Speaking of those maximizing what they get from the taxpayers, can't paste in the link, but if you Google a certain name that can't be said and the word "Lisle" you will be able to catch up with a former GE official.

Are you going to hire a company that has this bio on their website a year + after his departure?

"XXXXXXXXXX currently serves as the Superintendent of Glen Ellyn School District 41 in DuPage County. He has a wide variety of administrative experience in small and mid-sized school districts in suburban and rural Illinois. He has served in education as a teacher, reading specialist, principal, assistant superintendent and superintendent. In addition, XXXX served 5 years as an educational consultant to over 90 school districts in northern Illinois assisting with the development and implementation of quality instructional programs and accountability systems.

XXXXXXXXXXXX has been appointed to several key Board of Directors that provide ongoing contact and involvement with Illinois Superintendents. He is a 3-year veteran on the IASA Board of Director; he is in his second year as a director for the Illinois School District Liquid Asset Fund Plus (a multi-billion dollar school investment pool); and has finished his third term as Illinois Association of Supervision Curriculum Developers membership chairperson.
XXXX currently works closely with the Consortium for Education Change (CEC) implementing Baldrige based continuous improvement in Glen Ellyn 41 and other consortium member schools. Education Change (CEC) implementing Baldrige based continuous improvement in Glen Ellyn 41 and other consortium member schools."

Idiots.

Maybe it's better to leave the old data out there. This way the "stakeholders" in the new district don't stumble upon their super's other gig.

I see SchoolExec lost its bid to do the search for the next superintendent in U46. Say, isn't that where Dr. Riebock was employed at one time???

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
Maybe it's better to leave the old data out there. This way the "stakeholders" in the new district don't stumble upon their super's other gig.

I see SchoolExec lost its bid to do the search for the next superintendent in U46. Say, isn't that where Dr. Riebock was employed at one time???

Do you think the Board of Ed along the Fox River put any exclusive employment language in that contract? Or did they just let the headhunters draft the contract? I think the latter. Just like "relocation expenses" is construed by one real estate professional in Glen Ellyn to include north shore realtor commission. Clarity is great. For other people.

Speaking of school employment issues on the Fox River, turn your attention to the SunTimes this morning.

Hi,

Just read it Ron. Ouch! It will be interesting to see how B********* handles this one. Will he terminate the contract? Talked tough in the article, but time will tell. Probably depends on how much media coverage there is.

I'm not certain you can use B*********.

What I find most troubling about the situation in Lisle District 202, is that Peter Lueck, the currently employed and soon to be retiring superintendent, is listed as an "associate" of the search firm just hired by his school district to find his replacement.

quote:

Originally posted by howdy60137:
this patterson guy who's 4th wife is missing resigned from the police force, and i just heard on the radio he's eligible (after age 50, 20 years service) to a 50% pension. that does end, at least, if he's convicted of a felony. just one more example of the public servant dole.

Of course if he's convicted of felony all bets are off. BUT it's a PENSION. He / they pay into it, it's not being on the dole. And someone else is right, they don't pay into or receive SS, unless they have held a job in the private sector.

quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock:
What I find most troubling about the situation in Lisle District 202, is that Peter Lueck, the currently employed and soon to be retiring superintendent, is listed as an "associate" of the search firm just hired by his school district to find his replacement.

Incredible. How do the stakeholders in that district stand still for this nonsense?

quote:

Originally posted by hinmitee:

quote:

Originally posted by howdy60137:
this patterson guy who's 4th wife is missing resigned from the police force, and i just heard on the radio he's eligible (after age 50, 20 years service) to a 50% pension. that does end, at least, if he's convicted of a felony. just one more example of the public servant dole.

Of course if he's convicted of felony all bets are off. BUT it's a PENSION. He / they pay into it, it's not being on the dole. And someone else is right, they don't pay into or receive SS, unless they have held a job in the private sector.

Actually, it's even worse than you suspect. He will keep his pension if convicted of a felony as long as the felony was not committed during the course of his official duties.

How do you like that.

I don't know that I "like it." But is the argument here that once you are convicted of a felony you give up all liberties like a pension and that that should apply universally to all pension participants whether they be civil servants, Teamsters, airline employees, etc... Or because he was a police officer and he is found guilty of committing a felony not during his official duties he should not receive the pension that he paid into? (Maybe this should be a different topic).

I certainly don't believe that there should be two sets of laws, one for retired police officers and one for other retirees.

quote:

Originally posted by hinmitee:
I don't know that I "like it." But is the argument here that once you are convicted of a felony you give up all liberties like a pension and that that should apply universally to all pension participants whether they be civil servants, Teamsters, airline employees, etc... Or because he was a police officer and he is found guilty of committing a felony not during his official duties he should not receive the pension that he paid into? (Maybe this should be a different topic).

I certainly don't believe that there should be two sets of laws, one for retired police officers and one for other retirees.

Newly codified house bill 159 spells this out.

quote:

HB0159 LRB095 01630 AMC 21632 b

1 AN ACT concerning public employee benefits.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Illinois Pension Code is amended by adding
5 Section 1-125 as follows:

6 (40 ILCS 5/1-125 new)
7 Sec. 1-125. Felony conviction. A person who is convicted of
8 any felony relating to, arising out of, or in connection with
9 his or her service as a participating member of any retirement
10 system or pension fund may not receive any benefits provided in
11 this Code, including any benefit for service not related to the
12 felony conviction.
13 This Section shall not operate to impair any contract or
14 vested right acquired before the effective date of this
15 amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly under any law or
16 laws continued in this Code, nor to preclude the right to a
17 refund.
18 All participants entering service after the effective date
19 of this amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly are deemed
20 to have consented to the provisions of this Section as a
21 condition of participation in a retirement system or pension
22 fund established under this Code.

Just got my e-news from the Board Meeting this past Monday. Interesting stuff. Darn, I wish I had made the meeting!

This Link summargizes the presentation about the Levy.

This Link summarizes the financial presentaion by PMA.

Hmmmmm.....in deficit mode by 2009? That seems odd.....

quote:

Originally posted by Amy:
Hmmmmm.....in deficit mode by 2009? That seems odd.....

Considering we were going to build a new school with 40 million. But then, we had some "uncommitted" funds there. And some interest earned...