If policy differences basis for termination, let voters know

On April 22, 2023, the Dispatch-Argus ran Olivia Allen’s article, “A ‘mutual’ separation for board, Lawrence,” on the paper’s front page. Perhaps, because I do not live within the Rock Island-Milan School District, I did not read the article.

I did not give the article a second-thought until a friend of mine at the golf course asked, “Why the school board got rid of the superintendent? And why did they agree to pay him $350,000?”

After having had to admit, that “I didn’t know,” and that “I hadn’t read the article,” I went back and read it.

In reading the article, I learned that Dr. Lawrence was the board’s superintendent, pursuant to a contract with the school board. Lawrence had served four years under his contract, and that his contract was not up for renewal until 2025.

I also learned that Dr. Lawrence’s performance as Superintendent had recently been evaluated, and that the Board discussed that with him at a closed meeting of the Board on March 21st. (A closed hearing for that purpose would be proper).

I further learned that Dr. Lawrence had not been “fired.” Rather, his contract had been terminated pursuant to the mutual agreement of Dr. Lawrence and the school board, with the board paying him $350,000 for Lawrence agreeing to the early termination. (I saw no problem with that, either).

In the words of Board President Terrell Williams, “The circumstances leading up to the contract termination were a “personnel matter, that the Board … will not comment on. …. (The goal was) always to do so amicably.”

But that was followed by the rather inexplicable comment by outgoing Board member, Tiffany Stoner-Harris: “(She) could see Lawrence being a great superintendent somewhere.”

So, why do you get rid of a superintendent who could be a “great superintendent somewhere?”

And why do you pay him $350,000 to go somewhere else, quickly?

Personally, I have no interest in whether Dr. Lawrence remains superintendent or not. I have never met the man, nor followed his handling of board’s affairs.

But the voters in the Rock Island-Milan School District do.

As an old Moline Corporation Council, before writing this, I spent four or five hours examining Illinois’ Open Meetings Law, in which the underlying “policy” is clearly stated:

“Policy. It is the public policy of this state that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business, and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.

“In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

“The General Assembly further declares it to be the public policy of this state that its citizens shall be given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way.

“Exceptions to the public’s right to attend exist only in those limited circumstances where the General Assembly has specifically determined that the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals would be clearly in danger of invasion.

“To implement this policy, the General Assembly declares:

    (1) it is the intent of this act to protect the citizen’s right to know; and

    (2) the provision for exceptions to the open meetings requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings.”

The Board here appears to have properly closed the meeting under what is commonly called the “personnel exception:”

(a) Openness required. All meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public unless excepted in subsection (c) ….

(b) Construction of exceptions. The exceptions contained in subsection (c) are in derogation of the requirement that public bodies meet in the open, and therefore, the exceptions are to be strictly construed, extending only to subjects within their scope. The exceptions authorize but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included within an enumerated exception.

(c) Exceptions: A public body may hold closed meetings to consider the following subjects: The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees ….

Here the meeting appears to have been properly closed to discuss “employment, compensation, … performance, and dismissal of a specific employee” — the superintendent.

Nobody, however, involved seemingly is making any claim that Dr. Lawrence’s “performance” was deficient in any substantial way that would justify his termination for cause. Rather as the board president indicated, it was a mutually agreed amicable termination. Indeed, Ms. Stoner-Harris states that she “Could see Lawrence being a great superintendent somewhere.”

Ms. Stoner-Harris' statement gives credence to Dr. Taylor’s comment that the termination came about because Dr. Lawrence did not see “eye to eye” with a majority of the Board members.

I think that my friend, and the school district's voters are entitled to know wherein the board and Dr. Lawrence did not see eye to eye. That is a matter of policy, and not within any exception to the Open Meetings Act. The voters are entitled to know where the board members stand on “policies” affecting the students of the district.

If issues of policy were in fact involved, it is difficult to see how, if a straight-forward joint statement was made setting out the differences between the Board Majority and Dr. Lawrence, “the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed fights of individuals would be clearly in danger of invasion.”

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 7, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea