By Gabe Bullard
Filed Saturday, August 04, 2007 at 4:08 PM
On Friday, a judge ruled that the elected school board could not settle legal cases on its own. The judge also ruled that the elected board cannot keep its attorneys, Lashly and Baer, from sharing information with the new appointed school board. Labels: Schools
This afternoon (Friday, August 3), Judge Callahan applied the brakes to the appointed board.
Rick Sullivan, president and chief executive officer of the appointed board had sought to remove the attorneys of the elected St. Louis Board of Education, Lashly & Baer, from all open cases involving the St. Louis Board of Education, which would also have severed the elected board from any involvement in defending those cases, and he had ordered Lashly & Baer to turnover all the confidential legal files on those cases.
The elected board responded to Sullivan that he was exceeding his authority. We pointed out that we had an obligation to the employees and former employees we were defending in those cases, and to ourselves. We said we would consider releasing case files if the appointed board committed to defending and indemnifying the defendants in those cases.
Sullivan's response was to go to Judge Callahan to get an order giving him what he wanted. He did not get it.
Judge Callahan ordered only that the Board of Education not settle any case without also getting the approval of the appointed board, and, consistent with that, he ordered that the Board of Education could not prevent Lashly & Baer from communicating about those cases with the appointed board.
In other words, Judge Callahan rejected Sullivan's claim to be the sole authority in all matters pertaining to St. Louis Public Schools. Callahan left the elected Board of Education in charge of defending the lawsuits against the St. Louis Board of Education, and left Lashly & Baer as the attorney representing the Board. He did give the appointed board veto power over any agreements the elected Board makes to settle any of the cases. In short, he seems to be saying that both boards have a role and they need to work together.
Meanwhile, the elected Board of Education is continuing to work on the long-term improvement of schools. Donna Jones held the first meeting of the School Climate Committee.
The School Climate Committee is concerned with the relationships between facilities and students, teachers, and administrators and how they affect learning. Put another way, the committee's charge is to see if we have created a climate in each school that gives students the opportunity and encouragement to learn.
The committee is concerned with both the physical environment of the building, grounds, and equipment, and the emotional relationships between students, teachers, and administrators. The totality of those constitutes the school climate.
We want to know if buildings are maintained, if they are inviting or depressing, and if they have the proper facilities to teach what is supposed to be taught.
We want to know if the schools have the right equipment and supplies.
We want to know if students can concentrate on learning or if they feel too anxious or fearful to concentrate because of bullying or weapons in the school.
We want to know if teachers respect students and encourage the effort of learning, or whether they dismiss them as unteachable and set low expectations.
We want to know if building administrators do the same thing, and if they encourage teachers to experiment with and supplement the approved curriculum and teaching materials to find ways to enliven teaching and spark the interests of their students.
We want to know of building administrators work respectfully and cooperatively with teachers, or whether they disrespect and bully them.
The charge of the committee is to find out some of our shortcomings and recommend way of assessing school climate (there actually are a bunch of tools for that on the market that they can evaluate) that highlights the weaknesses for each school in a way that will help staff devise strategies for improvement. The assessment could be repeated every couple of years to find out if the school climate is improving.
Anyone wanting to volunteer on the School Climate Committee should contact Donna Jones via the Board office at 345-2304.
Sincerely,
Peter Downs
President
St. Louis Board of Education
34 Comments:
What is Rick Sullivan doing? He clearly should have taken care of business like this before June 15,2007. He is not making a difference in the district.
8/04/2007 10:49 PM
I don't know who is running Lashly Baer, but it seems to me that it would be smart for them to work with SAB in whatever way they can.
The entity paying the bills, typically called the client, is SAB, not the elected board.
8/05/2007 8:21 AM
The client, as far as Lashly & Baer are concerned, is the elected school board. The SAB hired a different firm to represent them. Community funds are paying for the elected board's lawsuit against the state. Attorneys can't suddenly start to cooperate with the opposing side just because they think they have more money.
8/05/2007 12:00 PM
Brilliant. Leave it to Peter Downs to take a defeat and claim that he has actually won. Well done, Peter. Our children need these types of Machiavellian attributes in their leaders.
How many more taxpayer dollars and resources need to be spent before the rejected board acknowledges their standing and decides to cooperate with the duly appointed school board? Will my tax bucks have to be spent every step of the way, inch by inch, dollar by dollar, until Peter Downs and company are finally stripped bare by a judge in a court? What a terrible waste. Peter, grow up. You are doing our District and our children a grave misservice.
8/05/2007 3:29 PM
elf...The elected board is using private donations now to fund legal actions.
8/05/2007 4:29 PM
I guess there are two ways to look at what elf seems to be griping about.
1. The elected board should not be bringing legal action which causes the sab to have to spend taxpayer money defending their authority in the district.
2. It is above and beyond the call of duty on the part of the elected board to take the trouble, without taxpayer funds, to defend the constitutional rights of the voters who voted for them, against them, or----in the case of the vast majority---did not vote at all.
kjoe
8/05/2007 6:13 PM
I don't know how many more tax dollars will be spent, Elf. That's up to Mr. Sullivan.
If you read the actual court documents showing what they wanted from us, and then the narrowly crafted order the judge actually granted, you'll see why this is a win for the BOE. The SAB wanted an order that we have absolutely no authority. The judge refused, because we do. We told the SAB (in an effort to cooperate) that if they wanted to intervene as the party being sued in these cases, now that they are running the district, that would be a different situation. They didn't want the responsibility, just to break our attorney client privilege. The judge refused to allow that. So we won. And that is the truth, whether bloggers hiding behind anonymity like to acknowledge it or not.
8/05/2007 6:48 PM
elf44 ....agree why is it Downs and Purdy act like they are winning. Sullivan should have done this day one. Sullivan is the one spending the money.
8/05/2007 7:07 PM
elf
I missed your point the first time I read it (thanks kjoe). Yeah you're right the SAB is now spending district money to try and establish complete control. Who do they answer to about that?
They weren't elected so they don't have to answer to the voters (the voters have been made irrelevant anyway).
I certainly don't think the mayor and governor (who appointed the new apparent majority) will want them to cut off district legal funding because that would undermine their entire effort to get rid of the elected board.
The very people who complained about a district that they viewed as being poorly managed (financially in this case) are now forcing the district to spend more money on legal fees. I understand you place that blame on the elected board (Downs) but isn't it funny (not ha, ha funny) how the tables turn sometimes?
Just seems ironic.
8/06/2007 1:14 AM
Ms. Wessling,
Who signs checks made out to Lashly Baer? Under whose direction does that person(s) act? I realize the elected board, or a non-profit, has engaged LB on a particular matter, but there are other matters before the district and LB.
By your saying, The client, as far as Lashly & Baer are concerned, is the elected school board., am I to assume that the elected board pays ALL of the bills to LB?
I appreciate the SAB stance that says, 'Look, LB, which side are you on? If you want to take direction from someone other than us in matters that regard SLPS, good luck collecting your bills on matters concerning SLPS.'
It is a matter of conflict of interest. LB is trying take power away from the SAB while still trying to collect fees from the district, which is under the SAB control.
If I were on the SAB, which I am not, I would not think that LB would be the best choice for legal services.
8/06/2007 8:46 AM
It is time for Lashly to go. The eleceted board does not have strong leadership. O'Brien needs to teach Peter how to lead without fear.
8/06/2007 1:17 PM
Without fear or sanity.
8/06/2007 2:59 PM
Sounds like an unemployed school board follower posted the last comment.
8/06/2007 4:01 PM
Are you sure O'Brien is crazy? Sounds like who ever wrote this letter is in need of some emotional help. It is not O'Brien that keeps thinking she has control. It is the 6 other members that keep meeting as if they run the district.
8/06/2007 5:22 PM
We all know who post the crazy comments.
8/06/2007 9:13 PM
Papillion,
Of course the SAB could not hire Lashly, there is quite an obvious conflict of interest there. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. The SAB is not paying L&B out of district funds past June 15. L&B is still representing the elected board in all our interests. If and when they are no longer satisfied with the arrangements we have with them, they certainly may seek to withdraw as our legal counsel at that time. That is not an issue at the moment.
I repeat, the SAB did not want to be named a party in these lawsuits in place of the BOE. As long as the BOE is named as the party in the lawsuit, we must participate, and we are represented by Lashly & Baer.
And to anony 8/6 5:22. The BOE has acknowledged we are not currently running the district. We do, however, continue to, at the very least, have monitoring and auditing powers under the law--the SAB attorneys have even conceded the statute says that quite clearly. We meet to comply with that requirement,and will continue to do so.
8/06/2007 10:18 PM
Any compliments of Veronica O'Brien on this blog are made by same. She only deludes herself. That's just one reason why the presidency was taken away from her.
8/06/2007 10:44 PM
One thing for sure is we all know who hates O'Brien. They ones that are stuck on her. The standard Slay haters. Stop name calling the lady she seems to not be affected by the negative comments. It is almost like you all have a love affair with her.
The lady is solid and very brillant.
8/07/2007 12:00 AM
Can we get a new letter from someone. This one sucks. Peter is a fool
8/07/2007 12:02 AM
O'Brien is a non-entity. She has chosen to not participate in the board's activities so lets leave here where she belongs. OUT OF IT!
8/07/2007 8:04 AM
She may not be participating in the elected school board troubles but I suspect she is participating somewhere behind closed doors.
8/07/2007 9:09 AM
I agree, the elected board needs her right now. Word is she is not impressed with Sullivan. Her word goes a long way whether you like her or not. She is kid of a St. Louis Hillary. Except she has said to many she has no interest in holding another elected office.
O'Brien has always been very effective.
8/07/2007 8:28 PM
The previous post is ridiculous. "Never approach a bull from the front,a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction." by "Danny Saradon" This applies to Veronica O'Brien.
She supposedly aspired to become mayor of St. Louis! Now that you have had your biggest laugh for the day, go on with the rest of your life.
8/07/2007 9:41 PM
About 50% of the postings here are by that nutty Veronica O'Brien!She obviously suffers from delusions of grandeur!
8/07/2007 10:48 PM
Sounds like a lot of schoom board member postings or Susan Turk writing the hard hate postings.
Does anyone know about Donna Jones or Peter Downs background. They never have given this information.
8/08/2007 9:13 AM
One of the reasons the elected board has not been successful is due to their hate and hate following. It is clear this blog is mainly school board. It talks of hating O'Brien, Williams and Slay. This is what you get in the metings hate. A district full of hate should be taken over and as a teacher I can see why O'Brien and slay wanted someone to step in and stop all the hate.
Be careful what you say as it comes back to you.
8/08/2007 9:36 AM
If the previous poster is really a teacher, heaven help the children--can't even write correctly!
8/08/2007 5:18 PM
Have you heard some of the teachers speak?
8/08/2007 11:25 PM
That illiterate poster is obviously one of many of Veronica O'Briens numerous postings on this page glorifying herself!
8/09/2007 11:06 AM
You all are so funny about Veronica O'Brien. Why would she think this website would speak in a positive way towards her? This website is run by Bill Purdy. I think it is more like it is he that is writing negative postings.
The lady runs TV comercials, advertising in the Post and has a billboard and she would come her to get attention. No wonder you all were taken over you can't think clearly.
8/09/2007 2:49 PM
Good for you for the last posting. sounds like they are jealous of O'Brien.
don't know why they keep picking on her.
8/09/2007 2:52 PM
Previous two postings sound like Veronica, and who could be jealous of such a creature???? What a delusional woman.
Veronica, Bill Purdy and his wife have been out of the country for several weeks now. Besides, he's too much of a gentlemen to even pay attention to your diatribes.
8/09/2007 9:59 PM
It is funny how she has captured the attention of some.
8/09/2007 10:23 PM
On September 25th in Cole County the legal showdown really begins.
And after that decision the losing side will most likely appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. Meanwhile Rick Sullivan has not been approved by the Senate - his recess appointment could well run out and who will be the next CEO?
Maybe that crazy Democracy idea has some merit.
8/10/2007 5:23 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home