Talk about double-speak...

Will probably be slammed by the McCain campaign, but this is a good place for me to interject the infamous "lipstick on a pig" analogy!

The only thing "novel to the process" is Dr. Swopes and his invocation of 1988 and 2004 "precedence" (with an extra layer of lip gloss - the parenthetical "or past practices") to justify NOT following clear contractual language negotiated AFTER the so-called precedence/past practices!

How do you spell "pig"? I spell it...U-L-P!

Two final comments/observations:

• THIS is where the District should get some OUTSIDE legal advice...from ISBE, from IELRB, from Judge Judy, from Judge Mathis, from SOMEBODY/ANYBODY...other than their own lawyers. (The District's own lawyers have a conflict of interest. If they were to tell the District the truth...that the District is committing a blatant ULP...then the District's lawyers would be talking themselves out of many, many, many billable hours!)

• The "CC" to the "School Board Members". Wonder if they heard about the ULP BEFORE the fact. (REMEMBER...they did NOT hear about the SCC Institute until AFTER the fact.)