Those showing up for the expected 'emergency meeting' of the Plainfield Board of Ed yesterday found a surprising handout awaiting them: a resolution (the subject of the meeting) to suspend Superintendent of Schools Steve Gallon and assistant superintendent Angela Kemp, remove Kemp from the payroll, appoint an acting superintendent, and appoint a new board attorney (see below).
BOE-Reso-GallonSuspension-100507
It was an evening of surprises.
The FIRST was the handout, which would have been proper if the Board had met and taken the action described.
Which leads to the SECOND surprise, that Board President Lisa Logan-Leach was the only one to show up for the executive session set to discuss the suspension before the 'Emergency Meeting'.
Logan-Leach holds that the state and the county superintendent were pressing for the personnel actions.
I was told that members were informed by counsel the meeting might not be legal and they might be subject to individual lawsuits if they participated (see Mark Spivey's report in today's Courier here for more on that).
While I had written earlier concerning rumors that Sen. Ray Lesniak's firm, Weiner Lesniak, was about to appointed BOE attorneys (see here), Maria Pellum takes up her recollections from last week's BOE meeting in her post today (see here).
Reading Maria's post, it appears that the move to appoint a new law firm -- Weiner Lesniak? -- was not discussed in executive session and is meeting some resistance, beginning with Wilma Campbell.
What surprised me most (surprise THREE) was the inclusion of the designation of a new attorney in the supposed 'Emergency Meeting' agenda.
Why would the appointment of a new attorney be an emergency item?
And who drew up the resolution in the first place? Would the current attorney put forward a resolution a) suggesting grounds for their own dismissal, and b) calling for appointment of a new attorney? I don't think so.
The resolution accuses the current law firm.
The resolution calls for the appointment of a new law firm.
I begin to suspect the resolution was framed by the [unnamed] attorneys-in-waiting, with the hope it could be slipped by in the 'Emergency Meeting'.
It doesn't seem likely to me that the County Superintendent or Commissioner Schundler would be interested in pointing a finger at the current law firm as this resolution does; their concerns are with Gallon, his personnel decisions and the criminal charges he faces.
But does the appointment of the Board's attorney qualify as an emergency item?
I don't think so, and I strongly suspect it was no part of any advice received by Logan-Leach from the County Superintendent or Commissioner Schundler's office.
So, where does the push to change attorneys come from?
And why try to deal with it in this 'emergency' resolution rather than in the normal course of affairs, such as a regular board meeting?
Maybe one of the lawsuits the current board attorneys warned BOE members they could face would be from the attorneys themselves for this attempt to displace them.
It looks like the new round of shenanigans has already begun.
- Plainfield Today: "Board reorganizes; is pound of flesh next?"
- Maria's Blog: "Why was the BOE, or whoever, trying to get a new BOE attorney?"
- Courier: "Move to suspend Gallon fails, state warns 'intervention'"
-- Dan Damon [follow]
Posts
9 comments:
Dan,
I'm sorry, but didn't you report on how Hamlin responded that he was in possession of a court order stating that no action could be taken against Ms. Kemp? I know he said it, because he was responding to me. When asked for the "court order" he refused to turn it over. Either he had the original order, which was amended as he was well aware, or he had nothing. Now, last I checked, he represents the Board...and if he is advising to continue to pay Kemp and she has been court-ordered to forfeit her post, isn't that reason to remove him immediately?
I'm sorry, but Hamlin has been very obvious that he doesn't represent the board, he seems to be Gallon's personal attorney.
I don't see anything wrong with removing him, and I don't believe it was political at all.
What I also don't understand is why don't you talk about the fact that the Grand Slam team failed to show up at all...even if they disagreed with the motion. Their Board president called a meeting. If you don't agree, you vote no or abstain. When they didn't show they were sending a message, plain and simple.
I think that move was very telling.
Laura
Laura -- Thanks. Two things --
1) I was asking why any attorney would prepare a resolution implicating themselves in questionable stuff; I think it indicates the resolution never passed by Hamlin's eyes, and
2) I am not apologizing for Hamlin's performance (I've wondered what on earth kind of advice the Board was getting on these matters), but I am very much concerned about the potential appointment of Weiner Lesniak, which should be a red flag to all. If anyone questions the amount spent on Hamlin et al, they will get a nosebleed when they see the bills WL can rack up.
Laura, if it IS Weiner Lesniak, I don't see how you could possible argue it is NOT politically motivated. This is Union County.
C'mon.
I personally don't care if Lesniak's firm is politically connected as long as the BOE gets the kind of good representation it hasn't had with its current firm.
I'm sorry Laura -- The Grand SLAM Team did not FAIL to show up. They were advised by legal council that doing so would be a violation of the law. You know the law the thing YOU are always asking US to follow.
You are so phony! You smile in their faces but use this opportunity to judge them with fane concern instead of asking them directly.
So you have FAILED to check your facts!
Did you see the letter by the Commissioner or the County SI mandating this "emergency" meeting?
Why didn't this letter go to ALL Board MEMBERS which is the process?
Does it NOT seem strange that such an IMPORTANT meeting would be relegated to a dial-in from the County SUP, and further that none of the designated chairs for the guests outside of the BOE showed up.
So your position is that they should support the President regardless of what is right?
Wouldn’t that be exactly the situation we had to deal with from the previous Board?
If the leader does not rally the troops then that would suggest they are not leading by consensus and the BOE is ruled by consensus and not by an individual person, agendas or politics.
And indeed Dan is spot on as this reeks of political posturing.
You missed that too!
Sarah
@ 11:36 AM -- You may not care, but unless you are independently wealthy, you will get a nosebleed when you see the tab.
Before Hamlin, we paid a local attorney $135,000.
Hamlin's bill so far this year is in excess of $500,000 (not including settlements).
You could expect that to double, which means less for things like teaching the kids.
How can showing up to a public meeting violate the law? Anyone who believed that is foolish.
Of course the County and State are only talking to the Board President. Th president represents the Board in these matters, and that is why you must choose them carefully and only support someone you trust.
This just shows the Grand SLAM team was completely unprepared to follow through on their promises and be good board members. Game over as Renata put it? No we're still playing and the children are suffering for it.
I think, unfortunately, there are people already posturing and spouting BS.
1. Why would a board member be "at risk" for a law suit just showing up for a meeting? Doesn't the BOE carry insurance to protect board members?
2. It wouldn't have hurt for board members to show up, maybe .. ah .. DISCUSS things ... take no action ... but have an honest to God discussion about the crap going on, how to resolve it. And defer taking action.
3. What was the "risk" of the lawsuit? SLAM team is not saying who advised them or what was at risk.
No matter what differences people have personally, if you are on the board, the point is to act together. The board president was elected and appointed. She called a meeting she deemed important. The rest of the board doesn't have to agree with her, agree to vote or take any action, but could show respect for her position and SHOW UP (and show respect for the citizens who showed up).
I agree with Dan that LW stinks to high heaven and the resolution pre-prepared is a poor move and a presumption.
The position of board attorney, if the current attorney is performing poorly and overcharging, this position the BOE should (gasp) - put it out to competitive bid and INTERVIEW the law firms. Grill them. The the board decides - TOGEHER.
So, already, the BOE is displaying disfuction -- all the way around.
Come on people! You are grown ups. Quit being kids in the sandbox, pissing in your corners and defending them. The BOE have to work together to clean up the mess. It's okay to disagree, but show respect for each other!!! AND SHOW RESPECT FOR THE CITIZENS OF PLAINFIELD! It is absolute BS to call meetings, people give up dinner, and no one shows. Arrogant and disrespectful.
I think the citizens of Plainfield need to quit putting up the BS, non-performance on ALL levels of government. If this board doesn't shape up .. maybe a recall vote for the BOE is in order? And while we're at it ... recall the mayor.
to 8:43 and 6:49 -- you may want to check out Sunday's post, which takes up Renata Hernandez' report on the circumstances. See here
"http://ptoday.blogspot.com/2010/05/shedding-light-on-boe-emergency-meeting.html"
Hello Dan,
Why is anyone surprise that Lesniak's firm will be appointed as the board's attorney. Lisa Logan-Leach was the former chief of Staff to Jerry Green and a very close associate of Sharon when Sharon was the board's president. I do not expect this board to address any of the real issues facing the children of Plainfield. Now Mr. Green is the new president of the school board through his proxy. Mr. Green is clearly a political genius or most of us who live in Plainfield are just plain dumb or acting as though we are stupid. It is time to leave this town. This is simply what ohe should consider a failed State.
Post a Comment