By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, June 15, 2007 at 11:29 AM
By a 2-1 vote, the new Transitional School Board hired law firm Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP to handle all of is legal matters for the next six months. Labels: Schools
At its morning meeting in a meeting room of the St. Louis Science Center, District CEO Rick Sullivan, who negotiated the contract with Stinson before today's inaugural meeting, said it was necessary for the Board, especially in light of the ongoing legal conflicts with the city's elected school board (which is represented by the district's longtime legal counsel Lashly & Bauer), to retain its own legal counsel immediately.
Board member Richard Gaines was the only vote against the $300 an hour no-bid contract. He said that while he appreciates and agrees that the Board does need to retain its own counsel, he took issue with the contract not being open to a public bid and that the particular firm selected by Sullivan "may have some conflicts of interest" because they represented the State Board of Education in their case with the elected board.
Melanie Adams seconded Sullivan's motion, which passed 2-1.
Both Sullivan and Gaines went out of their way to note that while they voted differently on this matter, both respected the other's position.
"This is democracy," said Sullivan. "Some votes may be 3-0, some may be 2-1."
33 Comments:
So THIS is democracy! Thank God he cleared that up...I thought democracy included the citizens right to vote! Silly me.
6/15/2007 11:49 AM
Oh please. The elected Board, with the exception of O'Brien, has been handling mixed votes just fine since April. And as a taxpayer, I am appalled that they want to spend $300 an hour on lawyers. You can't tell me there aren't cheaper ones. It's Roberti all over again. So much for caring what the community thinks.
6/15/2007 12:18 PM
I find it quite undemocratic that a exurban developer is in control of the St. Louis City Public Schools! Perhaps he will demolish William B' Ittner's Carr School for a wonderful vinyl and aluminum siding replacement!
6/15/2007 12:21 PM
Anonymous at 12:18
Haven't you heard? According to every "news" outlet in town, the rightfully elected board does nothing but bicker and fight. Pure chaos. Totally undemocratic!
Truth is becoming increasingly irrelevant folks. What is reported becomes the truth... Nothing new I guess, but very apparent lately (and still very dangerous).
(Is "Wickipediaism" a word?)
6/15/2007 12:56 PM
These days $300 an hour is the going rate for competent legal representation. In fact, many of the best lawyers have a rate of $350 an hour and discount. I really don't think it smart to pay less (like $200 an hour) for crappy legal representation. Although for the most part that would fall in line with the district's past practices.
6/15/2007 1:11 PM
What about the children. Leave Slay Blunt and crew alone. At least they are working together.
6/15/2007 1:13 PM
It doesn't matter what the "best" representation is. They should get what they can reasonably afford, just like anyone else hiring a lawyer. This isn't McBride and Sons anymore, this is taxpayer money. I wonder how many lawyers you just offended by suggesting that a rate less than $300/hour means you're crappy? Any of them out there who care to respond?
6/15/2007 1:16 PM
Everyone knows anything on this site will be anti change. this site is full of hating anti progress people. Do any of you have a plan? N
6/15/2007 1:28 PM
Yes, I have a plan:
1) Quit wasting time on programs just because the money is there. The programs are not effective (Reading First, etc.) if you have no reasonable way of implementing them (not enough staff).
2) Drastically increase the number of alternative class settings WITHIN EACH SCHOOL according to the needs of the students who attend them. (This varies widely from school to school)
Alternative schools are ok for the MOST severe, but only begin to scratch the surface. (They also require long travel times/distances and money) Some children will require 1 on 1 attention to succeed.
3) Require only the most healthy of foods in schools. The negative effects of the current diet is well documented. (What was the documentary that followed up on this a couple of years ago?)
4) Increase Special Ed. programs and eligibility and reduce the paperwork required to qualify. (Call it something else if you don't want to admit it is needed)
5) Hire counselors and/or social workers to call every student every day if they do not show up to school. They must also be free to visit homes (with Security when necessary).
6) Hire more security. EVERY school should have AT LEAST one safety officer. Many more for some schools.
There are more things that are required for us to succeed. Are you willing to pay for it...or just keep complaining?
6/15/2007 1:48 PM
Jim--we already pay over $12K per year per student. Isn't that enough?
Grateful--this is not a democracy. It is a republic. A very important difference.
6/15/2007 2:27 PM
Better to hire the firm representing the State Board of Ed as opposed to the one that has represented the ousted local Board of Ed.
6/15/2007 2:35 PM
Jim Heger, your 6 point plan is absolutely on target. All of these points I made in my book - A Recipe For Failure - as elements instituted by Roberti and his raiders which made it impossible for teaching/learning to be effective!
6/15/2007 3:10 PM
cweguy,
Obviously, $12K is not enough. We have had this discussion before and I hear a lot of what you say. Maybe it is being wasted (I know it is not being wasted in the classroom, though) or maybe it is not enough. Period.
I don't know where the money is going, I'm just telling you what I know is needed based on my experiences with my students. (7 years in SLPS) There are others with much more experience than I, but I bet many would agree with me.
Those who feel they are not getting their money's worth are working on it. We have the outsourcing, we have less staff, wages & benefits are being threatened now (on the road to eliminating the union), etc. But these things are the opposite of what is needed.
I offered in my first year to give up some of my pay for the guarantee of a low class size. I am going to modify that offer. I would give up 10% of my salary (I don't think I could live on less)in order to have a classroom free of chronically disruptive students.
This is THE major problem at my school that is preventing learning. I bet it is the major problem at many others.
The parents of the SLPS should be most upset about the fact that their children are not allowed to learn because a few students who require a different setting are not being placed in alternative settings. This is the major reason why your $12K is being wasted.
Someone asked for a plan...sorry the truth is inconvenient to your pocketbook.
6/15/2007 3:32 PM
Marilyn,
I'm sure you have enough for another book by now! Is there one coming?
6/15/2007 3:43 PM
Actually, Jim, I am thinking seriously about it and have been gathering information for a year. What I need to do is get more "inside information" - and find a publisher! The NY Times and Washington Post have contacted me recently, asking the fallout (nuclear, maybe?) of Roberti's reign here, so there must be some national interest in SLPS!
6/15/2007 4:16 PM
I live in Los Angeles, and my wife is a teacher in the L.A. Unified School District. My adult daughter graduated from Wash. U., joined Teach for America and taught at Roosevelt HS for 2 years as a TFA corpsmember and then for another year after her TFA commitment ended; after the St. Louis school district, in its wisdom, decided that she would almost certainly not return to Roosevelt if she stayed on as a teacher (despite being Teacher of the Year there, setting up and teaching its first AP English course, and doing a number of other pretty good things), she quit in disgust and moved back to California.
I am stunned by the stuff I read on this website. Silly me: I thought the L.A. Unified School District was dysfunctional! The St. Louis district is absolutely, positively, completely, amazing.
6/15/2007 4:55 PM
Jim Heger says obviously $12K is not enough, but he doesn't know if it is being wasted. The amount of money that a school district is going to get is dependent upon how much the community is willing to be taxed and upon the competing demands of other services, such as police, fire, and emergency health care. Don't expect the public to be eager to fork out significantly greater sums of money, especially when the money is wasted by having to respond to frivolous lawsuits threatened by the old board and Local 420. Lawsuits cost money and the money comes out of the school budget.
6/15/2007 5:15 PM
Stunned! Try knowing some of these angry people. No wonder St. Louis is not doing well.
6/15/2007 5:33 PM
Hi to Jim H. and Marilyn Ayres-Salamon! Marilyn, a suggestion of a title for your sequel to "A Recipe for Chaos" is to use the same title and add "Leaves St. Louis' City Schools in a Stew." Just a thought to have an outcome for a "recipe."
I cannot get over the fact that Mr. Sullivan emphasizes so much his respect and admiration for Dr. Bourisaw. When one thinks of what she has been through, how she has been maligned and slandered and demeaned and disrespected publicly by one person, it is so refreshing to see this intelligent business man give her her due and credit. When a man does that despite such an effort by another to dismiss one's expertise and abilities, not to speak of one's achievements under great duress and challenging circumstances, I have to recognize a man of conviction and character. I hope such a trait continues.
I have a hunch he will not tolerate disrespectful behavior in the superintendent's office or anywhere else. It's about time!
As I prepare to leave the city proper, I will continue to follow the events connected to the SLPS.
Jim, your plan needs to get to both boards and to the superintendent.
As everyone follows the saga of the Saint Louis Public Schools, please keep in one hand and open a book that explains a lot of what is going on today, i.e., "The Corporation, The Pathological Pursuit of Profit" by Joel Bakan.
6/15/2007 5:42 PM
Jim,
Have you considered teaching at a private school? The expenditure per pupil is typically identical, and the class sizes are smaller.
PLUS, in my experience, chronically disruptive students' behavior is not accepted. It is eliminated or the student is asked to leave. That's one of the most tangible benefits I have seen in the 10 years I have had my children in private schools.
6/15/2007 5:46 PM
Mr. Schaal is correct, of course, about balancing available funds. I am not overly anxious to shell out more money either...but I do know there are things we need to do that cost money...IF we continue to pretend that we are committed to "leaving no child left behind".
There is a sick irony here that I don't think most people realize. If we were to simply warehouse the special needs students and concentrate our resources on the others, it is very likely the SLPS could easily bring up enough test scores to the point of regaining accreditation.
I'm sorry I do not know how much the lawsuits are going to cost. Good point, though!
6/15/2007 5:53 PM
Could someone please delete Helen's posting. Every year she has a new person to feel sorry right. Mr. Purdy was right she is about as crazy as they come.
6/15/2007 6:03 PM
Bourisaw dropped Peter and Purdy the minute the lost the hearing. In the district we were told she worked for the board.
6/15/2007 6:07 PM
cweguy,don't you get it? Children are mandated to attend school, and when the private schools kick them out the public schools HAVE to take them and try to work with them. That's why the public schools can't be compared to the private ones who have the luxury of choosing their student population. Saying the private schools are somehow better because they kick out the difficult students is a ridiculous statement. Public schools can't do that.
Ernest, when the courts find the trans board law unconstitutional and show the three the door, you'll know who frivolously spent taxpayer money (to the tune of $300/hour).
6/15/2007 6:18 PM
I DO get it. What is wrong with tough discipline? What is wrong with expecting parents to participate in the education of their children?
I understand that this is cold, but, why can't we kick out disruptive kids? Ship them off to a disruptive "magnet" school. That way, the students that want to learn, have the opportunity. I don't accept the premise that we can't do something about problem kids.
Letting a tiny fraction of the population ruin it for everyone is a travesty. I have no sympathy for them.
6/15/2007 6:24 PM
cweguy,
I guess it would be a lie to say I never considered it but then, what kind of a martyr would I be if I did that?
Seriously though, I kinda committed myself to the ones without that option (until I open my big mouth to the wrong person and get myself fired).
Hang in there Helen, I don't think there is anything wrong with being optimistic!
6/15/2007 6:24 PM
Anonymous said:
"Ernest, when the courts find the trans board law unconstitutional and show the three the door, you'll know who frivolously spent taxpayer money (to the tune of $300/hour)."
Even if the old school board won (which I find unlikely) the costs of litigation could never be recovered and the only result would be that failed school system would be put back into the hands of the people who made it fail.
6/15/2007 6:43 PM
heger you are a union person you were fired. now what
6/15/2007 11:33 PM
Anonymous 6:03 p.m. sounds like a certain female board member. Don't you all agree? She claims to be a strong black woman, but she attacks strong white women: Bourisaw, Helen, etc. Wouldn't it be great to have a public debate with these three women or others?
Why would someone attribute such a lie to Purdy when he sends out Helen's writings all the time? Someone in the board office also said that same board member lied about Helen on several occasions just as Bourisaw was lied about.
So whose posting should be deleted?
6/16/2007 7:07 AM
Anon at 11:33...
No, (not fired yet anyway...they keep expecting me to show up and they still give me a check). I think you may be confused but hey, **it happens and it was late when you posted.
Also, I doubt the union wants to claim me anymore but I am a member.
But, don't despair, there is lots of time to spread disinformation. Good luck!
6/16/2007 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous 6:03 p.m. sounds like a certain female board member. Don't you all agree? She claims to be a strong black woman, but she attacks strong white women: Bourisaw, Helen, etc. Wouldn't it be great to have a public debate with these three women or others?
Why would someone attribute such a lie to Purdy when he sends out Helen's writings all the time? Someone in the board office also said that same board member lied about Helen on several occasions just as Bourisaw was lied about.
So whose posting should be deleted?
6/16/2007 7:07 AM
Not hard know who this strong black woman is. Donna Jones is very strong and we are very proud of her. She has been a mentor to Diana for months now.
Donna Jones is truly a role model for all of us.
6/16/2007 10:04 AM
JH is ENTIRELY on the money with his 6 points. I have 18 years in SLPS as a teacher and could not agree more.
1. It is the PROGRAM bandwagons and their promoters that waste money, not school staffs. Every program comes with new materials, training, planning, evaluation, etc. Every piece is a place for money to disappear. Programs should be tools for the teachers, not use teachers as tools of the program. Open Court is worthless and Reading First is a scam. Even the federal government knows this. It has been under investigation for over a year.
2. Alternative settings for chronically disruptive students would completely change the character of this school system. Even cweguy gets it that these students need to be elsewhere. He just doesn't seem to get it that it costs money to create that "elsewhere" for public school students. He is also mistaken that it is a tiny fraction. In-school suspension programs spit on a fire. Make them long-term assignments with measurable goals for student exit and they may do more toward what Jim suggests as an alternative classroom at each school.
3. I would like to see Aramark corporate stockholders have to spend the day with 25 7 year olds who have syrup sticks for breakfast washed down with strawberry milk, and then PBJ pita with chocolate milk for lunch. Make it a rainy winter day with indoor recess.
4. Staff is stretched WAY too thin to provide adequately for the needs of the many students who need additional services. This is made worse by the fact that the STATE has allowed the Reading First program to tell special education staff how to do their jobs instead of allowing these dedicated, educated specialists do what they recognize needs to be done.
5. Counselors and social workers are the wind beneath the wings of any teaching staff. They have been spread so thin none of us can fly. Every school needs at least a full time counselor and social worker on staff. In view of the concentrated social needs of the urban population, I don't think it should be entirely the school district's responsibility to fund this. Why shouldn't the state or city have some responsibility to fund these services?
5. Having schools with no security officer on site in this day and age is inexcusable. Every office building, supermarket and shopping mall has security. The presence of security personnel reinforces to the children that they are being held accountable to society's laws, not just "school rules". Their presence would be most valuable where people may think they are needed least--the elementary schools. Again, why shouldn't state or city government find ways to fund this?
PLEASE NOTE that what is needed most is more STAFF. Teachers, special education teachers, counselors, social workers, security staff. Staff is what the money needs to go to. Consider that in a classroom with 20 children, at $12,000 per child, the teacher's salary accounts for no more than 3 or 4 children.
Any increases or shifts in student expenditures need to be tied to salaries of additional staff, not wrapped up in "program changes" of which staff constitutes only a small part of the cost. Everything the children need requires more PEOPLE, not more programs, paperwork and plans.
6/18/2007 9:58 AM
Sorry, I have 2 number 5's. Correction (in case anyone needs to copy this).
JH is ENTIRELY on the money with his 6 points. I have 18 years in SLPS as a teacher and could not agree more.
1. It is the PROGRAM bandwagons and their promoters that waste money, not school staffs. Every program comes with new materials, training, planning, evaluation, etc. Every piece is a place for money to disappear. Programs should be tools for the teachers, not use teachers as tools of the program. Open Court is worthless and Reading First is a scam. Even the federal government knows this. It has been under investigation for over a year.
2. Alternative settings for chronically disruptive students would completely change the character of this school system. Even cweguy gets it that these students need to be elsewhere. He just doesn't seem to get it that it costs money to create that "elsewhere" for public school students. He is also mistaken that it is a tiny fraction. In-school suspension programs spit on a fire. Make them long-term assignments with measurable goals for student exit and they may do more toward what Jim suggests as an alternative classroom at each school.
3. I would like to see Aramark corporate stockholders have to spend the day with 25 7 year olds who have syrup sticks for breakfast washed down with strawberry milk, and then PBJ pita with chocolate milk for lunch. Make it a rainy winter day with indoor recess.
4. Staff is stretched WAY too thin to provide adequately for the needs of the many students who need additional services. This is made worse by the fact that the STATE has allowed the Reading First program to tell special education staff how to do their jobs instead of allowing these dedicated, educated specialists do what they recognize needs to be done.
5. Counselors and social workers are the wind beneath the wings of any teaching staff. They have been spread so thin none of us can fly. Every school needs at least a full time counselor and social worker on staff. In view of the concentrated social needs of the urban population, I don't think it should be entirely the school district's responsibility to fund this. Why shouldn't the state or city have some responsibility to fund these services?
6. Having schools with no security officer on site in this day and age is inexcusable. Every office building, supermarket and shopping mall has security. The presence of security personnel reinforces to the children that they are being held accountable to society's laws, not just "school rules". Their presence would be most valuable where people may think they are needed least--the elementary schools. Again, why shouldn't state or city government find ways to fund this?
PLEASE NOTE that what is needed most is more STAFF. Teachers, special education teachers, counselors, social workers, security staff. Staff is what the money needs to go to. Consider that in a classroom with 20 children, at $12,000 per child, the teacher's salary accounts for no more than 3 or 4 children.
Any increases or shifts in student expenditures need to be tied to salaries of additional staff, not wrapped up in "program changes" of which staff constitutes only a small part of the cost. Everything the children need requires more PEOPLE, not more programs, paperwork and plans.
6/18/2007 10:07 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home