D122 Union Asks for Support in Possible 'Official Misconduct' Charges Against Broderick
In a lengthy statement read at the Feb. 6 New Lenox School District 122 Board of Education meeting, Katie Kollross, New Lenox Council President of AFT Local 604, asked the board to honor a request to meet with the Will County State's Attorney to discuss the possibility of filing "official misconduct" charges against Board Member Maureen Broderick.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Patch.com.
#1 Feb 7, 2013
maybe re-reading this may awaken the memory.
#2 Feb 7, 2013
LOL Obviously Kathy is in bed with the Union based upon this article. Does anyone want a Board Member in bed with the Union?????
Secondly, who's spending dollars to support Kathy? The Board?????
I am not an Attorney for sure, but dont the Union Members work "for" the district? Is'nt there laws that state your employer has a legal right to employee emails?
IMO, this is the Union & Kath in bed together... Buda Bing... Buda Boom
Moe? You stand your ground, you're the high vote getter, and the people, the voters, and the tax payers are with you! Stay classy.
#3 Feb 7, 2013
Shouldn't that be the decision of the States Attorneys office if there's anything wrong? Why is a taxpayer funded union pressing for a Board to meet with the SA's office?
"So far, legal fees associated with the hearing have mounted to about $9,000, said Board President Nick DiSandro."
That's the board spending tax payer dollars for an attorney for the board to appear for political appeals by Kathy Miller. And according to rumors, they said he was defending Miller during the hearing.
Anyone have a transcript so we can all see what was said and by whom?
Aren't they using taxpayer dollars to literally fund/defend a candidate's campaign?
And according to other rumors, there were numerous employees of the school district there during a work day. Again, on taxpayer monies while they engage in political activities.
So, who is it that is running up the attorneys fees on the taxpayers' dime?
Sounds like Miller and the unions, with the encouragement of Board members who have spending authority.
Anyone have a transcript of the hearing? To see what was really said and by whom?
Will the union incur more legal costs on the taxpayers by pushing this weird/histrionic "meeting" with the states attorneys office?
How much will that cost the taxpayers? Who will pay for that?
Should there be a resolution by the board that because the union is shrieking for this, that the unions should pay any and all costs out of their own pockets?
Why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for this histrionic hyperbolic nonsense by the Union?
#4 Feb 7, 2013
Agreed! Sure sounds like DiSandro (known buddy of Tim) and Saas supporter, is guiding the Union he & Kathy are in bed with on all this. This is crazy!
The voters will remember this!
I hear Kathy is running unopposed. If that's true, can someone run as a write in against her?
The voters have to put this Board in order, and have a oard that runs their own meetings, making sound decisions for the school & the tax payers!
#5 Feb 7, 2013
All good questions - what/who is instigating this continued waste of taxpayer money, and why?
#6 Feb 7, 2013
Well, you've got this article saying the union President, Kollross
Who in the hell is this Killross to ask a Board to "honor a request" and pushing the Board to a meeting on a law enforcement matter?
The SA has discretion. And he sure doesn't need to "request" anything if there is truly evidence of wrong doing. He can subpoena. He can investigate.
So, here's a union - pushing this "request" for the Board to go to the SA's office?
Again - a union whose members are paid by the taxpayers, is getting involved in pushing a law enforcement issue - which isn't their purview, which will no doubt incur more legal costs on the taxpayers' backs.
Again I ask - whooooooooooooooooooooo is going to pay for this?
Should the union shriekers incur this cost?
Or how about the individual board members who are pushing this?
The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for these ridiculous behaviors.
#7 Feb 7, 2013
The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for any more legal fees incurred by these board members' behaviors, nor the union's behavior.
It's time the board and this union got a grip on themselves.
Anyone here still want to question me on whether this paper is slanted?
Notice no where in this article did this silly reporter for the patch think to ask the hard questions about who will pay for this nonsense the union is asking for?
Didn't ask how much it will cost the taxpayers? And where was the reporter's common sense asking this union person "don't you think you're over stepping your bounds in asking the board to go to the state's attorney's office?"
How about the "if the SA's office thought there was truly something wrong, don't you think they would have opened an investigation by now?"
No - no common sense from the Patch. Not a bit of grey matter used.
#8 Feb 7, 2013
No question in many readers' minds that the local papers (Patch, Patriot, Herald) simply regurgitate was they're told without any intelligent follow-up questions. They are all played for tools - which has turned out to be true.
#9 Feb 7, 2013
Not sure when the Patriot went sour, but that's a shame.
They was supposed to be "our" paper. Not some corrupt extension of the Herald's ridiculous bias.
And the Patch has turned out to be just as worthless.
Maybe it's time New Lenox had a paper that didn't become corrupt with Union/big spender types of mindsets. Reporters that actually listened to what they were told, and reported accurately.
Not just accusations and drive-by innuendos.
A paper that truly represents what is going on. A paper that people can sit down and actually give an interview with and know it isn't going to be some hatchet job with an agenda.
#10 Feb 12, 2013
Has anybody noticed that underneath all this hubbub
the 122 Administration quietly put forth a "bond
restructuring" that will COST $44 MILLION ADDITIONAL TAX DOLLARS to fund $5.8 million in
ongoing expenses? Is this what the other hand was
doing?(source: Harold Huang)
#11 Feb 12, 2013
let's go back to square one, Sherlock. IT'S MAUREEN.
#12 Feb 12, 2013
The union/teachers can foot the bill for whatever thin-skinned grievance they have against a board member who questions their actions. And Miller can pay for her continued legal whining, not the taxpayers.
#13 Feb 12, 2013
And these same folks protect their pots of gold, don't they?
#14 Feb 12, 2013
You have the option in April of getting rid of the board members who are responsible for the wasteful spending of our tax dollars. There now is a write in candidate for the two year term, vote for him! There is one incumbent that challenges how our money is spent in this district, vote for her! For the remaining positions, vote for the brand new candidates! It's time to give someone else a chance to turn this district around.
#15 Feb 12, 2013
Let's go back to square one, Sherlock. IT'S MAUREEN. Quit blaming others. She started it, as usual. Others MUST react. Should they just sit back while she ram-rods everyone? Ask her how much she has cost the district. People are reacting to the actions. i commend that. Enough is enough. It's probably time for her resignation
#16 Feb 12, 2013
How much has this administration cost us in undeserved pay raises? Who paid for the retraining that the board had to attend because Sass and a past board president saw fit to violate the open meetings act so they could divide a resigned asst. superintendent's pay? Who approved Sass getting a car paid for by us the taxpayers? Why isn't he driving HIS OWN CAR THAT HE PAYS FOR WITH HIS SALARY LIKE THE REST OF AMERICA? Even most state workers drive their own car and get paid a set rate for mileage. I would rather pay for his tiny mileage to and from schools than for a car, insurance, up keep, and on and on. Besides that how often does he actually drive to the different schools? He goes to the kindergarten center once a year to read a story for a ridiculous photo op. Fire Sass and Manville, bring new leaders in and many problems go away. JMO
#18 Feb 13, 2013
Should the taxpayers just sit back while the board ram-rods everyone? How much have they (past and present) cost us with their shenanigans? I hope taxpayers help some incumbents with the end of their tenures. Enough is enough.
#19 Feb 13, 2013
Mo calm down. You voted for ome of his contracts with that car. Oops was that a secret?
#20 Feb 13, 2013
How do you know?
#21 Feb 13, 2013
Rumor has it that we are also paying insurance for the great Dr.'s wife as well. Anyone know if this is the truth? And I believe this fiasco didn't start with Maureen, it started with a seasoned board member that should have checked to see if her paperwork was properly filled out before she filed it.
Add your comments below
|Naperville council candidates' views vary on co...||Feb 28||D Johnson||1|
|Popeyes Background Check||Nov '16||Marry||2|
|Will County Mugshots and Criminal Arrest Records (Sep '16)||Sep '16||Natalie||2|
|Balich and Fricilone (Sep '16)||Sep '16||Robert Thomas||2|
|New Courthouse, Sheriff's Office, Health Dept. ... (Jan '16)||Aug '16||Mike||2|
|Road Commissioner Sued By 2 Men - Ages 81 and 6... (Nov '15)||May '16||The clock is tick...||18|
|Dad seeks Braidwood man (Jan '10)||May '16||StaceyRox||218|
Find what you want!
Search Will County Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC