By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, July 19 at 11:53 AM
KTVI Channel 2 is reporting that a lawsuit is being filed by citizens on behalf of former Superintendent Creg Williams and former Vashon basketball coach Floyd Irons, who were both were fired last week. The lawsuit reportedly seeks to remove board member Bill Purdy.
A rally is being planned for tonight by opponents of the school board majority. It will be at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall.
UPDATE: Channel 5 reporter Sharon Stevens gives a little more details about the lawsuit. She reports Purdy is being sued by fellow board members Flint Fowler and Ron Jackson and 47 other citizens, including Floyd Irons. The lawsuit claims Purdy is serving on the board illegally and should be removed.
KSDK reports the issue being whether a person can run for the school board if he or she has relatives who work in the district. Two of Purdy's daughters and a grandson are teachers in the district. A recent change in Missouri state statutes allows school board candidates to serve, even if there is family working in the system.
But according to Stevens, the school board bylaws still say that is illegal. Those bylaws have not been amended to reflect the state law and that is what the lawsuit is based on.
14 Comments:
Neither were "fired." Williams resigned and Iron's position was eliminated but he is still employed by the district as a teacher.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:21:05 PM
Look, Thats how the district works, they "fire" you but still leave the door open for you to teach :) being nice, many people get done like that, but I bet Irons will feel the pay cut!!! and williams resigned because they told him to resign or be fired, its a way of letting a person leave without having to say they've been fired on their resume and at the same time the person being fired cant draw unemployment so the district saves alittle money on the back end, they usually pay the person out there contract, this is a lower sum than they would have had to pay the unemployment office if they had fired the person so its a win win deal when this happens, the fired person gets to leave with money and not having to say they have every been fired and the company can say they saves a few thousand dollars by the person electing to resign rather than being fired because they dont have to pay the unemployment office.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:31:07 PM
Purdy has been serving on the board illegally since 1991. But it would seem that it wasn't deep, dark secret. His bio on the board website proudly proclaims that he has kids who are teachers in the school system. When the other side had control, nobody cared. Now that they don't have control, he is a reprehensible, scofflaw who should be thrown out on his ear.
Ain't school politics fun.
"All of my children and three grandchildren attended the St. Louis Public Schools and two of my adult daughters are in the midst of long careers as teachers in the city schools." (From the bio on the SLPS website.)
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:38:50 PM
I'm not a lawyer (but I have played one on TV) so this is only my opinion, but the Bylaws state:
Qualifications for Board Membership
As per state law, members of the board shall be at least twenty-four years of age, citizens and residents of the city, and shall have been residents for at least three years immediately preceding their election.
They may not hold any office, except that of notary public, in the city or state, nor be interested in any contract with or claim against the board, either directly or indirectly.
An employee of the St. Louis Public Schools or a person related to an employee within the second degree of affinity or consanguinity may not run for the Board of Education.
It will be the responsibility of each new board member to attend orientation as required by state law.
References
Legal: Sections 162.581, 162.601, 162.203 RSMo.
Since the opening words are "As per state law...." I think it's a pretty good shot that this thing will get thrown out of court on the first try because the state law now says it's OK for this to happen.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:55:12 PM
Is it true that Williams will be paid the remainder of his salary (250+grand a year) as part of his "buyout" forced resignation??? Please, say it ain't so!
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:38:49 PM
KSDK reported that Williams has been paid $229,000 + $7,500 for 2 vacation days.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:42:14 PM
I wish I made $7,500 for 2 vacation days...
Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:44:33 PM
What a crook. Who is worth that kind of money? Good riddance to him!
Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:22:38 PM
Since the Board of Education's regulation begins with "Per State Law, it is an indication the former board has not kept up with updating Board regulations and policies.
Previous boards were faithful in this regard. If you ask me, the onus is on the Board of Education for not revising its policies or regulations in keeping with State statutes.
Thursday, July 20, 2006 5:03:37 PM
Why didn't anybody care before? Yhis has happened more than once ie: Sheehan-board member and Sheehan maintenance department.
I guess Flint and Ron are kind of suing themselves considering that they never did anything to bring the obsolete board guidelines up to the current state standards.
One could go as far as saying they were remiss in their duties
Friday, July 21, 2006 8:27:11 AM
Does Flint Fowler have a relative that works for the district?
Friday, July 21, 2006 3:52:44 PM
Relatives in the district? How about Willaims, starting with Toni Hill who reported for work two days a week but was paid for 40 hours. Nepotism at its zenith.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:52:00 AM
What relation is Tony Hill to Creg Williams?
Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:26:22 AM
reparation said...
Relatives in the district? How about Willaims, starting with Toni Hill who reported for work two days a week but was paid for 40 hours. Nepotism at its zenith.
very interesting---documentation?
link?
Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:32:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home