrow money for the school year and pay interest on that loan. They would also have to pay a higher interest rate because their borrowing rating would not be a strong because they do not have a surplus of funds. The District recently settled out of court on and Hendricks law suit, they were able to use surplus funds to cover that expense. There will always be a risk for unexpected expenses beyond what it estimated in the budget and having some surplus will cover these expenses. You do have a valid concern if the carry over surplus is excessive although within the law and you can attend a board meeting and have the business manager explain the rational but I will never agree with you that all the surplus should be spent and risk having annual shortcoming needing to borrow money to make ends meet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:09 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
So, you geniuses still think empty stores will still pay property taxes? Hate to say, "I told ya so"...
LoisLane wrote:
Right. So let's look at it in simpler terms. Say SEARS goes belly up. then MACY's, then JCPenneys. Now you say that neither store pays property taxes to S.D. 157. (Iknow better, because SEARS has a history of contesting their property taxes) So, now these stores have moved away, and are empty. Naturally the little stores in the mall pack up and move out too. So, who picks up the tab for the property taxes on an empty building? The building management? No. He has a lot of empty square footage, so he files bankruptcy. So, where do the 4% annual raises come from for poor S.D. 157? Looks like they use their line of credit. But, the banks aren't giving out any credit. Now what? Rub your magic lamp and come up with an answer. Remember, commercial foreclosures will not impact this country until this summer. I guess I have NO idea how school finances work. I do have a grasp on reality, though.

Ten Big Companies That Are Veering Toward Bankruptcy
Quote:
4. Macy's

Does anyone even shop at department stores anymore?

Same store sales will likely keep falling at Macy’s right through 2009. With $2.4 billion of maturing debt over the next five years, the company is trying to cut costs, and has already reduced its dividend.

Hopefully the US consumer will bounce back soon, and actually want to shop at Macy's.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/ar ... GT,MYL,HTZ

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:49 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
Haven't heard from the "brains" at S.D. 157 in quite a while. Everything MUST be running smoothly. How's that big raise working out for you? Has SEARS challenged the last tax levy yet? Let's hear it!

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:34 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
Remember when I was TRYING to make this point?
LoisLane wrote:
The Times wrote:
After Rosemary Hendricks left District 157, but before her resignation took effect in Calumet City, she became Bellwood Elementary District 88 superintendent and served in that capacity until her 2008 resignation.

In the post I pasted from the Times, it stated "before her resignation took effect in Calumet City, she became Bellwood Elementary District 88 superintendent". This alone constitutes a breach of her contract and all sorts of ethical issues. Was this a lie, or just bad reporting on behalf of the Times? If this is true, then perhaps the school board should consider another legal adviser. Oh yes, it is Odelson's firm, same as Calumet City. They don't even know what a courtroom looks like. All they do is settle out of court.

In todays (Jan. 14, 2010) Times:
The Times wrote:
Suburban Cook County Regional Superintendent Charles A. Flowers has been arrested, and the Cook County state's attorney's office plans to detail charges against the elected official during a Thursday afternoon news conference, according to a news release.

The Suburban Cook County Regional Office of Education issues teacher certifications, conducts health and safety inspections, and offers initial training for new school bus drivers for 143 suburban Cook County school districts in 30 townships, including Thornton Township.

The office also serves as a liaison between the Illinois State Board of Education and local school districts.

In July, investigators raided Flowers' home and his office in Westchester.

The raids followed a state audit that cited numerous concerns and came less than two weeks after the Cook County Board approved a resolution asking Flowers to resign.

State's attorney's office investigators executed the warrants as part of an ongoing criminal investigation that began in April into the financial situation at the regional office of education.

The state audit questioned the regional education office's ability to continue financially. But the audit was terminated before it completed due to the "overall lack of internal controls, questions as to the accuracy and completeness of the general ledger, and problems noted in other findings throughout."

The audit also revealed that Flowers employed members of his own family, provided cash advances for two employees for nonbusiness-related expenses and used funds for expenditures not allowed under state law.

A former Proviso High School District 209 School Board member, Flowers defeated incumbent Robert Ingraffia, a Republican, in the November 2006 election for the regional superintendent's position on a platform of ending what he called patronage hiring practices at suburban school districts.

Upon taking office in July 2007, Flowers brought several colleagues with him to the Regional Office of Education. Among them was Willie Mack, a former superintendent at Bellwood District 88, a feeder district for District 209.

Two other former Bellwood administrators -- Nichelle Rivers, a former superintendent of District 88, and Predonna Roberts, District 88's former director of curriculum -- joined the Regional Office of Education a short time later.


Flowers has been the target of a criminal investigation by the Cook County state's attorney's office, and is the subject of a civil suit the office filed in mid-July seeking repayment of a $190,000 county loan. The civil suit contains three counts, including fraud, and seeks full repayment of the loan, plus interest and punitive damages.

In October, Westchester School District 92.5 served Flowers with an eviction notice for failure to pay rent to a Westchester school district for office space it uses.

AUDIT FINDINGS

A state audit of the Suburban Cook County Regional Office of Education led by Regional Superintendent Charles Flowers found his office:

-- Lacked internal accounting policies and control over payments.

-- Did not complete nine of 12 monthly reconciliations of the office's bank

statements and pooled cash accounts for fiscal year 2008.

-- Had inadequate controls over property and equipment.

-- Did not record payroll transactions in their general ledger for five months

in fiscal year 2008 after they hired an outside agency to prepare their payroll.

-- Provided cash advances to two employees for nonbusiness-related purposes.

-- Paid a total of $1,798 in finance charges, late fees and other miscellaneous

service charges on six credit cards.

-- Did not have receipts to support 70 percent of the charges on Flowers'

credit card.

-- Made numerous personal purchases, took cash advances and paid for personal

and staff meals on his state-issued credit card without properly documenting

the purchases and advances.

-- Paid two assistant regional superintendents $12,000 and $9,400 each in

addition to their regular salaries for work completed during regular working

hours.

-- Used money for expenditures not allowed under state law.

-- Employed members of Flowers' family on the office payroll.

Birds of a feather...

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:49 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
Wow...who saw this coming? Oh yeah, I did!
The Times wrote:
Illinois schools face mass layoffs

BY Kurt Erickson - Lee Springfield Bureau

SPRINGFIELD | Illinois school districts are preparing to lay off nearly 14,000 employees based on a proposed spending plan that includes no new money for schools.

State schools Superintendent Chris Koch told a Senate panel Thursday that the projections -- if carried out -- would be "devastating" to education in Illinois and could be even worse if state aid to schools is cut further.

"We are anticipating unprecedented layoffs," Koch said. "The greatest impact is going to be on local districts."

Koch’s testimony came as Democrats in the Senate held a second round of hearings to investigate the effects of Republican calls for a 10 percent cut in spending to all state agencies.

The aim of the hearings is to show what effect those cuts would have on Illinois residents. The testimony comes as both parties are trying to win support in the November election at a time when state finances have been in a freefall.

According to state Board of Education figures, about one third of the state’s more than 800 districts have enough cash on hand to continue operating in the absence of timely state funding. Like most businesses and institutions who do business with the state, schools are months behind in receiving payments from the state because of a lag in revenues.

The remainder of those districts are notifying employees that they may have to be laid off for the 2010-2011 school year, Koch said. About 6,200 tenured and non-tenured teachers may be on the chopping block, with the remaining workers ranging from administrators to support personnel like cafeteria workers.

Koch said the lack of new state funding would lead to more kids being packed into classrooms and possible cuts to programs if local districts don’t want to raise local taxes to make up for lagging state aid.

"I presume this is going to put extra pressure on local governments," said state Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago.

"It’s a very sad situation," added state Sen. Donne Trotter, D-Chicago.

Trotter, who is the lead negotiator on budget issues for the Senate Democrats, said floating the prospect of a 10 percent cut was not a political stunt to rally support for a tax hike.

"We’re not looking at this as an exercise," Trotter said. "We’re trying to get ourselves solvent."

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:03 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
Hey...does anyone remember when I was opposed to this?
LoisLane wrote:
How is this NOT a private DAY CARE CENTER?
The Times (Aug. 29, 2009) wrote:
Hoover secretary launches new business

JOAN CARREON - Times Correspondent

CALUMET CITY | A new, privately run after-school program for children of all ages is scheduled to begin Monday at Hoover Elementary School.

The Hoover-Schrum Elementary District 157 School Board approved a contract last week with Vanessa Johnson, allowing her business -- Safe-Grounds Youth Recreation Center -- to use the Hoover School's multipurpose room for the program on student attendance days, beginning Monday through Dec. 17.

Board President Natalie Barnes abstained from voting because her Farmer's Insurance agency is providing Johnson with liability insurance coverage for the Center.

Johnson, who works as a secretary at Hoover, will be involved in the business after her regular work day ends at 3:30 p.m. She also will pay the regular rate charged to those who rent school space, Barnes said. The exact amount of that fee was not immediately available.

The Center will be open from 4 to 6 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays and is available to children between the ages of preschool through high school. The program will include instruction in dance, drill team, drama, drum corps, vocals and more.

As of Thursday, about 40 youngsters had signed up for the program. The cost to parents is $20 per month.

"Whatever skills and talents children have, we are going to help develop them," Johnson said.

She said the Safe-Grounds Youth Recreation Center will give youngsters "something to do" after the regular school day ends and will help build integrity, self-esteem and allow them to have fun.

A parent booster club has been formed, various field trips are planned, and the first musical production for the community will take place in December, she said. There also will be scholarship opportunities for college-bound high school students who enroll in the program and plan to major in the arts.

Some School Board members expressed concerns about student safety between the time school ends and the program's 4 p.m. start.

Johnson had talked about possibly having parent volunteers helping to transport students to the public library for homework help.

But Johnson now says there will not be a homework help and tutoring component just yet.

Born and raised in Chicago, Johnson moved to California in 1978 to attend high school and college. She has been teaching and training youngsters in dance, drill team, and drama since 1979.

She returned to Illinois in 2001 to take care of her ailing mother and in 2007 she moved to Calumet City and took the job as a Hoover School secretary.

Owning her own business has been a lifelong dream, she said, and she hopes to eventually open the Safe-Grounds Center in her own facility.

"God made this all possible. He gave me the vision and the dream when I was little," Johnson said.
...again, this School Board is almost as bad as the last. How does this benefit the taxpayer? This entire arrangement just plain smells...
Well, guess what?
The Times (March 10, 2010) wrote:
School secretary alleges discrimination

BY JOAN CARREON - Times Correspondent | Posted: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

CALUMET CITY | A Hoover Elementary School secretary who was fired last week by the District 157 School Board says she was discriminated against because of her age, race, disability, and for retaliatory reasons.

Vanessa Johnson spoke out during Tuesday's board meeting. She said she has filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and was told by the EEOC she has a right to file suit.

Board President Natalie Barnes said the board could not comment on Johnson's allegations or the reasons for her firing because it is a personnel matter and there is a threat of litigation. Superintendent Michele Morris also declined comment.

Board Attorney John Izzo would only say that Johnson’s comments include "mischaracterizations." He would not elaborate on the cause for Johnson’s firing but said the EEOC typically tells someone he or she has a right to sue "when they don’t want to take the case."

Johnson, 46, is black and has Myositis, an inflammation of the muscles which can make it difficult to lift heavy objects and climb stairs. She worked as the principal's secretary at Hoover from 2007 until her March 2 termination.

She also has a contract with the district allowing her to run "Safe Grounds," an after school program at Hoover School, until June. The program serves more than 40 children in kindergarten through junior high.

Less than a week prior to the firing, Johnson attended a Calumet City Council meeting where she publicly announced that she was creating two scholarships related to Safe Grounds. The scholarships, which she said would be established in the name of a police officer killed in the line of duty and a Calumet City child who died of a rare cancer, would be funded with the proceeds of talent shows put on by the children involved in the Safe Grounds program.

Johnson said she was notified on March 2 that she was being terminated for engaging in "intentional misconduct," "misuse of district resources" and "misuse of the district's good name."

Her firing was among the items approved by the board during a special meeting that day. She said she asked the board to postpone its decision until she could have her attorney present, but the board moved ahead.

Johnson alleges she was let go because she was "getting ready to tell the truth" about how the administration "purposely set out to discriminate against me."

The administrators at the district's two schools and central office, along with four of seven board members, are black.

Meanwhile, in interviews with The Times, Johnson said she never was "written up" and never received an evaluation during her employment with the district.

She admits to ordering more than $300 dollars in personal items for her home from LTD Commodities LLC, using the school address for shipping purposes, and said she will pay that bill. She said she has made other prior purchases from LTD Commodities LLC, that the bills came in her name, and she paid them. This time, she said she "overlooked the bill" and it was then sent to the district office for payment.

"They could have just given me the bill and told me to deal with the situation," Johnson said.

Documentation of a $14.95 movie being ordered from Streaming Flix LLC in her name, she said, was falsified because she never ordered such a movie, and alleges her personal information was forged.

A Google search for Streaming Flix LLC returned a dozen Web sites listing complaints and allegations about the company related to unauthorized charges.

Johnson maintains she was set up for dismissal by certain administrators and wants them removed from their jobs.

"I did not have no intentions, from the jump street, of even taking it this far," Johnson said. "I just wanted them to leave me alone and let me do my job."

She also said she will continue to tell her story and that the district has not heard the last from her.

"I'm not going to stop until I get results," Johnson said.
So, now where are the "usual" supporters of School District 157? I said it once, and I'll say it again, This Board is as bad as the previous one...

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: S.D. 157 - Leave It Alone
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:44 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:23 am
Posts: 1641
Geez, you guys...I hate to say I told you so, but...
The Times wrote:
District 157 approves layoffs

BY JOAN CARREON - Times Correspondent

CALUMET CITY | Hoover-Schrum Elementary District 157 is freezing salaries for administrators and nonunion personnel, laying off 16 teacher aides and three other support staff, and reducing its assistant principal positions to 10 months.

Following a closed-door discussion Tuesday, the School Board decided to not rehire five nontenured teachers for the 2010-11 school year.

The board also agreed to reduce the district's bilingual teaching job to part time and authorized a reduction in force for 19 support staff members and one nonteaching employee, all effective for the 2010-2011 school year.

The actions were the result of funding problems facing the Calumet City school system as well as others across the state and country, Superintendent Michele Morris said.

Although teacher aides and other support staff are being notified their services may not be needed after the school year ends, the district anticipates calling most of them back once the financial picture becomes more clear, Morris said.

The two assistant principals, one each at Hoover Elementary and Schrum Memorial schools, will work 10 rather than 12 months during the next school year, saving the district a total of about $18,700, Morris said. She also said administrators and nonunion personnel will be taking pay freezes for the coming year.

Hoover Elementary School Assistant Principal Dawn De Bois-Weber attended the board meeting but declined comment.

The district is not laying off any tenured teachers, Morris said.

The board also approved the firing of a non-teaching staff member and demoted another employee, placing the person on probation for 120 days. Morris declined to identify those two individuals and their positions.

The board approved the rehiring of 16 nontenured teachers and five more who are being granted tenure.

In other personnel matters, the board approved the hiring of Carolyn O'Brien as substitute lunchroom supervisor, effective immediately, at a salary of $10 an hour.

http://nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois ... ae8fe.html

_________________
My sole purpose in life is to be an example for others not to follow.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group