I posted about how the pjstar covered her departure here (see excerpt below). I guess the bottom line may be that it doesn't matter what grounds under which you were fired, you still have to follow procedure (especially if set out by contract):
“Ms. Schau reported that when the budget was adopted in September it was based on the prior year and had some flaws and now we have documented all needed changes. An amended budget has been prepared that shows our best estimate of how the district will end the year. Administration is recommending that the amended budget be put on display for 30 days and a hearing be held on June 29, 2010.”
When comparing the revised budget presented at that June 29 meeting with the original budget dated the prior September, one of the prime differences was that “Purch Serv” (an expense) from the operating budget was $4MM higher than budgeted, with no real change in operating revenues (thus the operating budget as a whole was $4MM worse than previously expected). The natural question is how much of that difference was an admitted error and how much was due to overspending, presumably by others in authority?" *Additionally, there were at least two occasions that Schau gave the Superintendent erroneous information regarding spending for summer school and adult education. Oh, and let us not forget when ten (10) clerical workers were given raises, even though Durflinger said he knew of and approved "three to four people" but no others *
*under Schau's watch
Pamela Schau filed the seven-page suit in U.S. District Court and seeks a judge to declare the district did not have “proper cause to discharge Schau for cause” as well as to reinstate her complete with back pay and benefits.
She was fired after a 90-minute rare executive session by the School Board at its August 2010 meeting. Schau, a recently retired suburban Chicago school district official, was hired in July 2009 to take over the reins at the financially troubled district.
It has not been publicly revealed why Schau was fired from her position in the middle of her contract and just before the start of the 2010-11 school year. At the time, Schau said that she was told “the board felt I was not providing sufficient leadership in the area of accounting.”
The suit states Schau’s contract gave her the right to have “written charges and a hearing before the Board of Education in the event it seeks her discharge for cause.” None of that was done, the suit alleges.
“That by virtue of the manner in which Schau was terminated from her employment with the District, Schau was denied any hearing opportunity to challenge that action either before or after her removal,” the suit states.
Schau, the suit alleges, “suffered emotional pain and anguish, damage to her reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience and the loss of enjoyment of life.” Source
