What Did Yesterday's Primaries Tell Us? Voters in Illinois Don't Really Like Bruce Rauner Very Much

After being ground up by the voters of Illinois, Bruce Rauner's chosen candidates can now wonder how much it really costs to buy a legislative seat in the state. Yesterday's primary results represent a clear punch in the face to an increasingly unpopular governor and the Democrats and Republicans who depended upon his generosity to fund their campaigns. Remember that Rauner came into office with only 50.27 percent of the vote, anything but a mandate. However, in the past year, he has governed as if the state of Illinois were Wisconsin or Mississippi. What these results portend for the future of Chicago State and other Illinois public universities is still unclear, but it seems reasonable to think the statewide Republican party will be in considerable trouble come November. It's time for the legislature to get busy and fund Illinois social services, public higher education and MAP. No more excuses, no more bullshit, no more defections. Here is a look at the major races in which Rauner and his allies got hammered:

In Illinois Senate district 50, Rauner's PAC spent $1.35 million on the candidacy of Bryce Benton. Benton ran against another Republican, Sam McCann, basically another crappy Republican, who had broken with Rauner on a labor vote. Despite the huge amount of cash invested in Benton, McCann won 52 to 48 percent.

In Illinois Assembly district 5, Rauner's PAC spent $500,000 to support Ken Dunkin. Now the tally stands 68 percent for Juliana Stratton, 32 percent for Dunkin. A humiliating loss for Dunkin and Rauner.

In Illinois Assembly district 22, Mike Madigan has 65 percent of the vote and an overwhelming victory. Another repudiation of Rauner.

In Illinois Assembly district 110, Republican Reggie Phillips, an EIU grad who recently broke ranks to vote with the Democrats on House Bill 2990 to fund Higher Ed and MAP, has won his election with 60 percent of the vote. Phillips reportedly received a $53,000 contribution from Rauner's PAC then before his vote in early march donated the contribution to charity. As is the case with McCann, standing up to Rauner did nothing to damage Phillips' candidacy. Another repudiation of Rauner.

Finally, in Illinois Senate district 2, Omar Aquino defeated "Rauner Democrat" and Charter School enthusiast Angelica Alfaro 53 percent to 47 percent. Again, the Rauner Agenda again looks like a loser.

Altogether, Illinois voters in contested races totally rejected Rauner's ideas, his endorsements, and his PAC money. Will this have any effect on Rauner? Doubtful. Will it have any effect on the Illinois Republican party? A good question. Rauner never had a mandate to bring his toxic agenda to Illinois, and in the first test of his political influence, he got his ass kicked. We'll see how that resonates with Republican legislators, especially those in districts with universities. One thing seems certain--there are a lot of angry voters in this state and there is little doubt who they blame for the current crisis.

Everyone in the General Assembly Stand Up: Not you, Ken Dunkin

With better than 2/3 of the precincts reporting, Juliana Stratton is clobbering Ken Dunkin by better than a 2-1 margin. The Tribune has already called the race for Stratton. Can you hear $500,000 being flushed down the toilet?

Get Out and Vote!

Today is election day in Illinois, and if you have not already voted in early voting please go out and vote today. Hopefully by now all of us who work or study at Chicago State recognize the importance of our elected officials. Over the past year, we have witnessed the damage that one particular official has done to Chicago State and all of higher education in Illinois, and while we can't vote Gov. Rauner (Ruiner) out of office now we can try to mitigate some of the damage he can do in the future. So, please vote. No candidate is perfect, but certainly some do more harm than others.

If you live in a district where a member of the General Assembly has voted with Gov. Ruiner aka Gov. 1%, please consider voting that member out. Of course, there are other things at stake in this election, including the position of Cook County state's attorney where the incumbent (Anita Alvarez) has been called out for her actions complicit in systematic racist police brutality in Chicago. And, I could go on. The point is, though, please vote to give us some small hope for the future of Chicago State, the future of higher education in Illinois, and for our collective future together.

The latest: Eastern Illinois & Northeastern Illinois lay offs, pay cuts, furlough days

Eastern Illinois Lays Off 177 Employees as Budget Crisis Drags On (March 11, 2016)

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/eastern-illinois-lays-off-177-employees-as-budget-crisis-drags-on/109408

Northeastern Illinois University announces furlough days (March 10, 2016)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-northeastern-furlough-days-met-20160310-story.html

It can’t happen here? You think so, do you?

 All his life my Dad was a good 1950s New Deal democrat, a WWII vet who detested anything that smacked of fascism. He was horrified, absolutely horrified, some years ago when then president Geo Bush II appeared in military garb on an aircraft carrier. And he was fond of quoting Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 satire, It Can’t Happen Here. The story concerns the ease with which a fascist government could be established in the U.S. as it had been in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan.

I’ve been thinking of this book in light of all that has transpired at CSU with its political-ward style governance, our nadir under Wayne Watson and his “team,” the bovine board of trustees under Anthony Young and Nikki Zollar that exacerbated the crisis we are in with the state. Will we be here in September? Maybe.
What about 2017?  

For the past two decades at various low points in our CSU history I have been told to trust in the idea (maintained as a fact by the believers) that “they would never close down CSU because the Black Caucus/Black politicians/Chicago Black voters/Governor/Democratic Legislature/Emil Jones would never let that happen…” In other words, CSU could do whatever outrageous anti-academic thing, shady hiring or ethics thing it wanted; it was always going to be protected by the pols.

Well, here we are with a Governor who is out for blood. Rauner does not want to close CSU because of its corruption and mismanagement--we are simply his soft target. Rauner wants to undo the university system in Illinois, mostly he wants to break the unions in the State of Illinois system. His model is Scott Walker’s Wisconsin. And have you heard what’s happening up there? A new tenure policy that will essentially make tenure meaningless. See the article posted below.

Today our CSU UPI President Bob Bionaz wrote on the Save CSU facebook account:

Get downtown at 4:30 this afternoon for the rally at Federal Plaza. Yeah, eat dinner late tonight, pass up your favorite TV shows, do your grading tomorrow, record the Blackhawks game and watch it later; for once, don't have anything better to do. We have 7 weeks left before our school runs out of money. Do this for Chicago State, our great students, the people of Chicago, and the people of Illinois.

"Nonsense! Nonsense!" snorted Tasbrough a CSU PROFESSOR, "That couldn't happen here in America ILLINOIS, not possibly! We're a country UNIVERSITY of freemen SCHOLARS EDU-CA-TORS."           http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html

 As my Dad, like Sinclair Lewis, would say, “the hell it can't!”

Regents approve new policies for UW tenure over professors' objections

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/update-regents-approve-new-policies-for-uw-tenure-over-professors/article_e0aa29b5-438b-5182-8870-5cd76fb80144.html?utm_content=buffer24996&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents approved new policies for faculty tenure and performance reviews on Thursday over the objections of professors who said the new rules will make it easier for administrators to deal with budget cuts by laying them off.

The nearly unanimous vote to adopt the policies brought to a close a major piece of the lengthy and controversial process of rewriting tenure rules that started last summer, when lawmakers stripped the protections from state law and widely expanded administrators’ power to fire faculty in the 2015-17 budget.

Under the new rules, UW officials will have the authority to discontinue academic programs and lay off tenured faculty for educational or financial reasons — such as if administrators decide other “higher priority” programs need funding. Professors could also face discipline, including firing, if they are found to be falling short of expectations under a new policy for post-tenure review.

With new statewide rules in place, the Regents’ next step is to approve more specific tenure policies for each UW System campus. The board is expected to act in April on a policy from UW-Madison that would give professors stronger protections; System president Ray Cross indicated the Regents could make changes to the proposal.

UW officials insist the new policies will preserve academic freedom and free speech, striking the right balance between protecting tenured faculty and giving chancellors the “flexibility they need to get through tough times,” according to Regent John Behling.

Previously, faculty could only be fired for just cause, or in the event of a campus-wide financial emergency.

Regent President Regina Millner said the policies “will be a critical new tool for our chancellors, to help them better align their resources with the needs of the state without jeopardizing academic freedom or putting us at a competitive disadvantage.”

Professors were far from satisfied with the new rules, however. The Regents voted down several policy amendments, supported by faculty, that would have given professors stronger protections from losing their jobs and more power in determining when layoffs could occur.

UW-Madison professor Dorothy Farrar-Edwards said she was “bitterly disappointed” by the new policy. Julie Schmid, executive director of the Association of American University Professors, said it could set a precedent for weakening tenure protections across the country.

“The Board of Regents today voted to diminish tenure and academic freedom in the UW System, and with it to diminish the reputation of the system, and to undermine the Wisconsin Idea,” Schmid said.

Regent Jose Vasquez, who opposed the policies, questioned why changes to tenure — which have drawn national attention to Wisconsin, and according to UW-Madison officials made it harder for the campus to recruit and retain top faculty — were necessary in the first place.

“I’ve never been convinced that we had a broken system,” Vasquez said.

The financial challenges on UW campuses are the result of large state budget cuts to higher education funding, Vasquez said, and weakening tenure rules and laying off faculty will not solve the system’s problems.

“It wasn’t tenure that caused the fiscal crisis,” Vasquez said. “The fiscal crisis that we have has been imposed on us.”

Different philosophies on display

Discussion of the new policies at times laid bare major differences in how the Regents — many of whom are appointees of Republican Gov. Scott Walker — believe the UW System should be managed.

Some saw decisions to close programs and dismiss faculty as analogous to companies in the private sector deciding to shift investment from one less-profitable product to another that is selling well.

 “The needs of Wisconsin change,” Regent Jose Delgado said. “We need resources in order to be able to invest in the needs.”

After state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers, who is also a Regent, proposed creating a faculty committee that would weigh in on program closures, other Regents said no business would go through such a lengthy process.

“Welcome to the 21st century,” said Regent Margaret Farrow.

Vasquez and others pushed back against the idea of managing the UW System like a business, saying the job of a university “is different from making widgets.”

Many of the professors at the meeting agreed, saying UW institutions do more than simply grant degrees and produce graduates.

“We are not running cash registers and (students) are not buying Pop Tarts,” UW-Eau Claire professor Geoffrey Peterson said. “What we do is far more complicated than that.”

Campus policies next step

Cross said the new policies were written broadly, to allow for each of the system’s campuses to write rules that are tailored to their institution’s needs.

“What works precisely at Madison will be different than what works precisely at Superior,” Cross said.

But campus policies will still have to be in line with the statewide rules passed Thursday, Cross said. The policy approved by faculty at UW-Madison, which offers stronger protections to professors, will likely face some “critical” changes to keep it compatible with the statewide rules, he said, such as noting more clearly that the campus’ chancellor has the final authority to decide on layoffs.

Noel Radomski, executive director of the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education, said UW-Madison’s policy could serve as a framework for rules at other campuses.

But, he noted, having each campus write tenure policies could lead to a future in which the rules vary by campus, and professors at UW-Madison enjoy greater protection than those at other schools.

Layoffs could come at struggling campuses

It remains to be seen whether and how UW System chancellors will use the authority the new policies gave them.

Radomski said it’s likely that chancellors at cash-strapped UW campuses — particularly those at regional campuses where declining enrollment has compounded the effect of state budget cuts — could look to close departments and dismiss faculty members.

“The new uncertainty, and the new concern, is going to be: Are the enrollment and the fiscal problems going to trigger program discontinuation, and therefore trigger faculty layoffs?” Radomski said.

If chancellors make layoffs under the policy, Schmid said, the AAUP could investigate and censure their campus.

Time to get out of the office and hit the street. You couldn't get to Springfield, you can get downtown. Rally tomorrow with your colleagues from the other state colleges that are under assault by the ideologue Governor Rauner.

Nine Republicans Screwing Their Old Schools

Meet the nine Illinois Republican Representatives who have helped Bruce Rauner assault the state’s system of public higher education. All of these Republicans serve on the Assembly’s Higher Education Appropriations Committee, five have state universities in their districts, and all nine were educated in Illinois public universities. I wonder how they sleep at night.

1. Mark Batinick from Plainfield, educated at UIUC.
2. Thomas Bennett from Watseka, educated at Eastern Illinois, SIU Carbondale
3. Dan Brady from Normal (Illinois State), educated at SIU Carbondale
4. Norine Hammond from Macomb (WIU), educated at WIU
5. Sara Jimenez from Springfield (SIU), educated at SIU Edwardsville, UIS
6. Reggie Phillips from Charleston (EIU), educated at EIU
7. Robert Pritchard from Sycamore (NIU), educated at UIUC
8. Joe Sosnowski from Rockford, educated at NIU
9. Grant Wehrli from Naperville, educated at SIU Carbondale

Seven of the nine have served on the Higher Ed Appropriations Committee since before the recent budget crisis, while two—Jimenez and Phillips—began serving this legislative term. Since May 2015, there have been 3 committee and 5 floor votes on 4 separate bills funding Illinois public higher education and 1 bill specific to MAP grant funding. HB 4146, 4147 and 4148 in May 2015, proposed a 6.5 percent in higher education funding, as part of an overall state budget. SB 2043 proposed to fund MAP grants. All four of those bill failed to gain passage. Altogether, the 3 committee votes and 4 floor votes on those three bills garnered not a single vote from these nine legislators. Most recently, HB 2990, a proposal to fund all Illinois public universities, passed the House 70-43, with Reggie Phillips breaking ranks to vote for the bill. That bill’s future is still uncertain.

Voting on portions of the May 2015 Democratic budget proposal, 5 of these 9 (Jimenez was not in the Assembly at that time), failed to even cast a vote. Batinick, Phillips and Pritchard cast no vote, while Bennett and Wehrli were absent. The other three, Brady, Hammond, and Sosnowski, all voted “present.” A bunch of stand-up legislators, no?

While the budget vote in May 2015 demonstrated the cowardice of all the House Republicans (most either did not vote or voted “present” on significant portions of the proposed budget), the votes of only two of these nine legislators would have enabled the legislature to override Rauner’s MAP grant veto. Just think of it, if two of these persons had voted in the best interests of current students in the schools they all attended, there would be an appropriation for MAP grants. I guess once you’ve gotten yours, everyone else can go to hell.

The legislature will not return until April 4 (no urgency for anything in this state). It remains to be seeen whether Phillips’ break with his party signifies anything, but I expect these nine persons will have further opportunities to choose between voting for their own alma maters, or voting for a Governor determined to destroy the state’s system of public higher education.

Here Are the Real Consequences of Bad Leadership

As those of us who write on this web site have said repeatedly, the deleterious effects of the six-year Watson regime will not be fully known for several years. Recently, the university lost its appeal in the James Crowley case—a suit in which the damages have reached over $5 million. Rather than cut its losses, the university announced that it intends to appeal the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. In my estimation, the final price tag for that legal action will approach $10 million in awards and legal fees.

Following on the heels of that bad news comes the visit of representatives from the Higher Learning Commission. In early February, the Higher Learning Commission communicated to all Illinois public universities their concern with the ongoing budget fiasco and asked the schools to provide evidence that students would have options in the event of a worst case scenario. However, Chicago State’s declaration of “financial exigency” resulted in a visit to determine the university’s ability to meet Criterion 5 of the HLC accrediting standards. The components of that criterion include these: “5.A. The institution’s resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.” And, “5.C. The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.” Even more specific is this: 5.C.4. “The institution plans on the basis of a sound understanding of its current capacity. Institutional plans anticipate the possible impact of fluctuations in the institution’s sources of revenue, such as enrollment, the economy, and state support.” See: https://www.hlcommission.org/Criteria-Eligibility-and-Candidacy/criteria-and-core-components.html

Rauner announced his budget cuts to higher education on February 18, 2015. Rauner’s proposal reduced the appropriation to Chicago State by 31.5 percent. At this point, the university should have begun to develop contingency plans to address the almost certain reduction in state appropriations that would occur in fiscal 2016. If the university administration developed contingency plans, they kept them secret. Based on the current scramble to figure out where cost savings and new revenues can be found, along with the absence of an existing plan, it seems reasonable to assume that no actual planning took place. Thus, when Thomas Calhoun assumed the presidency of Chicago State on January 1, 2016, he stepped into a budget crisis for which the university had done little or no contingency planning.

Along with this deepening crisis, the new president had to contend with an inept and dysfunctional administration. This dysfunction created immediate problems that included the continued presence of the former president, given an undeserved title, ensconced in a library office by Board decree, and drawing his $16,625 monthly salary until June 30, 2016. The former president, reportedly still meeting on an ex parte basis with individual Board members, continued to exert some influence on university affairs. In addition, many of his cronies reportedly also had access to Board members, using that access to undermine the new president by blaming him for the university’s current condition, attempting to hide their own incompetence, and by trying to cover up their own culpability for the university’s dire situation; all in an attempt to retain their jobs.

The confluence of the streams of fiscal stress, administrative incompetence and inattention, and political maneuvering form the river of accreditation crisis. The Watson administration was apparently too busy promoting administrators, hiring new ones, lying to the Board of Trustees, and defending itself against one major lawsuit (and others in the pipeline) to put together anything resembling a contingency plan for continued financial deprivation. The Board, either totally complicit or blissfully ignorant of the situation, obviously did not take things seriously until the meltdown became critical. Many of the holdover Watson administrators, busy with their backstabbing and political chicanery, simply had no time to deal with the problem. Anyone doubting the surreal nature of the current level of administrative denial is encouraged to attend the President’s Executive Council meetings where a stream of good news is almost never interrupted by forays into material reality. Why should we discuss the substantive problems facing the university when we can talk about our upcoming poster presentations?

In the absence of any existing plan, on February 4, 2016, the Board declared “financial exigency.” Although a number of administrators apparently believe that declaration will pave the way for a purge of dissidents and troublemakers (I’ll leave it to you to decide who those people might be), the immediate consequence is the current visit by the HLC representatives. They are asking pointed questions about the university’s planning, communication, and financial viability. They seem to have very real concerns about all those topics and it is uncertain what their report will ultimately recommend. Obviously, if the university’s accreditation is in jeopardy, so is its existence.

I must note here that the HLC has also been complicit in the decline of Chicago State University. In 2012 and 2014, faculty and staff made clear to representatives of that body the continuing problems created by Watson and his management style. The Faculty Senate’s Executive Committee had a frank discussion about the 2012 no confidence vote in Watson and his failure to perform the duties enumerated in his contract. In 2014, faculty and staff reiterated their concerns about communication and planning, again urging HLC representatives to take seriously our deepening disaffection. All to no avail. After spending most of their time meeting with administrators, the HLC representatives responsible for preparing the 2013 HLC Assurance Report said this about our former President and his administration: “He has established a strong new leadership team.” Subsequent events have certainly proven the inaccuracy of that observation.

So the real result of poor leadership boils down to this: 1) almost certainly, the university has no existing plan to deal with the worsening state financial crisis because neither the former President nor the Board insisted that one be created. 2) the “ripple effect” on our accreditation of the Board’s financial exigency declaration was apparently unanticipated, again reflecting an absence or a gross insufficiency in knowledge and planning. 3) The lack of state appropriations and the threat to our accreditation are twin blades pointing at the university. Either could ultimately be fatal. 4) As the crisis continues to unfold, many of the persons shaping the university’s response are holdovers from the previous administration, a situation that hardly inspires confidence.

If we are to survive this crisis and if the university is to continue as an educational institution, we must begin immediately to travel down a different road. First, the Board must provide a forum for faculty concerns. At this point, other than the worthless public comments, there is no opportunity for faculty to report directly to the Board of Trustees. The desire of the Board to listen only to our administration and to shut out faculty voices, particularly dissenting voices, has contributed mightily to this mishandled crisis. Second, our administration must utilize all the resources at its disposal, particularly the intellectual capacity of the university’s staff, students and faculty. Important administrative decisions cannot be left to a tiny group of self-interested persons who guard knowledge as if it were proprietary information. The more input into the process, the better the final outcome, and there should be few secrets as this process unfolds. Third, staff reduction decisions must be transparent and must affect all employee categories on a proportional basis. This crisis will not be an excuse to pare down staff and faculty positions while leaving dozens of high salaried administrators in place. If our administration does that, there will be nothing but contention on the horizon, even if we get through the current crisis.

We have succeeded in transforming our school’s public face. We are now seen as leaders in the struggle for adequate higher education financing and other schools are looking at us for strategies and tactics to fight this monstrous assault on the public welfare. We owe it to them, but most of all to ourselves, to get it as right as possible.

Here's What the Appellate Court Thinks of Our Former President and His Behavior: What Will Our Board Say About This? Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Wasted

As Corday’s most recent post indicates, the Illinois Appellate Court has weighed in on the Crowley case. You remember the first verdict, a $2.5 million damage award against the University—specifically against the former President—plus back pay, front pay, and interest, which now has reportedly reached over $5 million.

You may also remember that the university appealed that original verdict after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the unsuccessful defense of the former president. Undoubtedly, the university has now spent more thousands of dollars on the appeal. The result: Two unanimous decisions utterly repudiating all defense claims, with the Appellate Court affirming in its entirety the award.

What follows are excerpts from the Appellate decision. If anyone wishes a copy of the entire opinion, it’s here: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/recent_appellate.asp.The Appellate Court shredded all of the defense arguments, many of which should have been brought up at trial and were not. As previously noted on this forum, appeals do not deal with issues of fact, those have been established during the trial. Thus, raising additional issues of fact during the appeals process is a waste of the court’s (and everyone else’s) time.

After batting away a number of specious claims raised by defense counsel, the Appellate Court takes up the issue of the amount of the award, assuredly the most important component of the appeal. Beginning on page 15 of the opinion, the opinion discusses whether punitive damages are permissible and whether the award was excessive. In the next ten pages, the court’s opinion eviscerates defense arguments, and affirms both the propriety and amount of the punitive damages. Along the way, the judges have a number of harsh things to say about the behavior of our former President and his “Lieutenants.”

On page 19, the court finds that Crowley’s actions “protected the public’s right to know of inappropriate activities in the expenditure of state funds at a state university.” The judges argue that punitive damages in the Crowley matter are no more inappropriate than using state resources to “improperly retaliate against a state employee” and to use even more state resources “in defense of such impropriety.” The judges then make clear that damage awards are “for the jury to decide,” based on its assessment of whether the “defendant’s conduct was willful and wanton.”

The court then deals with defense claims that the award violated their “due process” rights, a familiar all-purpose defense used by both the former President and members of his administration still employed at Chicago State. Here the standard includes “the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct,” the “most important factor,” which considers the “harm caused (physical or economic), whether the conduct shows reckless disregard for the health or safety of others . . . whether the harm resulted from malice, trickery or deceit.”

The opinion notes that defense lawyers “make virtually no argument that Watson’s actions did not rise to the level of willful and wanton conduct that could warrant the imposition of punitive damages.” The opinion goes on to say “This is congruent with our view of the evidence, which shows that Watson and his lieutenants were nothing short of reprehensible and that they acted with malice and deceit.” After detailing several ways Watson and his administrators tried to harm Crowley, personally and professionally, the judges write “In analyzing the due process violation, the evidence thus supports a conclusion that defendant’s conduct was thoroughly reprehensible.”

Moving to the amount of the damages, the judges write “a jury’s verdict for punitive damages should be found to be excessive only if it is evident that it resulted from passion, partiality or corruption.” In this case, the court finds “The only passion revealed in this trial was the ardor with which defendants sought to humiliate their improperly terminated employee.” Completely rejecting all defense arguments, the Appellate judges concur with the trial court judge’s belief that the size of the judgment should encourage taxpayers “to entrust the appropriate individuals with state resources and decision-making authority.” The judges obviously believe our former President is not one of those “appropriate individuals.”

I am sure the Board of Trustees will ignore the consequences of this decision and decide to throw more money away on the fruitless defense of the indefensible behavior exhibited by the former President. Perhaps the Board will decide that despite decisions by a trial jury and the Appellate Court, that our former President really did not receive due process. Perhaps they can confer upon him another “honor.” This needs to stop and the university should stop expending its meager resources on defending this behavior. This lawsuit is simply another millstone around the neck of our new President, another incident in the sorry narrative of our former administration, and another example of the fecklessness of those persons entrusted with the well-being of the institution. Below are excerpts from the opinion:

The Crowley Case continued--

"Appellate court backs fired Chicago State University whistleblower in landmark case" --Chicago Tribune, March 3, 2016

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-state-whistleblower-appeal-20160302-story.html

no comment