Dan Baker Probably Doesn't Want the Fox C-6 Community to See the Invoices for Legal Fees!

It was announced that Dan Baker was selected as the new principal at Seckman Elementary at the March 17, 2015 Fox C-6 Board of Education (BOE) meeting.

I voiced my concerns about Dan Baker being selected as a finalist for the Seckman Elementary School principal position to Fox C-6 board president John Laughlin and Dr. Wipke in an email early Monday morning March 16, 2015. Then after not receiving a response I sent another email to all of the Fox C-6 board members at 6:30am Tuesday March 17, 2015.

I also voiced my concerns to the Fox C-6 BOE meeting during Public Comments. Click on the link below to listen to my Public Comments. There were a total of 7 Public Comments made at the BOE meeting. There were two public comments in support of hiring Dan Baker for the principal position at Seckman Elementary which was made by teachers from Seckman Elementary. I wonder if Mr. Baker will give them any special treatment now that he's been selected principal?

My Public Comments Made at the March 17, 2015

Fox C-6 BOE Meeting

Dan Baker's selection reminds me very much of when the community was told that Kelly Nash was the best candidate for Fox's Food Nutrition Director in December 2012 by Todd Scott even though she didn't possess the certification and schooling required for the job as required by board policy.

Dan Baker, possesses the proper certification for the principal job. He was a principal at Hodge Elementary School prior to being promoted to the position of Assistant Superintendent and Section 504 Coordinator for the Fox C-6 School District in the Central Office.

Unlike Kelly Nash, Dan Baker has to face scrutiny from the public for his involvement in the internet scandal that made national headlines at Fox C-6 in 2014 after it was discovered that derogatory posts were linked to the home and cell phone of Dan and Angie Baker as well as to the home of former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow and her husband Jamie Critchlow who was fired by the district in June 2014.

Dan Baker was the Section 504 Coordinator for the district at the time the posts linked to his home were made in 2013. Mr. Baker was also involved in our Section 504 case and had been since May of 2008. Having derogatory comments linked to his home that were made against me could be considered retaliation by the Office for Civil Rights because we had filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) and the USDA's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR) back in 2008 and 2009 respectively.

Section 504 law prohibits retaliating against any individual who files a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights or advocates for someone's civil rights. Therefore, it's very important that everyone understands what the law says on Section 504. It's also very important to know that it was Mr. Baker's job as the district's 504 Coordinator to ensure that Fox C-6 complied with Section 504 law and the ADA AA.

Had the public been properly informed of the district's run in with ED OCR and USDA OCR six years ago, Dan Baker may not have been considered for the principal position at Seckman Elementary School.

Dan Baker, Dianne Brown-Critchlow and Todd Scott have been working hard for years to keep the district's non-compliance issues out of the news and hidden from the public. Board meeting minutes didn't document my questions or letters about the OCR issues. In fact, the district's former law firm sent me letters telling me that the public had no need to know about the Resolution Agreement that Dan Baker signed on May 1, 2009 with ED OCR or the 2010 District Wide Compliance Review investigation until ED OCR released their findings.

The Resolution Agreement signed by Dan Baker has been open now for nearly 6 years and the District Wide Compliance Review has been open for 5 years. 

How long does it take ED OCR to complete an investigation and report their findings?

That means that for nearly 6 years, Dan Baker and the district were unable to meet the terms of the agreement that Dan Baker agreed to in order for the district to be compliant with Section 504 law and the ADA AA. It certainly doesn't seem that Dan Baker was doing his job as Section 504 Coordinator.

I would think that not being able to meet the terms of an agreement with a federal agency for nearly 6 years would weigh heavily on Mr. Baker's job performance reviews over the years. But, since Dianne Brown-Critchlow and the former law firm kept ED OCR at bay for years as well as the USDA OCR, no one knew that Fox was non-compliant with federal law. The Resolution Agreement and District Wide Compliance Review and Monitoring Letters were never documented in the board meeting minutes or board packets.

I don't believe that Dr. Jim Wipke has been fully informed of all of the non-compliance issues with ED OCR and USDA OCR. I spoke with Dr. Wipke this evening after the board meeting about my concerns of hiring Dan Baker as the principal at Seckman Elementary School and Todd Scott as the new principal at Seckman High School. Dr, Wipke offered to get together and discuss my concerns further regarding this issue and that he would like to work with me on this issue.

I think it's time for the public to get involved and make a Sunshine Law Request and demand that the invoices from the district's former law firm be released to the public. Your taxpayer dollars were used to pay legal fees to keep ED OCR and USDA OCR at bay for years. In fact, one of the training sessions by the district's former law firm was titled, "OCR Is Gaining On You! How to Run Faster!".

It's seems quite obvious that someone in the district doesn't want the legal fee invoices to be made public. I've asked for copies of them for years via Sunshine Law Requests and the district still hasn't provided me a single copy of an invoice. 

As a Fox C-6 taxpayer, wouldn't you want to know why the school board approved paying more than $103,000 in legal fees between the August 2012 and September 2012 board meetings?

By the way, the $103,000 in legal fees corresponds time wise with emails we received from USDA OCR informing us that they were in discussions with the district and their legal counsel regarding the USDA's August 2011 Final Agency Decision that found the district non-compliant with Section 504 law and the ADA AA. It also corresponds with the time I was sent a cease and desist letter by the district to keep me from speaking with the public and school employees and former employees about my concerns with the district.

If Dan Baker and Dianne Brown-Critchlow were responsible for being found non-compliant with Section 504 law and the ADA AA in the USDA's August 2011 Final Agency Decision, shouldn't the public have been told about that?

Spending $103,000 in legal fees in just two months in 2012 was two times more than what the district paid the same law firm for legal fees for the entire year in 2005 from information recently provided to me by Fox's CFO John Brazeal.

It seems to me that paying out that much in legal fees in just two months in 2012 would have raised red flags for our school board members. In fact, we sent a letter to Dave Palmer and other board members back then asking them about the amount of money that the district was spending in legal fees because it appeared that the district wasn't following board policy on legal fees. We never received a response from our letter. You may want to make note of that since Dave Palmer is running for school board again this year.

I've made numerous Sunshine Requests for actual copies of the invoices for legal fees but I've only been given the dollar amounts for the invoices. Why is that?

Transparency is what keeps your school district and school board accountable. If there's a lack of transparency then there will be a lack of trust and lack of accountability in both the district and and the people in charge of running and overseeing the district.

Back in August 2010, the Post Dispatch wrote an article in which Dan Baker was quoted as saying, "the district had spent a lot in legal fees during the dispute, but he did not know an exact amount." What Mr. Baker didn't tell the newspaper was that the district decided to bring their legal counsel to a 504 meeting in August 2008. We asked why an attorney was need for a 504 meeting. The explanation given by the attorney was to ensure that the district was doing things properly. Well, it took from September 2008 when Dan Baker removed a 504 plan until August 2014 to get the 504 plan properly restored by the district. Restoring the 504 would not have occurred if the the district hadn't changed law firms.

Between 2008 and 2014 my wife and I worked to get the district to properly follow Section 504 law and restore what was improperly removed in 2008. However, some of our administrators decided to resort to bullying tactics using the internet as well the media in an attempt to halt our efforts to expose what was going on in the district.

So now, nearly a year after it was discovered that derogatory comments were traced to the home and cell phone of Dan and Angie Baker, Mr. Baker was selected as the principal of Seckman Elementary School despite his being linked to the internet scandal and to large sums of money being spent defying ED OCR and USDA OCR.

What do you think motivated the Bakers to post derogatory comments online?

In order for the community to believe that Dan Baker was the right person for the job, the district needs to release the invoices from the former law firm dating back to 2008 since he worked closely with the former law firm to get around the law.

Who Were the Other Job Candidates?
The district also needs to provide the public with the list of other candidates that applied for the job as well as the members of the selection committee that narrowed down the field of candidates. Without full disclosure of that information, the public is never going to believe that Dan Baker was the best candidate for the job!

Please contact you school board members and request that they release the invoices for legal fees from the Mickes Goldman O'Toole law firm.

Also ask the school board to publish the list of candidates that applied for the Seckman Elementary School principal position and the names of the selection committee members for the job.

Perhaps a community of requests for how your taxpayer dollars were spent on legal fees will finally encourage the district to release the invoice information. Other school districts publish that information, why can't Fox?

My Open Letter to the Fox C-6 BOE Regarding the Hiring of School District Leadership

I emailed the Fox C-6 School Board the following letter this morning regarding the hiring of future leaders in our school district.

I emailed board president John Laughlin and Dr. Wipke very early Monday morning in which I expressed my concerns about the hiring of the next Seckman Elementary School principal. I never received a response to my email.

I decided to send this email after I noticed last night that Angie Burns Baker, the wife of assistant superintendent Dan Baker, was listed as the 2015-2016 Director of Federal Programs in the March 2015 board meeting packet that was posted online Friday March 13, 2015.

The link below contains a copy of the Employment of Certified Employees Report from the March 2015 Fox C-6 school board meeting packet.

March 2015

Fox C-6 Employment of Certified Employees Report

The Fox C-6 Board of Education (BOE) will be meeting tonight in Closed Session at 5:30PM prior to Public Comments. Therefore the board will most likely be making hiring decisions prior to hearing any Public Comments from the community.

Fox's BOE is expected to be making hiring decisions for the Fox High School, Seckman High School and Seckman Elementary School principal positions as well as the Fox C-6 Food Nutrition Director.

Below is the letter I emailed to the Fox C-6 BOE Tuesday morning March 17, 2015.

It is critical that the Fox C-6 school board be completely transparent in the hiring of future leaders of the Fox C-6 School District. This includes the Fox and Seckman High School and Seckman Elementary principals as well as the next Food Nutrition Director.
 The school board failed miserably in December 2012 when it approved the hiring of Kelly Nash as Fox’s Food Nutrition Director over individuals who already possessed the credentials required for the job. That one decision was the straw that broke the camel’s back and the one that led to the public disgrace of our school district and the embarrassment and humiliation of the Fox C-6 community.
 School board policy requires that the superintendent only recommends individuals to the board for hire who already possess the proper certification and education. School board policy was not followed when the board hired Kelly Nash in 2012. It was obvious then and now that she was chosen because she was the daughter in law of former Fox C-6 board member Linda Nash who was the board president at the time of her hiring. The taxpayers paid the price for that decision as well as members of the community who spoke out about that decision.
 Kelly Nash’s hire was very similar to the hiring of Gee Palmer, the wife of current school board member and incumbent school board candidate David Palmer as the Director of Nursing in June 2006.
 David Palmer was the president of the Fox C-6 school board in 2006 when his wife was promoted to Director of Nursing position and given a 75% pay increase ahead of other nurses who were more qualified and who had many more years of service with the district.
 You are now faced with another decision that will forever shape the legacy of the Fox C-6 School District and the Fox C-6 board when you select new leaders for Seckman Elementary, Seckman High School and Fox High School.
 The individuals you choose to lead our teachers and our students should not bring with them any immoral or unethical baggage from the past.
 You are practicing Willful Blindness by even allowing Dan Baker to be a finalist for the position as Seckman Elementary School principal given his past misdeeds and inability to ensure that Fox C-6 was compliant with federal law as assistant superintendent for more than 6 years.
 You will forever be judged by the community by the decisions in choosing new district leadership.
 I am extremely disappointed to learn that you have already given notice in the March 2015 board packet that Angela Burns Baker will be the 2015-2016 Director of Federal Programs.
 Since you are elected officials and represent the taxpayers and patrons of the Fox C-6 School District you are entrusted to make the best choices for our school district.
 How did Mr. Baker become one of 3 finalist for the Seckman Elementary principal position given the fact that derogatory comments were traced to his home and a cell phone owned by the Bakers? Were any Fox school board members part of the screening process for the principal position? Please provide a list to the Public of the candidates for the principal positions in the school district and the members of the committee panels that interviewed the candidates and made recommendations to the selections. It’s imperative that the Fox C-6 school board be transparent and represent the community in an honest and open manner and that all decisions are made aboveboard according to school district policy.
 I am requesting that you please email me a list of all persons that served on the interview/hiring committees and all candidates for the recent job openings in the school district for the Fox and Seckman High school principal positions,  the Seckman Elementary principal position and the Food Nutrition Director position. It’s imperative that this information be published on the school district website in order to rebuild the trust of the community. There are rumblings that individuals that participated on the selection committees were chosen in order to narrow the selection to favor our disgraced assistant superintendents.
 It’s hard to believe that anyone in our community would have considered Dan Baker as a potential candidate for the Seckman Elementary School principal position. Very few people are going to believe that Mr. Baker was ranked above other candidates in terms of integrity and honesty given his past indiscretions. His selection as one of the best candidates gives the impression that our district is still not operating aboveboard.
 In order to maintain any trust with the community everything done by the board needs to be done with full disclosure to the community. If not, all hires will be extremely scrutinized by the public!
 I certainly hope that you can face the public and be proud of your decision after approving the hiring of new leadership in our school district.
  Thank you,
 Rich Simpson

Another Cash Give Away of Fox C-6 Taxpayer Dollars!

On Friday February 27, 2015, it was reported in the Post Dispatch that the Fox C-6 school board voted 6-0 at this week's board meeting to approve the termination agreement with former Fox C-6 School Food Nutrition Director Kelly Nash.

Kelly Nash was the daughter in law of former long time Fox C-6 school board member Linda Nash. Linda Nash was the board president when her daughter in law Kelly Nash was hired as the Food Nutrition Director.

According to the Post Dispatch article, Kelly Nash is leaving with a settlement that will pay her more than $20,000 after being employed by the district for just over two years. According to the article Kelly Nash's employment was "terminated" on January 31, 2015. She was placed on paid administrative leave on December 31, 2014. Kelly Nash's salary was $63,621.

Kelly Nash should not have been given any settlement money. However, since Kelly Nash's employment contract did not contain any language specifying that she had to obtain her certification within 2 years, the district and Fox C-6 taxpayers were on the hook. The public was told in December 2012 that she would have to obtain her certification with 2 years as Fox's Food Nutrition Director. Not stipulating that in her contract was a mistake that should not have happened.

I wrote about this problem in December 2014 in the following article:

Fox Board Meeting Minutes and ContractsNO Record of Removal of 10 Years of Service Requirements

It's very apparent that Kelly Nash did not obtain her certification as required even though Tim Crutchley says he can't comment on whether or not she obtained her certification due to "privacy rules". This has been another costly lesson for Fox C-6 taxpayers due to a lack of board oversight. It's just another example of how easy it has been to cover things up for years and keep handing out cash for those types of mistakes. Just think about how many books could have been purchased over the past year for all that money that's been handed out.

Kelly Nash's 2014-2015 Employment Contract

Transparency is key to rebuilding the trust of the community. This fiasco was a big step backwards in rebuilding trust in the community. The board needs to ensure that job candidates for administrator and director positions are listed in board meeting minutes in order to remove the secrecy of what goes in Closed Session.

Terms of Kelly Nash's Settlement Agreement

• Kelly Nash will be paid a $20,000 settlement.
• Kelly Nash will be paid $105 for two unused sick days.
• Kelly Nash will be paid $1,967 for eight vacation days.
• Kelly Nash will be paid $403 per month until her contract expiration date of June 30, 2015.
• Kelly Nash agrees not to sue the school district.
• Settlement prohibits school board members and acting superintendent Tim Crutchley and CFO John Brazeal from making derogatory comments about Kelly Nash.
• Kelly Nash is prohibited from making derogatory comments about the district.
• Agreement states that Kelly Nash was not terminated for misconduct allowing her to obtain unemployment benefits.
• Kelly Nash agrees to never apply for another job in the district.

Post Dispatch article:Fox Nutrition Director Leaves with $20,000 Settlement

FNS Non-Compliance with Section 504 and ADA AA
In August 2011, Fox C-6 was found non-complaint with Section 504 law and the ADA AA by the USDA Food Nutrition Services division. The district was told to immediately reinstate a Section 504 plan that had been removed in September 2008. The district with the help of the district's former law firm fought the August 2011 ruling for nearly 3 years.

August 2011 USDA OCR Final Agency Decision

After the December 2011 Fox C-6 school board meeting, former 504 Coordinator Dan Baker told me that the district had filed an appeal with the USDA to the August 2011 ruling. The district had discussions with the USDA regarding the ruling in July through September 2012. In August 2013, the district was informed that their appeal was denied.

It wasn't until after the internet scandal broke and Dan Baker was removed from his position as the Section 504 Coordinator and the district hired a new law firm that the district reinstated the Section 504 plan that was removed in September 2008.

Food Nutrition Directors and Section 504 Coordinators agree every year to follow the USDA's Guidelines and Regulations in exchange for receiving federal funding for the National School Lunch Program. One of those guidelines is the USDA's Accommodating Children with Special Dietary Needs - A Guide for Food Service Directors document.

It was the job of Fox's former Food Nutrition Directors Candy Sengheiser-Gruenewald and Kelly Nash as well as Fox's former Section 504 Coordinator Dan Baker to comply with Section 504 law and the ADA and ADA AA.

It took the district 3 years after being found non-compliant with federal law to issue Section 504 plans for students with special dietary needs. It took 6 years of effort to have the district reissue the Section 504 Plan that was originally taken away in September 2008.

Training Does Not Follow Section 504 Law
It was September 2008 when I informed the USDA's Office for Civil Rights Regional Director about a video presentation and power point slides that I had found using Google on a Missouri law firm's website that appeared to be providing incorrect information about Section 504 law. The video was recorded at the 2005 Annual School Law Seminar. It was titled "Controlling the Explosion in Section 504 Lawsuits: Allergic Reaction to Peanut Product Suits".

The presentation stated that school districts should not provide Section 504 plans to students with food allergies even if they were qualified for one because,"It may lead to a slippery slope making it more difficult to deny protection to others". The reason listed in their presentation didn't seem like a very good reason for not writing a Section 504 plan. The Regional Director informed me that the statements in the presentation did not follow Section 504 law and she wanted to forward the presentation to the national office so they could deal with it on a national level.

Video and Presentation Leads to Statewide Training

A link to the video presentation and power point slides was forwarded to the regional director of the USDA's Office for Civil Rights who forwarded it to the Washington D.C. office in 2008. The video presentation and slides were the subject of a presentation by the regional director in Colorado in 2008. It also led to state wide training in 2009 for the state of Missouri's school nutrition directors in Jefferson City. No one from Fox attended that training according to the regional director.

It's difficult to imagine the amount of legal fees spent by the Fox C-6 school district between 2008 and 2014 in order to keep from writing Section 504 plans for students with special dietary needs.

In August 2013, the National Director of the USDA's Office for Civil Rights in Washington D.C. told me that it was unlikely that the law firm would change its stance on Section 504 and accommodating children with special dietary needs after billing the district for years defending their position. It wasn't until after Fox C-6 changed law firms in 2014 that Section 504 plans were written for children with special dietary needs.

Trying to get the district to do the right thing led to the uncovering of many more issues going on in our school district that would have never come to light if there hadn't been so much push back and retaliation by former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow and assistant superintendent Dan Baker.

USDA's Accommodating Children with Special Dietary Needs in the School Nutrition Programs

Fox Board Meeting Minutes and Admin Contracts - NO Public Record of Removal of 10 Years of Service Requirement!

According to news reports and articles and Fox's November 17, 2014 To Whom It May Concern letter the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program was updated at the February 18, 2014 Special Workshop/Board Meeting and several times over the past several years.

I originally wrote and posted this article on Wednesday December 3, 2014. Shortly after the article was posted I received a couple of emails from Fox's CFO John Brazeal with some clarifications and corrections to my article. This article has been updated to reflect those clarifications and corrections.

After re-reading the To Whom It May Concern letter which I have also added to the bottom of this article, Mr. Brazeal did have it noted in his letter that Dianne Critchlow had sent an email on February 19, 2014 to the staff notifying them that the board approved changes to the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program at the February 18, 2014 board meeting. Mr. Brazeal's letter noted that Cheryl Hermann made a motion to approve the changes to the retirement program during Closed Session as recorded in the Closed Session minutes.

Per Mr. Brazeal's letter, changes to the retirement program should have been made during the Public Session but were not. Since the change was approved during Closed Session the changes were never documented openly for the public.

How was the public supposed to know that a change was made?

Last week I made a Sunshine Law request for a copy of the minutes from the Closed Session of the February 3, 2014 Fox C-6 board meeting since the February 18, 2014 Public Session board meeting minutes didn't document that the 10 Years of Service requirement had been removed from Fox's Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program that is contained in our current school district Policies and Regulations. When I made the request I had the incorrect meeting date as I had been told that the changes were made at a Special Meeting and not at the regular board meeting. I have now requested a copy of the Closed Meeting minutes for the February 18 meeting per Missouri Sunshine Law and will post them when I receive them. I have already updated the link below to the February 3, 2014 Board Meeting Minutes to include the February 18, 2014 Public Session board meeting minutes.

Yesterday I received the documents from last week's Sunshine request that included a copy of the Closed Session minutes from the February 3, 2014 meeting and a copy of the contracts of some of Fox's administrators and directors.

In my Sunshine request email to the board secretary and the Fox C-6 school board members last week, I informed the board that nothing was recorded in the Public Session meeting minutes regarding changes to the Early Retirement Incentive Program and that was my reason for requesting a copy of the Closed Session meeting minutes.

Taxpayer dollars should NOT be handed out to just anyone who is planning to depart the Fox C-6 School District simply because they are vested in the Public School Retirement System. Doing so would encourage anyone to work at Fox for a year and leave with a big bonus.

Paying 50% of someone's salary as a parting bonus/gift should ONLY be rewarded to those who have devoted many years of service to the district and to our community as reflected in current school district policy.

I have posted a copy of the Closed Session minutes from the February 3, 2014 board meeting minutes that were sent to me per my Sunshine request below. I compiled both the Public and Closed Session minutes as well as the pages from the board packet that were referenced in the February 3, 2014 board meeting minutes so everyone can review what changes were documented in the minutes. I have also included the minutes for the February 18, 2014 Public Session.

I will post the meeting minutes for the Closed Session of the February 18, 2014 meeting when I receive them.

February 3, 2014 Public and Closed Session Fox C-6 Board Meeting Minutes

Administrator and Director Contracts
My Sunshine request for documents last week also included a request for some of Fox's top administrator's and directors who have been involved with many of the recent issues in the district and nepotism problems.

My Sunshine request included a request for a copy of the contract for Fox's Director of Nursing Gee Palmer as well as Fox's Food Nutrition Service Director Kelly Nash.

Gee Palmer was given the Director of Nursing job in 2006 while her husband Dave Palmer was the president of the Fox C-6 school board. Her promotion included a 75% pay increase. Her promotion would clearly violate the most recent school board nepotism policy that was just approved at the November 2014 board meeting. Her promotion also violated the ethics to which the board was expected to uphold even in 2006. This is the reason why I have asked Dave Palmer to step down from the school board several times over the last several years as well as his wife from her position. Remaining in their positions with the knowledge of how things came to be certainly reflects poorly on one's moral and ethical beliefs.

Another reason why I wanted to review the contracts was because many people have asked why the Bakers haven't been fired since it was discovered that defamatory posts were linked to their home. It's certainly been a mystery to me considering that Mr. Dan Baker was the Section 504 Coordinator for the Fox C-6 School District and is expected to uphold federal laws. Posting defamatory comments against parents advocating for their children's rights definitely violates Section 504 Law which is a Federal Law.

Knowing that comments posted from the Baker home were also false with regards to knowing me from scouts documents the making of false statements as well. Hopefully, our board members finally recognize that this as a problem considering the fact that I have brought this to their attention for many years and now knowing that comments were linked to the home of Dan Baker.

In reviewing the contracts, you'll notice that the assistant superintendent contracts have statements for termination for cause. However, the other contracts do not. There has been plenty of reasons to Terminate for Cause that have been discovered this year and many ask why this contract clause has not been exercised. I have asked the same question as well.

You should also note that Kelly Nash's contract DOES NOT have any language regarding her requirements to earn a degree or certification in nutrition services or any requirements as the public was informed that she would. This is a very serious problem as well!

I have posted copies of the administrator and director contracts below for you to review.

Everyone in the community should be up in arms and should be contacting our Fox C-6 school board members regarding these issues. You should be demanding that NO ONE be allowed to receive a payout from the district if they have not met the 10 Years of Service requirement as documented in current school district policies.

The public should also be demanding that Kelly Nash be fired or relieved of her duties as the Director of Food Services. This was another major blunder both by former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow and Todd Scott.

According to an email received from CFO John Brazeal shortly after I posted this article, Kelly Nash has completed her pre-requisites and has taken the certification test and the district is awaiting the test results.

Mr. Brazeal's email noted that the certification requirements for Kelly Nash were stated in the job posting.

Also, Mr. Brazeal noted that contract language was changed on the August contracts that I posted adding new language in the paragraphs I highlighted that were not on the previous contracts signed earlier in the year. However, district policy required termination for cause language to be in contracts. 

Below are a copy of the Fox C-6 administrator and director contracts that were requested from my Sunshine request last week:

2014 Fox C-6 Administrator and Director Contracts

Below are the important statements from the assistant superintendent contracts. I highlighted them in the PDF copies of the contracts that I posted in the link above as well so you can see what could be used to fire or terminate an administrator. The same should hold true for Directors in our district per district policy.

Administrator agrees to devote Administrator's full time, skill, labor, and attention to serving as an administrator in the District during the term of this Agreement and will not engage in any pursuit that interferes with the proper discharge of duties. Subject to the foregoing, Administrators shall be permitted to make presentations at educational conferences and teach at local institutions of higher education with prior notice and the consent of the Board. The Administrator agrees to properly render such services as directed by the Board, all in accordance with the laws of the State of Missouri, including the making of all reports required by law to be made. 

Administrator agrees to comply with all duties and requirements applicable to Administrator's position, as directed by the Superintendent and/or as stated in any performance standards and criteria, policies, rules or regulations of the District, whether adopted or modified before or after the effective date of this Agreement. Administrator has received, read, understands, and will maintain an updated knowledge of the content of the District's written performance standards, policies, rules and regulations. Administrator agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws.

This agreement may be terminated during its term for cause and/or as otherwise permitted by law. Should the Administrator seek to leave employment prior to the expiration of this contract, he/she shall be liable for any and all cost incurred in the recruitment and hiring of a replacement administrator. Furthermore, the district will determine the last working day of the contractual agreement.

Fox C-6 Voluntary Separation Incentive Program Response

DATE: November 17, 2014
TO: To Whom It May Concern
FROM: John Brazeal, CFO
RE: Recent history of Voluntary Separation Incentive Program

This is a review of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program, also known as the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program, or the Voluntary Leave Program, or the Voluntary Incentive Program. 

Policy vs. Regulation/Procedure

Generally, policy setting is the purview of the board. Policies must conform to law. Generally, establishing regulations/procedures is the responsibility of administration. Regulation/procedure must conform to policy, and therefore also to law. Anytime a regulation/procedure spends money, that regulation/procedure should be board approved rather than approved administratively. 

History

Regulation 4740.1 titled Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program was initially adopted in November 1998, with subsequent re-adoptions in April 2000, July 2000, July 2003, September 2004 and July 2005. As of the date of this report, this Regulation was still posted on the District website. 

The last re-adoption of Regulation 4740.1 in July 2005 coincides with the start of Dianne Brown/Critchlow’s tenure as District superintendent. Since that time, the incentive program has operated with a variety of modifications as described herein. Also since that time, policy and regulations/procedures generally have not been kept current.

Program Eligibility

The incentive program set forth in Regulation 4740.1 defines program eligibility to include: 

     1. Minimum of 10 years full-time service as a District employee; and
     2. Minimum of 20 years of service credit in the pension system (PSRS or PEERS), but not more than 31 years of service credit. 

For many years, courts have held that the upper eligibility limit of “not more than 31 years of service credit” to be discriminatory. 

In an email dated February 17, 2009, Dianne Brown announced changes to program eligibility for the 2008-2009 year to be as follows: 

     1. Qualify under current policy/regulation 4740.1; or
     2. Have more than 31 years of service credit in the pension system; or
     3. Have 20 years service credit in the pension system and minimum of 6 years employment with the district; or 

     4. Have meet Rule of 80 provisions with the pension system; or
     5. Be age 60 or greater with a minimum of 6 years employment with the district. 

If these changes were board approved, that fact has not been confirmed. 

In an email dated January 13, 2010, Todd Scott announced that for the 2009-2010 year, program eligibility would be as stated in Regulation 4740.1. 

In email dated February 15, 2011, Todd Scott announced program eligibility for the 2010-2011 year as: 

     1. Minimum of 10 years of full-time employment with the district; and
     2. Minimum of 15 years service credit with the pension system. 

The discriminatory upper limit was removed. If these changes were board approved, that fact has not been confirmed. 

In an email dated February 14, 2012, Todd Scott announced program eligibility would remain the same for 2011-2012 as the prior year of 2010-2011. Again, if this variance from the regulation was board approved, that fact has not been confirmed. 

In an email dated January 7, 2013, Todd Scott announced program eligibility would remain the same for 2012-2013 as the two previous years. Again, if this variance from the regulation was board approved, that fact has not been confirmed. 

In an email dated January 23, 2014, Todd Scott announced program eligibility for the 2013-2014 would match the eligibility requirements of the regulation as: 

     1. Minimum of 10 years full-time service as a District employee; and
     2. Minimum of 20 years of service credit in the pension system (PSRS or PEERS), but not more than 31 years of service credit. 

That action did not stand long. On February 19, 2014, an email was distributed announcing program eligibility for both the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 years to be: 

1. Employee must be vested (5 years service credit) in the pension system.
The announcement of this change indicated “at the February 18th Board of Education meeting the BOE made changes to the Voluntary Early Retirement Program.” 

Program Benefits

Regulation 4740.1 indicates that eligible program participants will: 

     1. Receive a payment equal to 50% of the applicant’s final year’s salary; and
     2. Be required to provide 35 hours of service to the District during the year following the end of District employment. 

Fewer changes were applied to these provisions, however, there were a couple changes through time. 

In an email dated November 30, 2012, Dianne Critchlow wrote: “I am excited to announce that the district is offering, A ONE TIME ONLY, addition to our early retirement incentive. For the first time in Fox C-6 history, we are not only offering to pay half of you highest year’s salary, we are offering 2 years of Board paid health insurance.” 

In an email dated January 7, 2013, Todd Scott announced “employees will no longer have to put in time of service after they retire.” 

February 2014 Events

On February 3, 2014, the Board met to discuss budgetary issues and also entered closed session to discuss “negotiations.” 

In closed session, the presentation to the board showed a history of the declining fund balances, and an action plan that stated: 

     1. Limit or greatly reduce spending
     2. Offer Voluntary Incentive Program
     3. Limit/freeze hiring
     4. Freeze salary schedules 

In regards to the voluntary separation incentive program, and under the heading “Things We Have Discovered,” the following statements were displayed: 

     1. We can no longer use the term “Early Retirement Incentive”
     2. The VIP (Voluntary Incentive Program) is due to PSRS by April 1
     3. Can no longer put a cap on number of years – discriminatory 

Two options were suggested by the superintendent to the board: 

Option A: Increase the incentive to 65% of final salary to employees separating in 2013-2014; 60% of final salary to employees separating in 2014-2015; and 55% of salary to employees separating in 2015-2016. 

Option B: Keep the incentive at 50% of final salary, but add 2 years of district paid health insurance to employees separating in 2013-2014; add 1 year of district paid health insurance to employees separating in 2014-2015; and no health insurance to employees separating in 2015-2016. 

The proposal stated “employees must be vested in the retirement system to be eligible,” but made no mention of minimum employment with the district or any other minimum amounts of service credit with the pension system. 

On February 18, 2014, the Board held its regular meeting and also entered closed session to discuss “negotiations.” 

The minutes of the close session state: “After discussion Mrs. Hermann made a motion and was seconded to approve the recommendation from the committee to continue the Voluntary Leave Program for the 2013-2014 and the 2014-2015 school year as presented. After the 2014-2015 school year the District will no longer offer the Voluntary Leave Program.” The motion was approved 6-1. 

Directors voting in favor of the motion: Palmer, Hermann, Laughlin, Nash, Holloway and Smith. Directors voting against the motion: Kroupa. 

Motive And Intent

It is impossible to fully assess motives and intentions, but here are a few observations. 

The concept of incentivizing higher cost staff to separate employment as a method for lowering payroll costs can have merit. However, by offering an incentive every year, the program had become more of a retirement bonus with major cost to the District rather than an incentive with cost savings to the District. 

As the District’s financial condition deteriorated, Dianne Critchlow sought to boost the incentive, while members of the Board sought to end the costly program. Some back and forth pushing on the issue exposed some motives. 

When Board members attempted to end the program sooner than later, Dianne Critchlow vehemently objected, potentially due to her own pending retirement date. With her retirement date already announced, she pushed for boosting the program benefits and pushed for expanded eligibility. 

The push for expanded eligibility coincides with the planned separation for Jamie Critchlow. The push for increased benefits coincides with the planned separations for both Jamie and Dianne Critchlow. 

November 2014 Events

I joined the Fox District in July 2014. As the program parameters had been set in February 2014 and announced to staff, I did not attempt to modify the either the eligibility criteria or the program benefits. However, upon noticing that the district was not receiving any benefit from the employee in return for the incentive payment, I did propose there be a separation agreement wherein the separating employee would waive any and all claims that person might have against the District. In this way, the District gains protection from potential employment related liabilities. 

Due to the fact the plan would be ending after the 2014-2015 school year, the program was finally an incentive. In an effort to boost participation and enable employees to leave before they otherwise might, I did propose paying the incentive payment before employment ended so that this payment could be used to purchase service credit in the pension system. 

At the November 3, 2014 board meeting, the program was modified to include payment of the incentive at an earlier date and require a waiver of claims in exchange for the incentive payment. No proposal was made regarding eligibility since that had already been announced to staff as being applicable for the current school year. 

Open Session vs. Closed Session

The discussion and action related to the incentive program took place in closed session during February 2014. The closed session topic was listed as “negotiations.” It is acceptable for the Board to enter into closed session to discuss negotiations in relation to negotiating with employee groups. Normally, the negotiation matters discussed by the Board in closed session proceed to the negotiating table with employee representatives. Later when agreement has been reached between the parties, the resulting agreement is presented to the Board in open session for approval. 

During February 2014, the Board was within its rights to take up the topic for discussion in closed session. Dianne Critchlow contended that a decision was required prior to April 1, 2014. Thus, a vote that should have been taken in open session was taken in closed session. Additionally, the topic was never taken to the negotiating table, which eventually convened in May 2014. 

Policy/Regulations/Procedures on Website

Obviously the objective of posting policy/regulations/procedures on the website is to provide a public resource and public notice of District policies and procedures. Naturally, when a policy is revised, there can be a delay between Board adoption of new policy and posting of the revised policy on the website. This delay should be minimized. 

According to Debby Davis, Custodian of Records for the District, she was instructed to leave the unrevised version of Regulation 4740.1 on the website, despite its revision in February 2014. Please note, the incentive program had been revised almost annually, without revised posting to the website. That should not have been the case. If things have been handled correctly, the revised program would have been posted promptly after each revision. 

As pointed out early in this memo, this matter and many other policy matters appear to be out of date. Policy requires almost constant attention and revision in order to avoid obsolesce. Dianne Critchlow allowed many policy matters to go stale. 

Status

The incentive program exists in its current form until it is changed or ended. The incentive program is an offer from the District to employees. Eligible employees are entitled to accept the offer as it exists or is modified from time to time. The Board should be the only entity with authority to authorize the incentive program and/or modification to an existing incentive program.

It's Time for the Palmers to Step Down!

It's time for current Fox C-6 school board vice-president Dave Palmer to step down from his position on the Fox C-6 school board.

At the October 21, 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting Mr. Palmer stopped parent and taxpayer Jim Osia from asking Fox's "acting" superintendent Tim Crutchley a question about his recent interview on Fox 2 News with Elliot Davis on a You Paid For It segment regarding the MarzanoGate hotel fiasco.

Fox C-6 taxpayers have the right to ask the superintendent that they "hire" or "fire" questions about their actions in public. Forcing questions into Closed Session is simply a way of hiding things from the public or sweeping them under the rug.

For years the practice has been to tell anyone making Public Comments at a Fox C-6 school board meeting that they needed to "refrain from using individual's names and positions" during their Public Comments.

You can listen to how Public Comments used to be handled at Fox C-6 board meetings prior to Dianne Brown-Critchlow's "paid leave" by clicking on the link below. You will hear former superintendent Dianne Critchlow tell everyone that now is a good time to leave the school board meeting followed by Dr. Rizzi reciting what he was told to say regarding making Public Comments. It was quite convenient for Critchlow to have people leave the board meeting prior to my asking questions of the board.

By not allowing taxpayers to question what their superintendent was doing or others in the Central Office gave the public and the board the impression that things were going as well as Dianne Brown-Critchlow said they were. And, if you questioned things in an email, you would receive responses like I've documented in past articles.

Listen to the 08-27-2013 Fox C-6 Board Meeting Public Comments Introduction

Those on the board that were too naive to believe that former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow could do no wrong never got the chance to hear a Public Comment complaint about her or others because no one was allowed to mention names or positions. No one working for the district was going to speak up at a board meeting due to fear of losing their job. Everyone should know by now what happened to those of us that did speak up at school board meetings over the last several years.

Mr. Palmer is the last of the "old" Fox C-6 school board members. He has served on the Fox C-6 school board since 2002. There was only one year in the last 12 years that Mr. Palmer didn't serve on the board.

Mr. Palmer's actions at the October 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting of stopping Mr. Osia from asking Mr. Crutchley a question is one of many reasons as to why he should step down.

The Fox C-6 taxpayers are the ones that hire or fire the superintendent. The Fox C-6 board members represent the taxpayers. If a taxpayer has a question regarding what our superintendent or acting superintendent did, then they should be allowed to ask those questions in a public session. The board openly discussed and fired Cheryl Hermann's daughter at a Fox C-6 school board meeting during open session the month before. Therefore Mr. Osia should not have been stopped during his Public Comments.

When you listen to the following introduction to Public Comments by Dr. Rizzi at the October 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting you will notice that Dr. Rizzi DOES NOT mention that you must "refrain from using individual's names and positions" during your Public Comment. Dr. Rizzi stopped reciting that after Dianne Critchlow began her "paid leave".

Listen to Mr. Palmer Interrupt Jim Osia at the October 2014 Fox C-6 School Board Meeting

Did Mr. Palmer stop Mr. Osia in order to protect the enrichment that his family has received and continues to receive while he has served on the board?

Mr. Palmer was the Fox C-6 school board president in 2006 when then superintendent Dianne Brown promoted Dave Palmer's wife Gee Palmer to the position of director of nursing. Instead of just receiving a stipend for the director of nursing position, Gee Palmer was given a 2 month contract extension and a 75% pay increase!

You will notice on the district's Board of Education page that Mr. Palmer did not serve on the board during the next term following that fiasco. In fact, you need to read the following article that was published on March 13, 2007 in the Jefferson County Suburban Journal on STLTODAY.COM related to Nepotism. Please note that Mr. Palmer could not be reached for comment. This goes along with his November 5, 2013 board workshop comments about not talking to people as a board member because he didn't want to be misquoted.

Hear Dave Palmer's thoughts at the November 5, 2013 Workshop on having Open Forum Discussions with the Public

FoxC6Watchdogs article covering the November 5, 2013 Workshop and transcription of Dave Palmer's Comments

FOX SCHOOLS: Nepotism Complaints Unfounded, District Officials Say - STLTODAY.COM March 13, 2007

Gee Palmer only possesses a nursing diploma even though she is the director of nursing. She does not have a bachelors or masters degree in nursing. This makes me question how she can do reviews of nurses in the district that possess more education than she has. It seems very similar to the same issue that we have with Kelly Nash who is our Food Nutrition Director.

When Gee Palmer was promoted to the director of nursing in 2006 there were at least 10 other nurses in the district that had seniority over Gee. So, it makes you question why she was chosen for the job of director of nursing. I have written about the issue of receiving unjust enrichment before about being related to school board members in the following article:

How Much Extra Does It Pay to be Related to a Fox C-6 School Board Member

Both Dave Palmer and Gee Palmer need to step down from their positions in the district. I encourage every parent and taxpayer in the district to email the board and Mr. Palmer asking them to step down.

Hopefully the Palmer's will pay back the Fox C-6 taxpayers for the last 8+ years of undeserved income that Gee Palmer earned while she was "Director of Nursing".

As a nurse, Gee Palmer is supposed to advocate for students in the district but that has not been the case. I'd like to know how the opinion of an arrogant nurse who only possesses a nursing diploma could outweigh the opinion of a 20+ year board certified medical doctor. Perhaps the Missouri Association of School Nurses could explain that one for Mrs. Palmer. Or, you may wish to ask assistant superintendent Dan Baker who was Fox's former 504 coordinator since he was ultimately responsible in the decision making process.

Gee Palmer supported the whims of former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow and the former law firm in their stance against providing students with medical related disabilitiesl with Section 504 plans. Gee Palmer participated with Dan Baker in recording a phone call with a doctor and used the recording during a Due Process Hearing to try and discredit another doctor. I plan to cover more about that in a future article now that students have recently been provided Section 504 plans in the district under the new law firm. The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights was involved in making that change in an Early Complaint Resolution meeting held in August 2014.

It took more than 6 years for the district to 'understand' that they weren't properly following Section 504 law as conveyed to them many times over the last several years by the USDA's Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Now that things are finally being made public as to what's been going on in the district for years, perhaps the Kansas City Office for Civil Rights will begin working on their District Wide Compliance Review again that was opened in March 2010 and has been sitting idle for the last 4+ years. I'm sure there is a lot that could be discovered now that the district is being more open with their records.

Again, don't forget to email Mr. Palmer and the Fox C-6 school board and ask the Palmers to step down from their positions in the Fox C-6 school district.

Email addresses for the Fox C-6 board members and director of nursing can be found on the district website using the links below:

Fox C-6 Board of Education Email Addresses

Fox C-6 Department Contacts

Fox C-6: More "Memory Holes" In August 2013 Board Meeting Packet

It took nearly 3 years of requests to our school board to get school board packets for Fox C-6 posted on the district website. They were first posted on the district website in February 2013. See my February 23, 2013 post regarding Progress Is Being Made Towards Transparency! Since then, I've made numerous requests for the district to post the board packets dating back to the 2008-2009 school year on the district website. So far, the board has not responded to my request nor have they posted the packets. Posting those packets would correspond with the school board meeting minutes that already exist on the district website.

Why should the district post the older board packets? It's a very simple fact. The community needs to do its own oversight of the district and the school board.

The school board has been failing to do their job for nearly 10 years and has been relying on our Superintendent for answers. Therein lies the problem. Our Superintendent is prone to providing false or misleading information or only half-truths. She will say anything in hopes that you will believe her. I have documented this problem many times. Our Superintendent's friends or "inner circle" as some people call them will write to the local newspapers or in online forums stating that my information is false or that my information is only from some "select facts". The research I do is very thorough and well documented. Documentation obtained from federal agencies and from MO DESE is irrefutable. If a mistake is made in my documentation, it will be corrected. So far, no one from the district or the school board has asked for any corrections. They are simply hoping that you don't come across this information. Our superintendent sent out Cease and Desist letters to individuals in our district in an effort to deter people from informing the public about problems in the district. You need to know the Truth and the Whole Truth.

Just for your information, the last state audit of the Fox C-6 school district was in March 2002. It might be a good time for a state audit considering the limited amount of documentation that the district has been willing to supply to the public. A state audit is much more thorough than the annual audit done by the firm the district hires to review their financial records. To no one's surprise the district receives glowing reviews on their local audit. You can find the last state audit report here:

March 2002 State Audit of Fox C-6 School District

You can find a copy of the June 30, 2011 Fox C-6 Audited Financial Statements performed by the Daniel Jones company here for comparison:

June 30, 2011 Fox C-6 Financial Statements Audit

This is OUR school district. We elect people from our community to sit on the school board and watch over the district. It IS the school board's job to make sure that our Superintendent is doing her job and that our district IS following state and federal laws and our school board policies and regulations. If that doesn't happen and no one is watching out for the community, things will happen that shouldn't and no one will know a thing. That means that your tax dollars might not be getting used as well as they should in educating our children. Without our oversight, it makes it very easy for someone to take advantage of the system. This has already happened many times. 

Our district spent $135,935,354 in 2012. How well was that money spent? If you don't watch over things, you may end up not knowing what happened for years and by then it's too late. This recently happened in the Rockwood school district when the State Auditor discovered that the contractor where a former school board president worked had been inadvertently overpaid by $1.2 million dollars over the course of several years. Then it was determined that the district would not be able to recover the funds. Do you want the same thing to happen to your tax dollars?

Our Superintendent can tell you how great a job our school board does of watching over your money. But, should you believe what she tells you?

August 2013 Board Meeting Packet
Everyone in our community is very aware of the fact that the district has had several recent issues which didn't look good for our district, the school board or our community. The school board and the community are responsible for making sure that our superintendent is doing her job and is acting responsibly. If our Superintendent is withholding or not reporting information or is making it difficult or expensive to obtain, then you should be very concerned as to what is going on in our school district.

I highly recommend that you go to the Fox C-6 website and download the August 27, 2013 School Board Meeting Packet. It appears that the new website is allowing direct file links to documents such as the board meeting packets. So, you can click on the link above to download the file. The previous website didn't allow for direct links to many files on the Edline district website.

Below I have gone through and highlighted some of the important things that stood out in the most recent board meeting packet.

Missing Administrator Salary Schedule
This latest board packet is 332 pages long. It contains the Salary Schedule for Teachers and Classified Staff. However, it does not contain the Salary Schedule for our Administrators. It's quite convenient of the district to leave out the salary schedule for administrators. That would have given the public a clue as to how much the school board agreed to pay our Superintendent for the 2013-2014 school year. Our board paid our Superintendent $246,824 for the 2012-2013 school year. Our board members need to be made aware of the fact that the Administrator Salary Schedule is missing. It needs to be made available to the public for review. Remember, you are paying their salaries.

There are a lot of issues that need to be discussed and resolved with our school board regarding the information (or lack thereof "memory holes") that is being made available to the public for review. You probably never thought much about what goes on in our school district. But, when you start to see a lot of waste and issues that need to be addressed, you start reviewing things more closely. As many people have stated, there are many problems and what was highlighted by Fox 2 News was just the tip of the iceberg.

Salary Increases for Classified Staff of 2.5%

How is it that the salary schedule increases listed in the latest school board meeting packet show a 2.5% increase for many of the Classified positions while Superintendent Critchlow received a nearly 8% increase from 2012 to 2013? As you review the Classified Salary Schedules, take note as to how many of them state that there is a 2.5% Increase from the 2012-2013 school year to the 2013-2014 school year. Then read across the salary schedule and compare the salary amounts between 2013 and 2014. Either the description is incorrect for many of the entries or the formula for the increases are incorrect because many of the salary amounts are decreased. The spreadsheet file name at the bottom of the Salary Schedules show them as being C:\Users\Scott\Documents\Classified 13-14 salary schedule 062513.xls.

Memory Holes in Board Meeting Minutes

There are "Memory Holes" in the latest school board meeting minutes. At the June 25, 2013 school board meeting, I asked our school board about the open Resolution Agreement with ED OCR and the USDA Final Agency Decision ruling that was handed down to the district on August 18, 2011 which found Fox C-6 and Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Non-Compliant with Section 504, ADA and the ADAAA. Any reference to those questions were left out of the June 25, 2013 school board meeting minutes contained in the August 2013 board meeting packet. How convenient for our Superintendent to leave out that information and hide it from the public. Your Superintendent's job is to keep the public informed. Not misinformed!

This has been an ongoing problem ever since I first spoke at a school board meeting in December 2010. The board meeting minutes for that meeting documented my Public Comments as "Concerns within the district.". I wrote to our school board and asked that my comments be documented in more detail because the public has no way of knowing what problems were addressed to the board when they're only listed as "Concerns within the district." Superintendent Brown responded to my request to the school board via email. She informed me that the school board secretary had called the Missouri School Board Association the next day and was told that our board meeting minutes met state law. Our Superintendent DOES NOT want the public to know what is going on in the district if it is going to reflect poorly on her or the school board. That's probably why our school board meetings aren't being audio or video recorded. I have asked numerous times for this to be done as well and have never received a response. That should be a "red flag" for the community.

Bill Payments Review

This month the school board is being asked to approve $10,168,423.25. Every once in a while there are checks that stand out when reviewing the bill payments that the school board is asked to approve each month at the board meeting. This month was no exception. Perhaps seeing some of the following Bill Payments below will prompt you to start reviewing what our school board approves each month at school board meetings in a quick vote of approval.

Checks to Kelly Nash?
There were two payments to board member Linda Nash's daughter in law who was hired in November 2012 as the district's new Food Nutrition Services Director for $65,000. The two checks to Kelly Nash are flagged with asterisks. Since Linda Nash is a school board member and is related to Kelly Nash, she must abstain from voting and approving the bill payments.

The checks being presented to Kelly Nash are as follows:
07/31/2013 - Nash, Kelly D *** -     $37.55
08/08/2013 - Nash, Kelly D *** - $2744.00

What do you think the $2744 check to Kelly Nash was for?

I can venture to guess that the $37.55 check was for mileage reimbursement. The new Bill Payments report DOES NOT provide any detail regarding what the payments are for like the old Bill Payments Report. This will need to be corrected! The old report would include comments such as Mileage Reimbursement or Legal Fees, etc.

Motivational Speaker Flip Flippen Cost - $10,000

When I first saw Superintendent Dianne Critchlow tweet on August 13, 2013, "Flip Flippen, New York Times Best seller & motivational speaker, addressed the entire Fox C-6 staff to kick off the new year.", I immediately wondered how much that cost the district. Well in the Bill Payments from the August Board Packet, there is a check dated  07/25/2013 for $10,000 to The Flippen Group. I certainly hope everyone was very motivated for that amount of money.

07/25/2013 - The Flippen Group - $10,000.00

Who approved the spending of $10,000 to motivate district staff?

I would bet that hiring a new Superintendent would have proven to be Much More Motivating for our teachers and staff instead of paying $10,000 for Flip Flippen to "address the entire Fox C-6 staff to kick off the new year".

I wonder how much copy paper that would have purchased for our school district?

Credit Card Payments Without Details
This is one of those big checks to pay off a credit card. Certainly it is legitimate and the school gets a percentage of their money back in "cash back" offers. However, Fox doesn't include the credit card statements in their board meeting packets like they do in other school districts. So, you really don't know what the payments were actually paying for. Fox needs to include a copy of the credit card statements in our board meeting packets. The school board has been approving payments like this for years. This needs to be documented much more thoroughly.

07/11/2013 - SAM'S CLUB DISCOVER -  $11,027.10
07/16/2013 - CARD SERVICES              -   $11,290.59
08/13/2013 - CARD SERVICES              - $118,925.73
07/23/2013 - AMERICAN EXPRESS     - $233,231.50

Missing 2013-2014 School Budget
At the June 2013 school board meeting, each member of the school board was given a copy of the 2013-2014 School Budget for review and approval. After the meeting, I asked Debbie Davis the school board secretary and custodian of records to post the 2013-2014 budget on the district website. She told me it would be a few weeks before she could get to it if she was allowed to post it. Well, the budget hasn't been posted and it wasn't included in the board meeting packets like it should have been since it was provided to the school board members at the board meeting.

Fox C-6 hasn't been publishing school budgets on the district website like they do in many other school districts of our size. Why is that? The district doesn't want you to know how they are spending your money. If you knew, you would start asking questions and that would lead to more accountability. If the public can be kept in the dark, that makes it all the easier let money slip through the cracks. As I documented in a previous post about the June 25, 2013 board meeting, Rockwood does an excellent job of documenting their school finances for their patrons. Fox needs to have the same. Our superintendent and school board should be able to provide the same documentation as Rockwood considering that we are paying our superintendent more than Rockwood's superintendent.

First Day of School! - NO Lunch Menus Online - Fox C-6 FNS Director Falling Down On The Job!

Wednesday Evening UPDATE!

I learned earlier today that a few people had emailed or called Kelly Nash or the school to find out why the lunch menus had not been posted on the district website. Several of the responses said that Kelly Nash was blaming the missing menus on a computer issue and that the tech department was working on the problem. Her email said she apologized for not having them available. Others had posted that the school district had a new website and they may have been the problem. Then a few others posted that parents should just send a bag lunch with their kids if they didn't have the menu information available. The problem with that response is that it was our Food Nutrition Services Director's job to make sure the menus were available for the parents prior to the start of school. It is part of her job as a Director.

Who's Responsible?
The taxpayers are paying Kelly Nash more than $65,000 to do the job she was hired to do. If she cannot do that job, then she needs to be fired. Ultimately, it is Superintendent Critchlow's job to make sure that district employees are doing their job. If she can't do that, then she needs to be fired as well. It's the school board's responsibility to ensure that Superintendent Critchlow is doing her job. If they can't do their job, then the community needs to ask them to step down and find new board members that can.

The Blame Game!
To blame the delay on the new website is irresponsible and just an attempt to cover for incompetent leadership. The new website has been online since June 25, 2013. The district has had more than a month and a half to get everything posted online. The menus should have been ready for at least a month. The menus for Elementary, Middle, High School and Bridges that were posted on Wednesday evening as PDF documents were dated August 14, 2013 with time stamps between 5:32PM and 6:23PM and were generated using Word 2007. The menus may have been prepared sooner, but they were definitely still work on them as of Wednesday evening to get them published on the district website. Other documents have been on the district website for some time and the Documents Container Folder for the menus was created on July 10, 2013. You can be assured that you will not get the truth when asking questions of our school administrators and staff!

For those that are interested, you can find more information about the National School Lunch Program at the USDA Food Nutrition Services (FNS) website: http://www.fns.usda.gov/slp.

USDA FNS Regulations: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/regulations.htm
USDA FNS Program Policies: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/policy.htm


School Board Responsibilities
The district should have been planning food menus when ordering food. How long is our school board and the community going to accept excuse after excuse for people not doing their jobs. It's time that our school board holds people accountable. Our district is suffering thanks to the school board's lack of accountability of our school leadership. The school board needs to start firing people and qualified individuals that CAN do the job they were hired to do.

Pay For Performance - Reduction In Pay
Last year we paid $246,824 just in salary for Superintendent Critchlow to run our school district. That amount doesn't include any of the other benefits she receives. Her salary was the 4th highest amount for a superintendent in the state of Missouri last year. If she can't ensure that the simple things are getting done in our district, she's going to have trouble completing the more important things.

Someone defending the district posted that Fox Senior High was ranked 26th in the state and that the community was getting more than it was paying for because our taxes are so low. If that's the comparison we should use, then Dianne Critchlow shouldn't be the 4th Highest Paid Superintendent in the state. She should be the 26th highest paid in the state. This would lower her salary to below $185,000. That would be more in line with what she should be getting paid. You can check out last year's Top 25 Highest Paid Superintendent's in my previous post. 

Fox C-6 Superintendent 4th Highest Paid in Missouri for 2013

Below is my original post from early Wednesday morning prior to the start of school. Be sure and email or call your school board members and let them know that we need a NEW Superintendent and a NEW Food Service Director. Show up at the next school board meeting and voice your concerns! The next meeting is Tuesday August 27, 2013. Remember that you must show up and hand in your Public Comments signup form prior to 6:45PM or you won't be allowed to speak.

Our school district and community deserves much better leadership and more accountability! 

My Original Post from Wednesday Morning

I was informed that quite a few parents are upset with the fact that on the day before the first day of school there still aren't any lunch menus posted on the district website. As of 6:30AM this morning, there still aren't any lunch menus on the district website or on the individual school websites that I checked.

Please email your school board members and ask them where the lunch menus are. Our school board members are the ones that approved the hiring of current board member and then school board president Linda Nash's daughter in law, Kelly Nash to the Fox C-6 Food Nutrition Service Director position for $65,000.

Here is the Fox C-6 School Board Members webpage where you can find their email addresses:

http://www.fox.k12.mo.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=28821&pageId=827494

Here is the home page for the Fox C-6 Food Nutrition Services webpage where you can find Kelly Nash's email address:

http://www.fox.k12.mo.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=28821&pageId=260754

Perhaps Kelly Nash's "enthusiasm" has worn off!

Or, it could be that she has been too busy taking college courses trying to earn her degree and certification that the district is giving her 2 years to obtain. We will most likely never know. Emailing our school board or asking questions during public comments is rarely if ever answered.

Perhaps Superintendent Critchlow will be Tweeting out the lunch menus for everyone!

So you may want to be checking her twitter feed just in case.

Superintendent Dianne Critchlow Earns Accolade of One of The Best "You Paid For It" Confrontations!

Fox C-6 Superintendent Dianne Critchlow is all about touting accolades that our district has earned. Well, recently Superintendent Dianne Critchlow was bestowed the honor of being one of The Best "You Paid for It" Confrontations from Fox 2 News. This accolade demonstrates why Dianne Critchlow earned nearly $250,000 for the 2012-2103 school year to run our district.

Fox 2 News has Dianne Critchlow's confrontation listed as #3 in its list of the Best "You Paid For It" Confrontations!

The Best "You Paid For It" Confrontations!

The original story linked on the news story above references the Nepotism problem at Fox C-6 and the November 2012 hiring of Fox's Food Nutrition Services Director Kelly Nash. Kelly Nash is the daughter in law of current school board member Linda Nash. Linda Nash was the school board president when her daughter in law was hired by the district to a $65,000 Director position. Kelly Nash was hired to the position despite the fact that she only had a high school diploma and didn't have the credentials that the school district had listed for the job posting. Luckily for our community, the Fox C-6 school board is giving Kelly Nash two years to earn her degree and credentials. I wonder how she is doing in earning those credentials?

Below is a link to the original news story:

You Paid For It: Fox School District Nepotism

Please contact your school board members and congratulate them for helping our district earn another accolade! Our superintendent and school board members like to hear how great our school district is doing and you should congratulate them.

If you don't know who your school board members are or don't know how to contact them, you can now find their photos and individual email addresses listed here on the district website:

Fox C-6 School Board Members

Congratulations Superintendent Dianne Critchlow for earning another accolade!