College of DuPage (ECWd) –
Watchdogs comment on Jeff Crowell’s public comment from the Feb 3rd College of DuPage Board of Trustees meeting.
Having fun…our audio will get better, we are still trying to figure it all out.
Crowell made three claims: 1) HLC stated the “new” board had violations that caused COD to be put on probation, and, 2) HLC said the new board micromanaged administration and hired people without approval, and, 3) not all the trustees got the paperwork required for them to do their jobs.
All three are false.
Crowell made two more claims: 1) that COD counsel is running for county board and it is a direct conflict of interest, and, 2) current counsel is a triple-dipper claiming he gets paid from his village board seat, as contracted counsel for COD, and a double-dipper on pensions claiming he gets one from his village board seat and the county board.
Of course, both of these claims are false also.
Please consider a donation to The Edgar County Watchdogs.
screech0000Posted at 15:16h, 05 February
Probably should change the second group to “two” claims since that would match numbering.
CCPosted at 16:10h, 05 February
So, was Mr. C. saying that the health, well being, and accreditation of COD is a ‘tea party’ issue? What kind of nonsense is that? Just get a grip. Deeds not words. I am happy to stand with the college.
G. BarracloughPosted at 16:11h, 05 February
Jeff is a tough act to follow.
Citizens of Illinois, you may have just witnessed your next United States Senator in action.
sandy grayPosted at 17:24h, 05 February
Is this guy drunk or some kind of meds that effects his thought processes?
DavidPosted at 18:45h, 05 February
Mr. Crowell is a prolific commentator on the Daily Herald COD articles. He doesn’t play nice – he posts many many comments trying to drown out the other voices. I feel sorry for him. He thinks the tea party is out to take over COD. Interesting that he was the only public speaker in support of the Breuder clan. Quite telling.
Also of interest from the last Special Meeting: The approval of legal expenses was voted as follows:
Yea: Bernstein, Napolitano
Nea: Birt, McGuire, Mazzochi, Wozniak
Curious why Mazzochi voted no…
Kirk AllenPosted at 18:52h, 05 February
As a no vote in a failed motion she can bring it back for a vote under Roberts Rules. She is VERY smart!
screech0000Posted at 18:57h, 05 February
Was that the order of the votes?
i wasn’t paying attention. I would guess that Mazzochi, as meeting chair, would vote last.
In that case, after three nays, her vote wouldn’t matter.
Probably she’s just messin’ with Wozniak to confuse him on the next vote.