Erwin's Chicago contract amendment under review by state's attorney

Well…I’ve had a nice vacation to Chicago, the new summer term has begun and the primary election is over. I guess it’s time for me to get back to Kentucky’s “commissioner issue” – an issue that could factor into Governor Fletcher’s reelection bid.
~
While the Kentucky Board of Education appears hunkered down, willing to overlook – whatever - in order to sustain their choice of Barbara Erwin; in Chicago, Erwin’s latest contract fight has been elevated to the state’s attorney for review. A St Charles teacher tells me it has been the “hot topic” at district 303’s high schools this past week.

The revelation of the St Charles school board’s failure to ratify Erwin’s contract in public, as required by the Open Meetings Act, came from former school board member Bobbie Raehl (who later became board president) when she sought to obtain board minutes and other documents through a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents showed no public action on Erwin’s contract.

An official with the Kane County State’s Attorney’s office confirmed today that they have received the complaint, are conducting a review, and a decision will be made by state’s attorney John Barsanti. I expect to receive, and will post, his findings which are expected within the next 50 days or so.

In the meantime, District 303 has been playing “keep away” with Barbara Erwin's contract.

Once upon a time, Erwin’s contract was readily available upon request. But when the St Charles Republican asked for a copy on May 4th, they were denied.

District 303 spokeswoman Lynn Martin told the Daily Herald last Tuesday that the document had been moved to Erwin’s personnel file, making it legally off limits. “It’s a right of privacy if you go into the personnel file,” Martin said of the contract, which was approved by a school board and is funded entirely by tax dollars. Martin said she couldn’t provide a reason why the contract was moved.

But the Kane County Chronicle still had a copy of Erwin's contract Amendment Two which they published Wednesday morning. The only signatures on the document belong to Erwin & then board president Mary Jo Knipp, as witnessed by the board secretary.

In an interview Wednesday Erwin said the district’s stance must not be mistaken for her personal opinion and that she would provide her contract to anyone who asked for it.

Does Barbara Erwin really expect people to believe that, contrary to her best judgment, she was powerless against some unnamed force known as “the district’s stance?"

A recent court case certainly suggests "how to" hide one’s contract, if there was a reason to do so.

A judge at the DuPage County Circuit Court issued a ruling in late March, allowing school officials to keep employee contracts confidential and to refuse public access. The decision was based on Illinois statutes that exempt contracts from disclosure if they are kept in personnel files. Although base salaries for all school district employees are required by law to be reported and published, additional compensation in the form of bonuses, stipends, retirement incentives and insurance policies don’t carry the same disclosure requirements.

So in Illinois, if you want to hide some information, apparently it’s a good idea to put it in a “personnel file.” Easy Peasey. One might reasonably infer that any motivation to hide contractual details from public view would likely come from concerns in the area of "benefits" – like, say, the number of sick days granted a superintendent.

So, somebody in St Charles thought it would be a good idea to put Erwin's contract in her personnel file. I’ve been racking my brain trying to figure out who could have done such a thing.

The decision apparently did not come from the school board. One board member even called the district’s refusal to release Erwin’s contract “bizarre.” Board member Karla Ray, who considers herself an advocate for open government, said there’s “no reason (the public) should not have the contract.” “...Openness creates trust,” she said, “and that’s what we so sorely need right now.”

But confidential sources close to district leadership have opined that the real issue is all about a new law (PA 94-004) and that Erwin wanted 85 days of sick leave credited to her account beginning in 2004, instead of 2005 as called for in Amendment Two, under some kind of supposed verbal agreement that would enable her to vest in the Illinois teacher's retirement system -- an effort that now seems lost.

The argument goes something like this...

Like all professional school folks, Erwin is covered by the Teachers Retirement System of Illinois, which will grant up to two years of service credit for unused sick leave. For a number of years, school districts in Illinois were taking advantage of this by granting an outrageous number of sick days to their superintendents.

But a new law, PA 94-004 effectively put a stop to that. Districts can still grant excessive sick leave to their superintendents, but not without a hefty penalty for doing so.

However, contracts signed before June 1, 2005, which includes Erwin’s Amendment Two, are "grandfathered," If Amendment Two were to be altered now, it would lose its "grandfathered" status and the district could be required to pay a large penalty for granting her an excessive amount of sick leave.

Potential penalties for the school board are one thing, but there is a financial incentive for Erwin to vest in the Illinois retirement system - and for that she needs 5 years service credit. Erwin would need the equivalent of two years of service credit, plus three years of employment to be vested at age 62.

Amendment Two provides for her to receive 85 days of sick leave on July 1, 2005 through July 1, 2008 (85 days X 4 years = 340 days of unused sick leave), but she will not be employed by the district in 2008.

Currently, in addition to the 15 days of sick leave that all administrators receive each year, Erwin has been credited with 170 days of sick leave (85 X 2 = 170 -- July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006). Even when she receives another 85 days on July 1, 2007, (a good reason not to start her new job in Kentucky on that day) she'll still be short -- she'll only have 255 days not counting the annual sick leave that all administrators receive.

However, if her account were somehow credited with 85 days as of July 1, 2004, she would have at least 340 days of unused sick leave, would reach the magical five years, and would be vested (3 years of employment + two years of unused sick leave service credit = five years).

IF withholding Erwin’s contract from the press was part of an effort to claim 85 sick days starting in 2004 – it apparently ended when the Kane County Chronicle shined a big spot light on the contract’s actual language.
~
What’s the truth of it all? For that, we will have to wait. The matter of the board’s failure to act on her contract in open session, and whether that violated the law, has been referred to the state’s attorney's office. The state's attorney must act within two months, but potential remedies are uncertain. An invalidation of the Erwin’s contract Amendment Two seems possible. Other civil penalties, including possible liability on the part of any board members who may have acted improperly, is much less certain.
~
One long-time observer of the St Charles school district told me, “I certainly got the impression after a time that Ms Erwin’s is, I think the word “mercenary” is not inappropriate. She signed a contract [in St. Charles], she gave the impression to people that she was going to be here for a long time, then she turns around and signs a contract extension, and then – bam - she’s going to retire. Now she’s soaking up retirement out of another state...”

After all, this is the same Barbara Erwin who was quoted in an AASA newsletter as saying that she couldn’t live long enough to vest in every state. How must it feel to have that 4th state pension nearly in one’s grasp, only to lose it?
~
In the background, the new St Charles Board of Education looks to the future, to rebuild teamwork and healthy relationships which are "vital in avoiding the friction and intense disagreement common among the last board." School board member Karla Ray told the St Charles Republican that the arrival of Donald Schlomann, who will replace Superintendent Barbara Erwin in July, will help foster a change of direction and leadership. "We have new leadership from both ends,” Ray said. “I’m looking forward to working with a new superintendent and a new board.”
~
In other news, I'm still waiting for a response from Dr. Erwin clarifying how she received a teaching certificate in Indiana before she graduated, which is contrary to Indiana regulations. I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath.

But I did hear back from Kevin Nolan who sent me a copy of Erwin's new contract in Kentucky which clarifies the "90 days" issue. I'll follow up on that one tomorrow.