ED, school board meeting [D209]
The board disagreed over a number of personnel decisions, including transfering Shavonne Henry (daughter of board member Reatha "Sue" Henry) firing Angela Jackson a switchboard operator and hiring Maria Aliasi (nextdoor neighbor of board member Dan Adams), Anthony Donatille and Danielle Murray.
Board president Emanuel Christopher Welch offered to postpone votes on two contracts: a sign and sidewalk, both for PMSA.
The staff seemed unprepared to ask pretty obvious questions about the sign contract. The agenda had C Johnson Sign Company listed as the vendor for $55,300. The board members recalled the signs for East and West cost only $20,000. Board member Gary Marine even researched the prior signs in the newspaper.
Doesn't it seem like the sidewalk work and sign should have been included in the original contract for the school?
Board president Emanuel Christopher Welch offered to postpone votes on two contracts: a sign and sidewalk, both for PMSA.
The staff seemed unprepared to ask pretty obvious questions about the sign contract. The agenda had C Johnson Sign Company listed as the vendor for $55,300. The board members recalled the signs for East and West cost only $20,000. Board member Gary Marine even researched the prior signs in the newspaper.
Doesn't it seem like the sidewalk work and sign should have been included in the original contract for the school?
posted by Carl Nyberg at
10:59 PM
10 Comments:
The vote to fire Angela Jackson failed.
By
Carl Nyberg, at 11:12 PM, January 23, 2006
Flowers did have a good point about hiring. It doesn't seem to make sense that the individual hires need to be approved by the board if the people are already working when the board votes on them.
I wonder if anybody starts working before the political bosses sign off on the hire?
By
Carl Nyberg, at 2:33 PM, January 24, 2006
Gary Marine fed me some info tonight.
Madlock arrived for the last five minutes of closed session. Welch was calling her on his mobile repeatedly to make sure she came.
Madlock also asked Welch for permission to leave early.
The board was supposed to have a retreat this weekend, but Madlock can't or won't attend. Welch cancelled the retreat. Presumably he doesn't want to get together without a majority.
Madlock sent her daughter to Trinity, not D209. Adams sends his children to private schools, not District 89.
By
Carl Nyberg, at 12:29 AM, January 26, 2006
Has anyone noticed that Shirley Matlock only shows her face when it's time to vote? Did anyone pay attention when Shirley Matlock nominated Gary Marine for VP of the board... and then voted against him? Has anyone figured out that Shirley Matlock doesn’t want to "appear" to be part of the corrupt board majority...but then casts her votes in true corrupt board majority fashion? Who is she fooling besides herself? The reason she left early is because she has insecurity issues. She understands that being a "yes" woman compromises her integrity and the shame that comes along with it morally bankrupts her and all she touches. Shirley Matlock is too embarrassed, by her actions, to show her face in the township where she and her corrupt board majority friends continue to rape and pillage.
Since Shirley Matlock doesn’t want the limelight...I'm deciding to give it to her. I will make her a Household name.
By
Anonymous, at 2:19 PM, January 26, 2006
This is sad. Flowers, Kelly and Marine are now attacking Shirley Matlock because they are not getting their way. Flowers wants to fire everyone in District 209 and bring in Liz and Harry Reynolds to destroy Proviso. Kelly wants to hire all her neighbors and racists friends who let her steal from the kids by taking trips and buying things and having them shipped to her house all at district expense. Marine is just plain stupid. He is a follower. He wants to hire Ronnie Serpico to be the school district's attorney.
By
Anonymous, at 8:48 AM, January 27, 2006
From my view, Shirley Matlock is the best board member up there. It appears to me that she doesn't let people like Flowers, Kelly, Marine, Ami Relf, and Della Patterson intimidate her. She has a mind of her own, and she's not afraid to use it. I can't say the same for most, if not all, the others named above. Also, Carl, you are a hypocrite. You cry foul when people picked on that stupid Trottie lady, but you say nothing when people are picking on a woman for voting her conscience. You and most of the people on this website are assholes.
By
Anonymous, at 8:52 AM, January 27, 2006
"A hypocrite is one who... but then again who isn't?"--Mark Twain (IIRC)
What is the foul against Madlock that's been unfair?
By
Carl Nyberg, at 9:02 AM, January 27, 2006
Let's see...4 minutes separate the difference between comments from " Friend of Della Paterson" and "sitting up high and watching down low" I'm going to take an educated guess and say these 2 comments were written by the same person.
Hmmmmm...must be from Shirley Matlocks daughter.
Who else would blatantly lie on her behalf?
Shirley Matlock is helping to destroy this community! If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Being the "yes" woman that Shirley Matlock is has made her part of the problem. I respect Chris Welch because he's true to who he is. Chris knows he lacks integrity, common good will and good sense. So he can take it because that's his game. Now Shirley matlock "the community destroyer" is not respected by anyone. If you are going to destroy the community...stand tall and do it with pride like Chris Welch. Don't dare destroy it and hide like Shirley Matlock and think no one will notice.
Let the votes tell the story. I will start posting votes and comments made by Shirley Matlock "the community destroyer" and let the people in the community see how dedicated she is to destroying District 209.
Again, since Shirley Matlock wants to stay out of the limelight...I will make her a household name!
By
Anonymous, at 3:35 PM, January 27, 2006
Tired of Shirlee "THE AIR HEAD" Madlock says,
Madlock does not use her own mind. She has the brain the size of a pea. I was not at the meeting, but to my understanding she asked Welch could she leave the meeting. She gets his approval for every vote. If she had paid attention during the meeting she would have known she could leave. She is a disgrace to the community. She even voted to fire a lady and she was not there during closed session to discuss the matter. Does this lady have a conscience? She has done nothing on the board but fire people and look like a fool. All Shirlee "The AIRHEAD" Madlock is a guranteed vote for Welch. Does Welch drug these board members? What is Madlock getting out the deal? I heard she was once a love interest of Welch. Welch would feel on a 100 year old lady's butt if he could get her vote or her support. It seems like Madlcok is getting nothing, because her weave needs redone. Madlock is a disgrace to the feminist movement.
She did not even send her child to Proviso. Why is she setting the rules and regulations for the children of our commmunity. She
needs to go on Madison and Pulaski with that tired weave of hers and buy her some more hair. She looks like a drag queen on crack or Lil Kim's grandmother. Does she have an Adams apple? The people in the community have been fooled by the man Shirlee Madlock. Please people who read this blogger let's vote these people out of Proviso. Madlock and WELCH GOT TO GO!
By
Anonymous, at 5:24 PM, January 27, 2006
Concerned citizen say...
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT
Citizen's Remedy Against Torts Perpetrated by Government Personnel
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) provides, in pertinent part:
"An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail. The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section."
Title 28 USC § 2401(b)
A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.
Title 28 USC § 2675:
The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section.
Title 28 U.S.C. 2401(b) requires the claimant both to file the claim with the agency within two years after accrual of the claim and then to file a complaint in the District Court within six months after the agency denies the claim.
Title 28 USC § 2401(b)
A tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within six months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) provides, in pertinent part:
An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail. The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Claims Against United States
By
Anonymous, at 7:17 PM, January 27, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home