Pinterest Facebook Twitter Facebook Local News Ector County Independent School District’s lone finalist for a new superintendent Scott Muri explains his reasons for coming to Ector County after being named to the position during meeting Tuesday afternoon at the ECISD Administration Building. The Ector County ISD Board of Trustees will meet in executive session at 6 p.m. Wednesday in the board room of the administration building, 802 N. Sam Houston Ave. Trustees will discuss the status of the superintendent’s contract negotiations. Scott Muri, currently superintendent of Spring Branch Independent School District in Houston, was named the lone finalist by the school board April 23 by a 7-0 vote. By law, the school board must wait 21 days before finalizing a contract with Muri. He will replace Interim Superintendent Jim Nelson who was appointed after former Superintendent Tom Crowe retired last fall. The firm of Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates conducted the search for the new school chief. Mike Atkins, the attorney for the school district, said this is not out of the ordinary to have a discussion on the status of the superintendent designee’s contract. At the regular May 14 board meeting, Atkins said he and the board will go over the contract again in executive session. Tentatively, the plan is to have a special meeting May 15 to approve everything. Atkins said that will be the 22nd day. Muri has a bachelor’s degree in intermediate education and middle school education from Wake Forest University; a master’s degree in public school administration from Stetson University in Deland, Fla., and a doctorate in educational leadership from Wingate University in Matthews, N.C. Muri has been superintendent in Spring Branch for four years. During that time, academic achievement gaps narrowed in five of five areas and overall student achievement rose, a news release stated. He oversaw the redesign of the compensation system and recruiting efforts to more effectively recruit and retain employees, the release detailed. Spring Branch has a budget of $300 million, student enrollment of 35,000 ranging from high wealth to economically disadvantaged and 4,600 employees. He also has served as deputy superintendent of academics in Fulton County Schools in Atlanta, which has 96,000 students and 100 campuses. Before that, he spent five years at Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in Charlotte, N.C. His roles included area superintendent, zone superintendent and chief information officer overseeing research and evaluation, along with technology infrastructure and instructional technology innovation. He has been an elementary school teacher, middle school math/science teacher, instructional technology specialist and high school dean of students and assistant principal and principal, the release said. WhatsApp WhatsApp TAGS Previous articlePoetry Readings and Book SigningsFort Worth poet featured in PBPS eventNext articleWoman charged with biting another woman on hand Digital AIM Web Support By Digital AIM Web Support – February 24, 2021 Pinterest New super’s contract on agenda Twitter
Top StoriesRight To Property Is A Constitutional As Well As Human Right, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini7 Aug 2020 6:26 AMShare This – x”However, laudable be the purpose, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property without specific legal authority.”The right to property is still a constitutional right and a human right, reiterated the Supreme Court while allowing an appeal filed by Hari Krishna Mandir Trust in the matter of a land dispute with the Pune Municipal Corporation.The bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee observed that the right to property includes any proprietary/ hereditary interest in the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe right to property is still a constitutional right and a human right, reiterated the Supreme Court while allowing an appeal filed by Hari Krishna Mandir Trust in the matter of a land dispute with the Pune Municipal Corporation.The bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee observed that the right to property includes any proprietary/ hereditary interest in the right of management of a religion endowment, as well as anything acquired by inheritance.The trust, in this case, had filed an application in which it requested the State Government to correct the wrong entry (as internal road to the Trust) in the name of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra rejected the proposal and held that the Pune Municipal Corporation is the owner in respect of the land. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the said order passed by the Government and held that the land in question had vested under Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act. Thus the Trust approached the Apex Court.Allowing the Trust’s Appeal, the Apex Court bench observed that the High Court misconstrued Section 88 of the Regional and Town Planning Act, by reading the same in isolation from the other provisions of the Regional and Town Planning Act, particularly Sections 65, 66, 125 and 126 thereof. In the light of admissions, on the part of the respondent authorities that the private road measuring 414 sq. was private property never acquired by the Pune Municipal Corporation or the State Government, the respondents had a public duty under Section 91 to appropriately modify the scheme and to show the private road as property of its legitimate owners, as per the property records in existence, and or in the award of the Arbitrator, the Court said.Right To Property: A Constitutional & Human RightThe bench also observed that in the absence of any proceedings for acquisition or for purchase, no land belonging to the Trust could have vested in the State. In this regard, the bench, referring to Article 300A of the Constitution, said:The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and Others. In view of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The appellant trust cannot be deprived of its property save inaccordance with law.Executive cannot deprive a person of his property without specific legal authorityThe court further observed that the Article 300A embodies the doctrine of eminent domain which comprises two parts, (i) possession of property in the public interest; and (ii) payment of reasonable compensation. It further observed:”The State possesses the power to take or control the property of the owner for the benefit of public. When, however, a State so acts it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation. The right to property includes any proprietary interest hereditary interest in the right of management of a religion endowment, as well as anything acquired by inheritance. However, laudable be the purpose, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property without specific legal authority, which can be established in a court of law.”State seeking to acquire private property for public purpose cannot say that no compensation shall be paidThe court further added that though the right to claim compensation or the obligation of the State to pay compensation to a person who is deprived of his property is not expressly provided in Article 300A of the Constitution, it is inbuilt in the Article. It said:”The State seeking to acquire private property for public purpose cannot say that no compensation shall be paid. The Regional and Town Planning Act also does not contemplate deprivation of a land holder of his land, without compensation. Statutory authorities are bound to pay adequate compensation.”HC Not Only Have Power To Issue Mandamus But Are Duty Bound To Exercise Such Power In Appropriate CasesThe High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a Statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion malafide, or on irrelevant consideration. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, the bench said while setting aside the High Court judgment.While allowing the appeal, the Court also directed to delete the name of the Pune Municipal Corporation as owner of the private road in the records pertaining to the Scheme and carry out such other consequential alterations.’Case detailsCase no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6156 OF 2013 Case name: HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Coram: Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee Counsel: Sr. Adv Pallav Sisodia assisted by Adv Braj K Mishra for Appellants, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar for State, AdvocatesMarkand D. Adkar and Rajesh Kumar, for CorporationClick here to Read/Download JudgmentRead Judgment Next Story
Authorities in Virginia Beach are currently investigating an incident were a woman vacationing in the area found a spy camera in the shower of a home she was renting.The incident occurred sometime in July of this year.The woman says that during the second day of her stay, she noticed a reflective black dot taped to the ceiling of the shower. When she and her friend began to investigate the dot, they soon found out that it was a small camera.According to the search warrant, a man who lives in the home admitted to placing the camera inside the shower and collecting footage from at least one of the women.In addition to the camera, investigators also found that above the shower there was an attic that led directly to the man’s bedroom.Despite the evidence and the man admitting to placing the camera, he allegedly has not been charged with a crime.Authorities have reported that they are still investigating the situation and are waiting for an analysis on the items that were collected from the home.If the suspect is arrested, he will face up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.