By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, August 02, 2007 at 7:16 PM
READ IT HERE FIRST Labels: Breaking_News, Schools
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan will see some familiar faces in court again tomorrow. The St. Louis Board of Education and the Special Administrative Board (SAB) of St. Louis Public Schools will be heading back to Callahan's court as the SAB seeks to pry some of the last remaining power from elected board's hand.
According to a district source, the SAB is asking the court to order the elected board to turn over all files relating to legal cases in which the BOE is currently involved — all those, that is, except legal docs relating to the ongoing case against the SAB, of course.
11 Comments:
I am so glad to hear news not about the Bridge in Minnesota.
If he rules quickly in favor of the sab, I would add that to the the setback the elected board received on June 15th, to his stalling until September to hear the case, and conclude that there is just no way he is going to rule in favor of the elected board.
If he denies what the sab is asking---I would think---stay tuned.
kjoe
8/02/2007 7:55 PM
I would rather hear about our own bridges. How safe are ours? Antonio, are you able to get any reports about the briges in St. Louis to Illinois?
8/03/2007 7:15 AM
Anon. 8/3/07 7:15 am Pick up a
copy of the St. Louis Post Dispatch
today 8/3/07. All you want to know
about our bridges is front page news.
8/03/2007 8:53 AM
If there was any mention of this legal battle between the two boards in the pd---or anywhere else---I missed it.
kjoe
8/03/2007 1:29 PM
The St. Louis Public School elected board has lost another one. There should be no question as to how the case will turn out in September
8/03/2007 10:56 PM
The judge today ruled in favor of the elected board. They do not have to turn over their files. Nice try, above anony, but wishing doesn't make it so. This story is far from over.
8/03/2007 11:47 PM
To Anon at 11:47, you are not correct. The Post,on A15, states that the SLPS board cannont settle lawsuits on its own and the board cannont prevent its attorneys from passing information onto the SAB. This means the elected board has lost the power to sue without informing the SAB.
Another stake in the SLPS board.
8/04/2007 6:36 AM
Above, you are incorrect. The SAB was insisting we turn over our legal files to them and allow them to break our attorney-client privilege. We do not have to do this. The SAB and elected board must agree on any settlement with pending litigation between now and the Sept. 25 court date. If you look at what the SAB asked the judge to do, and then look at the order that he issued, you will see that they did not get nearly what they wanted. We told them if they wished to enter into the suits as the named party, replacing us, that would be a whole different situation. They did not want to do that, they just wanted to violate our attorney client privilege.
This has nothing to do with our power to sue. That's irrelevant, though, since we don't go around suing people. The Board is usually the defendant in cases stemming from personnel issues, injuries incurred on school property, etc. We certainly do have the power to sue if we wish to--we are suing in the funding case and of course, suing the state in the SAB situation.
The judge also, quite clearly, told the SAB that the BOE is still an entity in this district with duties we must carry out, and commented on the vagueness of the law that started this whole mess. It seemed clear to those there that he has had time to start getting the to the heart of the matter, and is beginning to see the problems this statute is causing.
The Post is always going to print things to look the best they can for the SAB. Doesn't mean it's true.
8/04/2007 11:26 AM
Katherine, that was the exact feeling I was getting as i read the article---the reporter was straining to put the sab in the best possible light. Apparently Mr. Sullivan is neither an educator---or an attorney.
I might as well ask the two questions that have been on my mind.
Last August, there was a very big whoop made by the Post Dispatch and KMOX and others about the stats on the first day of attendance---it was in the low 70's. I do not know if the overall stats for the 2006-2007 year are available---and I do not know whether they improved or not. It strikes me as revealing that the media can make a front-page story out of one day's attendance---and fail to follow up on the real story----after 175 school days---was there progress?
The other thing which concerns me---I would think Diana Bourisaw is walking a tightrope between the board which hired her and backed her up on most matters, and the board which was put into place by people like Kent King, Slay, and Blunt, who have wildly different views concerning such things as charter schools---especially the yahoos from TexasCan. Still, she had a short time contract with the elected board, and the sab has the leverage of being in a position to dump her or give her a more secure contract. I cannot really ask you to comment on this, but I wonder if you know anything about the overall attendance figures.
kjoe
8/04/2007 12:31 PM
I don't know the final attendance numbers, Kjoe, sorry. They obviously will vary from school to school, so an average may not be the best picture anyway. I know my children's school, for example, regularly had attendance over 90%, often over 95%,even. I'm sure there are other schools that had trouble reaching that percentage. That's a good question, though, and would be a good thing to bring up at the public comment portion of a board meeting (of either board).
I certainly hope the SAB keeps Dr. Bourisaw, she is an asset we cannot afford to lose. The elected board understands the position she is in and most of us don't want to make this any more difficult for her than it has to be. The fact that right now she has to work with Sullivan is not a strike against her in my book.
8/04/2007 12:53 PM
Once again a bravo to Katie for her straightforwardness and integrity in responding to questions
8/05/2007 6:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home