Just posted on the News-Gazette website: "Judge terminates most of Champaign consent decree." The remaining parts of the Consent Decree that are still operable are those that the plaintiffs had filed a motion requesting an extension for a few months ago. The specific areas, according to the article, are "special education, alternative education, and the addition of elementary seats in north Champaign." The next hearing is currently set for August 3, but Judge McDade may schedule conferences in order to reach a settlement prior to that hearing date. Personally, I don't see how the complaint about adding elementary seats in north Champaign would be extended, given how the recent tax increase measures failed during the last few elections. The district seems to have done everything in its power to increase seats, but the voters would not approve a tx increase to fund those new seats; I don't see how the district could reasonably be faulted for that.
As an aside, I found the article is somewhat confusing to read; it may be a "breaking news" type entry, and will be refined later however.
As IP says, discuss...
HG
Yea!
And the lines that make my blood boil:
"They are asking for $221,000 for work from September 2006 to February 2009, and for $340,900 for work between March and May 26, 2009."
My goodness that's outrageous!
My goodness that's outrageous!
I can't imagine how anyone could be surprised at this. Everyone knows Unit 4 will now be flush with cash after gouging taxpayers with a 1% sales tax.
Why weren't they asking for payment of these fees before March 2009? It has been ordered for many years in consent decree that school district pays plaintiff's attorney fees, etc.
My goodness that's outrageous!
I can't imagine how anyone could be surprised at this. Everyone knows Unit 4 will now be flush with cash after gouging taxpayers with a 1% sales tax.
A Point of Order
The revenue from the County wide Sales Tax may only be used by School Districts in Champaign County for Facility Construction or reconstruction, or for paying existing bonds issued for facility construction – and thus giving some property tax relief.
The revenue may NOT be used for operating expenses – such as teacher salaries and lawyer fees. So please don’t make such statements
Greg Novak
Ah, yes, Greg, this is accurate; nonetheless, this new money will liberate how present Unit 4 monies may be spent. All this will mean is shifting of project from one budget to another.Along with the stimulus money that will be coming to the state and certainly our representative will do her work to make certain that a portion of the amount pointed for educational purposes will be coming to Unit 4 and 116. This potentially is a considerable amount. I posted previously the facts and figures given in person by Durbin's staff assistant.
Pattsi Petrie
At least this Federal Judge McDade knows how to make a decision in a somewhat timely manner. Maybe he can give pointers to our own Judge Leonhard who has been working on the MTD case for over three years without settling anything. Another case were the taxpayers are funding both sides of the case in the tax supported judicial system. No eligibility here for a "Your tax dollars at work" sign.
I wonder what the justification is for less money for a longer period of time, and more money spent by the plaintiffs this year? Could it be that they see their cash cow coming to an end? I'm assuming that someone on the part of Unit 4 will go through those bills with some rigor.
Good to see Mr. Novak having to take time out of his schedule to shoot down another rumor started by someone with nothing to lose by telling tales.
Lawyers for the school district will not seriously agrue about attorney's fees.
Because to do so will point out how much they charge the school district.
A school district lawyer does not advise his client that the opposing lawyer is charging too much. Not out of deference to the opposing lawyer or some sense of comity, but rather because the school distrcit lawyers are probably charging just as much.