Thank you, School Watcher. Until recently I had heard absolutely nothing about this and it has been out there for almost a year. Anyone else heard about this?

I wonder why that School Week lady hasn't picked up on this?

I know that I have heard Scott Baldwin's name before...I think he is involved with GW Boosters...but I may be wrong. I'd love to know the details of this. Obviously, being sued doesn't make one guilty, but it certainly makes for some interesting reading from start to finish. I recommend every stakeholder north of Roosevelt takes ten minutes to read this.

IMO, the district is back pedaling with this law suit. I have dealt with the district in the past with respect to financial matters. I felt like during this same time period, the early 2000's, the district just didn't know what they were doing financially.

I was really embarrassed as a tax payer that district 41 could not get a handle on their finances, despite asking to pass referendums for more money.

This only validates my past suspicions. Anybody else?

I read the entire thing. The one thing that I just didn't get was: Why, once D41 realized that the self-insurance scheme wasn't working [due to their claims of slipshod work by Baldwin - which sound legit] did this necessitate going to a more "fully funded solution" [i.e. full-fledged private group health insurance] or whatever they called it.

It sounded to me like the Black Mountain peeps had them throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It also sounds like there are some Great Whites swimming around in the lucrative "school benefits, administration and brokerage" waters, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd:
IMO, the district is back pedaling with this law suit. I have dealt with the district in the past with respect to financial matters. I felt like during this same time period, the early 2000's, the district just didn't know what they were doing financially.

I was really embarrassed as a tax payer that district 41 could not get a handle on their finances, despite asking to pass referendums for more money.

This only validates my past suspicions. Anybody else?

If a woman's purse is open and sitting in the shopping cart...you are not obligated to steal her money. You are morally bound not to. If the board was full of idiots back then...and it seems it was...all the more reason to help them out...rather then allegedly helping yourself to what is in the wallet.

Clam,

I agree with your comment. But here's the thing. District 41 has hired, from purely a percentage standpoint, considerably more staff in recent years then new students. I think we reviewed these numbers on the board and they were actually kind of off the charts in terms of how inequitable they were.

Could they not have hired one of those people to oversee the medical insurance/premiums/benefits part of the budget? Did they trust this guy, and the company a little to much, to the tune of $600 grand? Did they act in a proper fiduciary responsibility with respect to taxpayer money? (This is where I expect bitterboy or Fan to comment)

What percentage of the last past referendum went to cover this loss?

This situation comes as no surprise. Faulkner is a good lawyer, and will help them fight the case, but it should have never came down to this in the first place.

I would like to know the decision making that led the district to choose this broker. What other proposals did the district review? Were these matters discussed in open session or in closed session?

Glen Ellyn guy. Probably knew someone of the board. That isn't that unusual.

Also, as I had asked before...had anyone heard of this prior to SchoolWatcher's post today? I suspect the majority of the answers will be no. My question is...why not?

At least you would think they would have acknowledged the problem publicly when they discovered it and placed the law suit.

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:
Glen Ellyn guy. Probably knew someone of the board. That isn't that unusual.

Also, as I had asked before...had anyone heard of this prior to SchoolWatcher's post today? I suspect the majority of the answers will be no. My question is...why not?

The district keeps a "lawsuit" book in their offices. All you have to do is go to the district offices and ask to look at. The district can't help it if none of the residents regularly trot down there to peruse the pages. sheez.

I swear I have heard that somewhere before.

Holy crap...just logged in.

This isn't good.

What's 600k amongst friends?

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd:
At least you would think they would have acknowledged the problem publicly when they discovered it and placed the law suit.

What do you think the margin of victory would have been in April 2007 if the lawsuit would have been discussed with the voters? Somehow, I don't think Posey is working on contingency in this matter.

And really, when you are expanding administration the way you are, who can really keep a handle on counting the number of employees in your insurance group? 150 here. 150 there. As long as those premiums paid were lower than they should be, who's counting?

Here are the February 9, 2006 minutes of Finance and Facilities. There was an insurance committee on the Board in place during this period.

2/9/06 minutes

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd:
At least you would think they would have acknowledged the problem publicly when they discovered it and placed the law suit.

Why didn't this happen? Given the timing of the referendum, a couple of weeks delay is understandable, but why almost an entire year? Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation that I am missing. Thank you for the 411 SchoolWatcher.

I have contacted several attorney friends of mine. I hope to have additional documents regarding this filing soon.

I too question why we have not been informed of this proceeding.

One has to wonder if the local press will be able to shed any light on this situation. Certainly Dr. Anne Reibock will have an explanation about how this stayed hidden in the middle of the compost pile for so long.

Very, very concerning. Very, very odd.

Damn, does this mean they really only needed $39,399,641 and some change?

If they can't appropriately count the number of teachers, how are we to expect them to count the students?

District 41 - "Oh, did we say 600 kids in portables? Sorry, we recounted and we meant to say 6. It really just was a breakdown in communication. We misremembered the number. We're sorry.. It was just a breakdown....nobody's fault. Let's move forward and forget this for the children. Can we please have another 39 million? Pretty please...with sugar?

I agree with you Fan. I mean, it comes down to E1, E2, E3, or whatever the system was, and adding up the categories properly. Yeah, there may have been some negilence on the part of the guy or company that was supposed to look out for the districts best interests, but the district obviously didn't double check any numbers. It's kind of like looking at your bank checking statement when it comes in the mail...

I also surmise that the only way they figured out that the problem existed was when the next company came along, and told them.