board meeting, what will be Fields' fate?
Monday, August 27, at 7 PM the Proviso Township High Schools (District 209) board of education will hold a meeting on the fate of Stan Fields, PhD, the superintendent who is on leave pending a termination hearing.
From the agenda:
Why would Fields resign instead of suing the district to buy out his contract? If Fields has two years left (I think that's right) and he's making $180,000 per year (which is worth more with benefits) why would he "resign" instead of going to court for the money?
When a homeless guy sues the Forest Park Police Department for police brutality, sometimes he'll take a small settlement sooner rather than later. So perhaps Fields is having money trouble. But I doubt it.
My understanding is that the Stark King report is over forty pages detailing money inappropriately spent while Fields was superintendent.
I'm going to engage in some speculation. What if the two employees who received unauthorized bonuses were Fields and business manager Nikita Johnson?
Who else could pull the strings to get themselves inappropriate bonuses? And if some more junior employee did game the system for an inappropriate bonus, wouldn't Fields and Johnson have the power to correct the situation once it was identified by Paul Stark King, director of accounting?
I don't know what agreement to resign Fields offered, but I could see a win-win agreement between the board of education and Fields that said the board wouldn't prosecute Fields for pilfering funds and Fields agreed to keep his mouth shut on certain issues.
Keep in mind this is just speculation. I haven't talked to anyone on the board or anyone else who has inside information on Fields' resignation.
But if I were a board member at a school district considering hiring Fields, I'd want to read the Stark King report before I offered him a job.
From the agenda:
9. Approval of Superintendent Resignation Agreement
10. Approval of Superintendent Termination Charges and Hearing Date
Why would Fields resign instead of suing the district to buy out his contract? If Fields has two years left (I think that's right) and he's making $180,000 per year (which is worth more with benefits) why would he "resign" instead of going to court for the money?
When a homeless guy sues the Forest Park Police Department for police brutality, sometimes he'll take a small settlement sooner rather than later. So perhaps Fields is having money trouble. But I doubt it.
My understanding is that the Stark King report is over forty pages detailing money inappropriately spent while Fields was superintendent.
My report contains information regarding bonuses that I believe were unauthorized and improperly paid to two employees of the district.
I'm going to engage in some speculation. What if the two employees who received unauthorized bonuses were Fields and business manager Nikita Johnson?
Who else could pull the strings to get themselves inappropriate bonuses? And if some more junior employee did game the system for an inappropriate bonus, wouldn't Fields and Johnson have the power to correct the situation once it was identified by Paul Stark King, director of accounting?
I don't know what agreement to resign Fields offered, but I could see a win-win agreement between the board of education and Fields that said the board wouldn't prosecute Fields for pilfering funds and Fields agreed to keep his mouth shut on certain issues.
Keep in mind this is just speculation. I haven't talked to anyone on the board or anyone else who has inside information on Fields' resignation.
But if I were a board member at a school district considering hiring Fields, I'd want to read the Stark King report before I offered him a job.
Labels: District 209, Stan Fields, Stark King report
posted by Carl Nyberg at
9:16 PM
4 Comments:
It would be foolish of Fields to sue the district because that would be virtually ending his future employment opportunities. Nobody would hire him if he's a guy who sues former employers. That would be career suicide. Also, if he took legal action it's almost guaranteed the court would tell the two parties to settle. So he'd be back to where he is now only he'd then have the "sued the district" mark to carry. My guess is his lawyer has smartly advised him to make the best deal and get on with his life. That's the only smart option.
By
Anonymous, at 10:42 AM, August 27, 2007
It's real simple...
Fields doesn’t need to settle...but the Dishonorable Chris Welch and his majority board puppets that got us into this mess, need for Fields to settle.
See...this is "hush money". I feel that they will pay Fields off handsomely for his past actions and his future cooperation. Future cooperation huh…?
So, what would Welch and his puppets want in return...hmmmmm....let's see. For one, they would probably want Fields too assume all responsibility for his "own" situation. They will make him admit to making his own bed and lying in it. By doing this, the dishonorable Welch and his puppets can say, see...Fields admitted doing wrong...so look y'all...we right! We had to get rid of him...he was doing wrong.
The dishonorable Welch and his puppets will use Fields words to try to clear themselves for any action that took place while he was Superintendent. By doing that, they can say Fields was a rogue Superintendent who had his own agenda in which he did not share with the board.
I would not be surprised if the settlement is contingent on Fields to apologize to the community as well as praise the BOE for their "dedication" and working in the best interest of the community.
Laughable right? Not exactly…if my premonition turns out to hold true, then Welch, his puppets, and Fields will have succeeded in practicing dishonesty from the day he was hired…until his settlement.
And as usual, who loses…The students, the citizens and the tax payers of District 209.
That’s why I find all the hoopla in trying to “get Fields back” and “Save Fields job” was a farce that Fields facilitated…not because he wanted his job back, and not just because he is inherently dishonest, but because he had to “appear” to want his job back…like he was served with some type of injustice that the people need to fight for…a better word for it is, saving face.
The more people like William Kirchner and Josh Adams fought for Fields to stay…the pricier his settlement would become. And alas, we are where we stand today due to our own ignorance and incompetence. Our lack of interest has damned the minds of our students and belittled our own intelligence. We have plagued ourselves and our community with the disease of complacency that will be felt throughout future generations. In the end…we have no one to blame but ourselves…I repeat…We have no one to blame but ourselves…as a community, we are our own worst enemy! The dishonorable Chris Welch is just the weapon we choose for our own demise.
By
Anonymous, at 2:50 PM, August 27, 2007
In today's Forest Park Review, a story by Josh Adams, "High School Superintendent Quits Post", gives a partial account of Fields' demise --- a demise predicted by a number of posters here shortly after he took office. The board referred to Fields' resignation letter as a "written apology". Fields himself admitted, at the least, what amounted to poor judgment, but what has been routinely referred to by others since early in his term as "duplicity".
If you are reading this, a certain homeboy and hand-out taker of Fields from Technivista, and loud-mouthed Fields' cheerleader, Bill Kirchner, care to comment on just how great Fields is now?
By
Anonymous, at 7:22 PM, August 29, 2007
Speaking of Bill Kirchner, can someone tell us why he seemed to be such an advocate for Fields? One conceivable theory is that Kirchner, who was appointed to an advisory committee by Fields, stood to gain from the Fields' administration. If that is true, one can only imagine what form the gain might have taken, but we do know what form of gain another past acquaintance/associate of Fields' received, e.g. Scott from Technivista.
Kirchner, a Fields advocate, who now has an added appendage --- a tail between his legs --- is said to be a proponent of dissolution. Considering Kirchner's apparent poor judgment in cheer leading for Fields, we can certainly view his stance in regard to dissolution with skepticism, if not outright contempt.
By
Anonymous, at 3:40 PM, August 30, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home