If policy differences are grounds for termination, let voters know

[ad_1]

John Donald O’Shea is a retired circuit court judge and a regular columnist.

On April 22, 2023, the Dispatch-Argus ran Olivia Allens article, A mutual separation for board, Lawrence, on the papers front page. Perhaps, since I do not live within the Rock Island-Milan School District, I did not read the article.

I didn’t think much of the article until a friend of mine asked on the golf course, Why did the school board get rid of the superintendent? And why did they agree to pay him $350,000?

After admitting, that I didn’t know, and that I hadn’t read the article, I went back and read it.

In reading the article, I learned that Dr. Lawrence is the board’s superintendent, pursuant to a contract with the school board. Lawrence has served four years under his contract, and his contract is not up for renewal until 2025.

I also learned that the performance of Dr. Lawrence as Superintendent was recently evaluated, and the Board discussed that with him in a closed Board meeting on March 21st. (A closed hearing for that purpose would be appropriate).

People are also reading…

I even learned that Dr. Lawrence was not fired. Instead, his contract was terminated pursuant to the mutual agreement of Dr. Lawrence and the school board, with the board paying him $350,000 for Lawrence’s consent to the early termination. (I don’t see a problem with that, either).

In the words of Board President Terrell Williams, The circumstances leading to the termination of the contract are a personnel matter, which the Board will not comment on. . (The goal is) always to do it well.

But that was followed by a somewhat inexplicable comment by outgoing Board member, Tiffany Stoner-Harris: (She) could see Lawrence being a great superintendent somewhere.

So, why are you removing a superintendent who could be a good superintendent somewhere?

And why are you paying him $350,000 to go somewhere else, fast?

Personally, I have no interest if Dr. remains superintendent. Lawrence or not. I have never met the man, or followed his handling of board affairs.

But voters in the Rock Island-Milan School District do.

As an old Moline Corporation Council, before I wrote this, I spent four or five hours reviewing the Illinois Open Meetings Law, where the underlying policy is clearly stated:

policy It is public policy of this state that public bodies exist to assist in the conduct of the business of the people, and that the people have a right to be informed in the conduct of their business.

In order that the people may be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that the purpose of this Act is to ensure that the actions of public bodies shall be conducted publicly and their deliberations shall be conducted publicly.

The General Assembly further declares it to be the public policy of this state that the citizens thereof shall be given advance notice and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way.

Exceptions to the right of public attendance exist only in limited circumstances where the General Assembly specifically determines that the public interest would be clearly endangered or that the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals are clearly at risk of aggression.

To implement this policy, the General Assembly declared:

(1) the purpose of this law is to protect the right of citizens to know; and

(2) the provision for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings.

The Board here appears to have properly closed the meeting under what is commonly called a staff exception:

(a) Openness required. All meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public unless otherwise provided in subsection (c).

(b) Formulation of exceptions. The exceptions contained in subsection (c) negate the requirement that public bodies meet in the open, and therefore, the exceptions must be strictly construed, extending only to subjects within their purview. Exceptions allow but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included in an enumerated exception.

(c) Exceptions: A public body may hold closed meetings to consider the following subjects: The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or removal of specific employees.

Here, it appears that the meeting was properly closed to discuss the employment, compensation, performance, and dismissal of a particular superintendent employee.

No one, however, involved seems to be making any claim that Dr.’s performance. Lawrence lacked any substantial means to justify his termination with cause. Rather, as the board president indicated, it was a mutually agreed upon termination. In fact, Ms. Stoner-Harris that she could see Lawrence as a good superintendent somewhere.

The statement of Ms. Stoner-Harris gives credence to Dr.’s comment. Taylors that the termination occurred because Dr. Lawrence saw eye to eye with most of the Board members.

I think my friend, and the voters of the school district have a right to know where the board and Dr. Lawrence. That is a matter of policy, and not within any exception to the Open Meetings Act. Voters have a right to know where board members stand on policies that affect district students.

If issues of policy are indeed involved, it is hard to see how, if a straight joint statement is made setting out the differences between the Board Majority and Dr. Lawrence, the public interest is clearly threatened or the personal privacy or guaranteed conflicts of individuals are clearly at risk of invasion.

John Donald OShea, of Moline, is a retired circuit judge and a regular columnist.

Stay tuned for the latest in Opinion

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent straight to your inbox every week!

[ad_2]