Since the Huntley-based Grafton Township has spent so much on legal fees, the report on legal fees to the Huntley School Board caught my attention.
You can read the detail below by clicking on the images and a summary not provided the school board below the images.
But, there is a second reason for showing you this detail. It is not available from McHenry County College.
That’s right. The McHenry County College Board refuses to allow people to see what its rather considerable legal fees have been spent upon.
Construction problems at the two new elementary schools on the Square Barn campus cost the most. Labeled “Con-Mack Leaks,” it cost the district the most – $143,724 for lawyers’ advice. $127,368 to Hinshaw and $16,356 to Miller.
Second most was spent by the school board – $29,539 in all. Hinshaw got $28,447 and Miller $1,092.
The next highest category was Special Education. It totaled $24,916. Sraga billed $18,148 and Miller $6,768.
Human Resources cost $15,415 in legal fees. $10,839 to Hinshaw and $3,567 to Miller.
Legal expenses dealing with the unions cost $12,404. All but $36 was billed by Hinshaw, the rest by Miller.
“Other” came in at $10,558. $10,559. Hinshaw’s share of the billings was $8,565, while the Miller law firm snagged $1,993.
Superintendent John Burkey claimed $5,836 of the total, $3,388 for Hinshaw and $2,448 for Miller.
The Operating and Maintenance category came in at $7,370. $6,838 went to Hinshaw and $1,532 to Miller.
I find it strange that neither the above totals were included in the legal expense report nor the total tax dollars spent on lawyers.
Where are the legal fee reports for other districts, like the one your son attends or Cary Dist 26, for comparison? This is information in presented in a vacuum. Since I have no point of comparison, I have no idea if this is more or less than other districts spend.
Oh, that’s right, District 158 is the only district you care about. Isn’t that ax ground down to nothing yet, Cal?
Jack, it’s Larry’s axe to grind. Cal operates the grinder.
“Red Barn” Campus???
Correction made. Thanks.
Good question about other districts. I was so surprised to see the break outs when McHenry County College refuses to do likewise, I thought it was worth a story.Th
Quote from above – That’s right. The McHenry County College Board refuses to allow people to see what its rather considerable legal fees have been spent upon.
Okay, so MCC is happy happy happy to take taxpayers’ money but NOT tell the taxpayers what they are spending it on? Between the Packard stories and this shut out on legal info, it’s time to remove some of the administrators or board members who think that citizens are an annoyance. Yo – MCC – you are NOT running a private business.
Doesn’t the superintendent have to get his board’s approval before authorizing legal spending? Or does the board president give Burkey free reign to call the shots? Who’s running the district, really?
So, Cal, what you are saying is “Wow, District 158 is open and transparent for publishing their legal spending.” Far cry from your last D158 story: http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2010/08/18/huntley-school-supt-john-burkey%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9ccannot%e2%80%9d-is-really-an-%e2%80%9ci-won%e2%80%99t%e2%80%9d/
Also, you know darn well that you spun it in a negative light, so that you have people like Onlooker worked up about how much is being spent without comparison information against other districts, or background information about how much damage the leaks at the Square Barn campus caused, or how much it cost the district to fix them, and that the builders were at fault.
Even when I praise District 158, you don’t seem to be able to notice.
District 158 refused to post its non-certified employee contract so the public could see it prior to its being voted upon. This does not win a transparency award from me.
Posting the legal fees with a breakdown does.
You are welcome to provide more information about why the District had to take expensive legal action on the two elementary schools.
If I did a story on it, I’d want to know who signed the documents saying that the schools were built according to the specifications. Information like that.
I’m having trouble of thinking of other school districts who have gone after folks for bad constructions. Maybe you can tell us some.
This is your idea of praising District 158?! You’re right, I didn’t notice. I interpreted it as a statement that D158 spends too much on legal fees, with a dig towards MCC for lack of transparency.
Evidently from their comments, so did Onlooker and c. kay.