Showing posts with label PSRS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PSRS. Show all posts

Saturday, March 14, 2015

KMOV News 4 Covers Fox C-6 Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan Payout

Robin Smith of KMOV News 4 covered the Fox school district Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan (VSIP) payout on Friday March 13, 2015 at 5PM.

I posted an article about the most recent VSIP payot totals to date on Wednesday March 11. That article has already had more than 1,000 page views.

News 4 reporter Robin Smith interviewed Fox's Chief Financial Officer John Brazeal. John Brazeal is a fellow Fox graduate. Mr. Brazeal's father taught in the district years ago when my father was principal at Fox High School.

Mr. Brazeal told News 4 that current projections are that between 140 and 150 people will be taking advantage of the incentive payout which will cost the district about $4 Million dollars.

The March 17, 2015 board meeting packet was posted Friday evening March 13, 2015 but did not contain an updated list of employees that are taking advantage of the VSIP payout. The most recent VSIP report listing found in the February 24, 2015 board packet had less than 100 people listed at a cost of $2.72 Million dollars.

The cutoff to apply for the VSIP program was January 16, 2015. Employees then had 45 days to decide whether or not they would be taking advantage of the VSIP after reviewing the documents and having the opportunity to consult with their tax advisors. So, the list of employees taking advantage of the VSIP should be known by now but that information was not included in the March 17, 2015 board packet.

Fox is losing some very good employees who are taking advantage of the VSIP because they are tired of all of the disgraceful things that have gone on in our district over the past decade.

Fewer Fox employees would have been eligible for the VSIP program prior to last year, Prior to February 2014, Fox C-6 employees were required to work in the district for a minimum of 10 years before being eligible for the Early Retirement Incentive Plan which was changed to the Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan in the summer of 2014.

In February 2014, changes were made to remove the cap on the maximum number of years of service that kept some people from qualifying for the VSIP. It was considered discriminatory by the district's former legal counsel. However, when the upper cap was removed from the Employment Retirement Incentive Plan, the 10 year minimum requirement was also removed and approved by the board.

Fox's school board planned to make the 2014-2015 school year, the last year that the Early Retirement Incentive Plan was offered to employees as it had been offered year after year for years and was no longer being used as intended.

The 10 year minimum requirement of working for the school district was replaced with the requirement of only having to be vested in Missouri's Public School Retirement System (PSRS) or Missouri's Public Education Employees Retirement System (PEERS). A minimum of 5 years of qualified service is all that is required to become vested in PSRS or PEERS. This means that anyone who has at least 5 years of qualified service under the PSRS or PEERS retirement system would be eligible to take advantage of Fox's incentive payout program.

So, thanks to the changes made to Fox's Early Retirement Incentive Plan in February 2014, Fox C-6 taxpayers will be footing the bill for incentive payments to employees who have worked for the Fox C-6 School District for as little as 1 or 2 years. Lack of thorough oversight and lack of transparency by our school board allowed for this blunder to occur when the changes were made to the Early Retirement Incentive Plan last year.

Changes to Fox's early retirement incentive plan were made prior to the public learning that derogatory comments had been posted about myself and others in online forums that were traced to the home of former disgraced superintendent Dianne Critchlow and her husband Jamie Critchlow the former Director of the Bridges program. Jamie Critchlow was fired in June 2014. Dianne Critchlow was allowed to walk away with an incentive payout of more than $130,000 in October 2014 even after the public learned about all of the things that had been going under her rule as superintendent.

Derogatory comments were also traced to the home of assistant superintendent Dan Baker and his wife Angie Burns Baker who is Fox's Director of Federal programs. Comments were also traced to the home of former Fox High Assistant Principal Bill Brengle.

Dan Baker was Fox's Section 504 Coordinator for the school district between June 2008 and June 2014. As Fox's 504 Coordinator, Dan Baker was responsible for Fox having to sign a Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) on May 1, 2009 in which the district agreed to take corrective actions and update policies as well as conduct an evaluation in order to comply with Section 504 law and the ADA AA.

As of March 2015, the district still hasn't fully complied with the May 1, 2009 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR that Dan Baker signed and agreed to comply with despite OCR's "vigorous enforcement of Section 504" as they state they do in ED OCR's October 21, 2014 Dear Colleague Letter on Bullying that was sent to all school districts across the country reminding them about their responsibilities in following the law.

I'm being sarcastic when I say that ED OCR performed "vigorous enforcement of Section 504". It's been well documented by the Kansas City Office's "monitoring letters" starting in December 2009 to the Fox School District that ED OCR was anything but vigorous. In fact, ED OCR did nothing but extend deadline after deadline when the district failed to comply with the Resolution Agreement.


What's Happening With the Bakers?
Dan Baker and Angie Burns Baker are both still employed by the district at this time. In fact, Dan Baker has been the interim principal at Seckman Elementary School after the previous principal was moved to an assistant principal position earlier this school year.

Dan Baker was also recently selected as a finalist for the principal position at Seckman Elementary School despite having derogatory comments traced to his home that were made against me in 2013 while he was Fox's Section 504 Coordinator.

It was also discovered last year that Mr. Baker played golf instead of attending the Marzano Conference while in Florida on the first day of the conference. The golf game was paid for with taxpayer money using Todd Scott's school district credit card that was loaned to Jamie Critchlow for the trip. Dan Baker also used his school district credit card numerous times to pay for personal meals and other items which violated school district policy.

Dan Baker's ethical and moral decisions over the past 6+ years should have kept him from even being considered for the principal position at Seckman Elementary School. He was caught bullying parents anonymously in online forums. He cost the district easily close to $200,000 if not more in legal fees as he and Dianne Critchlow tried to get around Section 504 law and the ADA AA for 6 years while Dan Baker served as the district's 504 Coordinator.

There is plenty of documentation to back up Dan Baker's failure in ensuring that the Fox C-6 School District properly followed Section 504 law and the ADA AA.

Read the USDA's August 2011 Final Agency Decision when the district was found to be in violation of Section 504 and the ADA AA.

The Post Dispatch had been informed about the May 2009 Resolution Agreement and the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review but did not mention either one of those facts in the August 2010 Post Dispatch article that asked us if we had considered moving out of the district. Intimidating parents seems to have been a pattern of practice in the district for the last decade. Comments were posted online about the article within minutes of it being published. Many of them were very derogatory in nature. I asked that some of them be removed but the Post Dispatch refused to remove them. The Post Dispatch eventually removed all of the comments when they switched over to their Facebook comment system. We did ask for the IP addresses of the comments but the paper did not retain those records.

The 2010 Post Dispatch article was very much like a "House of Cards" attempt at using the media to silence parents for attempting to get the school district to do the right thing and do what they were supposed to do as documented in the District Wide Compliance Review.

Read the documents from the ED OCR and USDA OCR to see if you think Dan Baker's comments from the 2010 Post Dispatch article hold true when he told the paper that he "strongly believes the district has handled the situation appropriately".
Baker said he could not discuss the Simpsons' case because of confidentiality rules but strongly believes the district has handled the situation appropriately. He said the district had spent a lot in legal fees during the dispute, but he did not know an exact amount.
Getting around Section 504 law was easy, all for Dan Baker had to do was say he felt the student didn't qualify for Section 504. Then he would inform the parent that they could file a complaint with OCR, file for a Due Process Hearing or sue the school district if they didn't believe his decision was correct.

As the District's 504 Coordinator, Dan Baker was the person who ultimately decided whether or not a student qualified for Section 504 as the district's attorney pointed out several times during 504 meetings over the years.

Since Mr. Baker publicly made the claim that the district spent a lot in legal fees, then the fees spent by the district should be made public. To date that has not happened despite numerous requests. The district was in dispute with USDA OCR and ED OCR between 2008 and 2014 because the district and their legal counsel weren't going to back down from their position after spending all that money.

Dan Baker also violated the public's trust and most likely school district policy in his use of his school district credit card.

The Fox C-6 school board's ethics should be called into question for even allowing Dan Baker to be interviewed for the principal's job at Seckman Elementary School in the first place. Dan and Angie Burns Baker should have been fired last summer after the internet scandal broke but fear of violating their contracts kept the board from doing so.

Dr. Wipke and the Fox C-6 School Board will have to answer to the public and the media if Dan Baker and Angie Baker are offered contracts for anything other than a teaching job in our district. They both are automatically eligible for a teaching job due to teacher tenure law. Administrators don't have tenure but have tenure as teachers if they taught for 5 or more years in the district.

Doug Flowers in the St. Joseph School District (SJSD) was recently offered only a teaching contract after the recent release of the SJSD's state audit. Doug Flowers was the assistant superintendent of Human Resources at SJSD prior to being reassigned to other administrative duties until his contract expires June 30.

Please contact Dr. Wipke and your Fox C-6 school board members before Dan Baker is offered a contract for another administrative position in the Fox C-6 School District. The morale in the district cannot be seriously improved until the Bakers are no longer employed by the district.

Click on the link below to watch KMOV News 4's coverage of Fox's Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan payout.


Sunday, September 28, 2014

Check This Out! Recently Approved House Bill 1217 Impacts Missouri's Public Service Retirement System (PSRS)

The June 2014 Public Service Retirement System (PSRS) Benefit Check Newsletter had some interesting notes in it about Missouri House Bill 1217 that was approved by Governor Nixon on July 9, 2014.

House Bill 1217 impacts individuals who participate in the Missouri public employee retirement system. The bill affects both PSRS and PEERS participants.

HB1217 basically states that if anyone participating in the PSRS or PEERS retirement plans could forfeit their benefits if they are found guilty of certain felonies in connection with their employment.

HB1217 may be just what the doctor ordered. It may have a major impact for individuals in our school district depending on what's already been uncovered as well as what the State Auditors may uncover during their investigation.

Hopefully HB 1217 will encourage individuals to always do the right thing going forward knowing that they could lose their retirement benefits if found guilty of certain felonies.

After posting this article I was forwarded an article from July that discussed the law with respect to someone who embezzled more than $1M from Missouri State University over an 8 year period and is now serving 5 years in federal prison. However, HB 1217 did not apply to this person because he pleaded guilty before the law became effective.


The June 2014 newsletter that was sent out to individuals that participate in the Public Service Retirement System had the following paragraph on the cover of the newsletter:

The following bills were passed that impact PSRS/PEERS:

House Bill 1217
This bill specifies that participants in Missouri public employee retirement systems
who are found guilty of certain felonies in connection with their employment will
forfeit their retirement benefits for service on or after the effective date of this bill.
This bill also places into statute that public employee retirement benefits cannot
be transferred, assigned or be subject to a levy, attachment or garnishment except
as allowed by a specific plan’s rules. While PSRS/PEERS has a similar provision
already in our statutes, this bill puts additional safeguards in place to further
protect retirees from being taken advantage of with regard to their pension benefits.


Key Paragraph of House Bill 1217
Any participant of a plan who is found guilty of a felony offense listed in subsection 3 of this section, which is committed in direct connection with or directly related to the participant's duties as an employee on or after the effective date of this section, shall not be eligible to receive any retirement benefits from the respective plan based on service rendered on or after the effective date of this section, except a participant may still request from the respective retirement system a refund of the participant's plan contributions, including interest credited to the participant's account.

Felony Offenses Listed in Subsection 3
The finding of guilt for any of the following offenses or a substantially similar offense provided under federal law shall result in the ineligibility of retirement benefits as provided in subsection 1 of this section:
    1. The offense of felony stealing under section 570.030 when such offense involved money, property, or services valued at five thousand dollars or more as determined by the court;
    2. The offense of felony receiving stolen property under section 570.080 when such offense involved money, property, or services valued at five thousand dollars or more as determined by the court; 
    3. The offense of forgery under section 570.090;
    4. The offense of felony counterfeiting under section 570.103;
    5. The offense of bribery of a public servant under section 576.010; or
    6. The offense of acceding to corruption under section 576.020.



HB 1217 which became effective on 08/28/2014 may prove to be very interesting in the coming months.

Below you will find links to the HB1217 web page, the actual text of HB1217 and a link to the PSRS Benefit Check Newsletter.


HB 1217
Specifies certain unlawful transfers or assignments of pension benefits
Sponsor:Dugger, Tony (141)
Co-Sponsor:Crawford, Sandy (129) ... et al.
Effective Date:8/28/2014
LR Number:4869S.04T
Governor Action:07/09/2014 - Approved by Governor (G)
Last Action:07/09/2014 - Delivered to Secretary of State (G)



HOUSE BILL NO. 1217
97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
2014

An Act

To amend chapters 105 and 434, RSMo, by adding thereto six new sections relating to public
employee retirement plan benefits.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

            Section A. Chapters 105 and 434, RSMo, are amended by adding thereto six new sections, to be known as sections 105.669, 434.300, 434.301, 434.302, 434.303, and 434.304 to read as follows:
            105.669. 1. Any participant of a plan who is found guilty of a felony offense listed in subsection 3 of this section, which is committed in direct connection with or directly related to the participant's duties as an employee on or after the effective date of this section, shall not be eligible to receive any retirement benefits from the respective plan based on service rendered on or after the effective date of this section, except a participant may still request from the respective retirement system a refund of the participant's plan contributions, including interest credited to the participant's account.
            2. Upon a finding of guilt, the court shall forward a notice of the court's finding to the appropriate retirement system in which the offender was a participant. The court shall also make a determination on the value of the money, property, or services involved in committing the offense. The plans shall take all actions necessary to implement the provisions of this section.
            3. The finding of guilt for any of the following offenses or a substantially similar offense provided under federal law shall result in the ineligibility of retirement benefits as provided in subsection 1 of this section:
            (1) The offense of felony stealing under section 570.030 when such offense involved money, property, or services valued at five thousand dollars or more as determined by the court;
            (2) The offense of felony receiving stolen property under section 570.080 when such offense involved money, property, or services valued at five thousand dollars or more as determined by the court;
            (3) The offense of forgery under section 570.090;
            (4) The offense of felony counterfeiting under section 570.103;
            (5) The offense of bribery of a public servant under section 576.010; or
            (6) The offense of acceding to corruption under section 576.020.
            434.300. For purposes of sections 434.300 to 434.303, the following terms shall mean:
             (1) "Benefit recipient", the person who is the plan participant or authorized beneficiary under the plan entitled to receive a plan benefit;
            (2) "Pension assignee", an individual or entity that has been assigned a plan benefit or portions of a plan benefit by the benefit recipient or that otherwise claims an interest in, or control over, a plan benefit or account to which a plan benefit has been deposited. The term "pension assignee" shall not include an individual who is a designated payee under a division of benefits order;
         (3) "Plan", any retirement system established by the state of Missouri, any political subdivision, or instrumentality of the state for the purpose of providing plan benefits for elected or appointed public officials or employees of the state of Missouri, any political subdivision, or instrumentality of the state;
           (4) "Plan benefit", the benefit amount payable from a plan, and includes any annuity, supplemental payment, or death benefit under the plan together with any supplemental payments from public funds to the benefit recipient.
            434.301. 1. The right of any person to a plan benefit shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under a plan shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process. This section shall not prohibit the division or assignability of a plan benefit that is expressly authorized by law that establishes the plan or that is specifically applicable to the plan, including division of benefits orders and any legal process in furtherance of the collection of either a judgment or administrative order for child support or spousal support.
            2. A pension assignee shall not use any device, scheme, transfer, or other artifice to evade the applicability and prohibition of this section, including the deposit of such plan benefits into a joint account with a pension assignee or the authorization to a pension assignee under a power of attorney or other instrument or document to access an account or otherwise obtain funds from an account to which plan benefits have been deposited.
            434.302. 1. Any contract or agreement made in violation of section 434.301 is void. All sums paid to or collected by a pension assignee in violation of section 434.301 shall be returned by the pension assignee to the benefit recipient or his or her heirs or beneficiaries as restitution.
            2. Any benefit recipient, his or her guardian or conservator, or heir or beneficiary may bring an action to enforce the restitution authorized under this section.
            3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, any actions brought under this section must be commenced within five years after any individual or entity engages in any act or practice in violation of 434.301.
            434.303. 1. Whenever it appears that any individual or entity is engaged or is about to engage in any act or practice which is in violation of section 434.301, the attorney general may bring an action in the circuit court having venue to enjoin such act or practice, and upon a proper showing, a temporary restraining order or a preliminary or permanent injunction shall be granted without bond.
            2. The attorney general may seek the recovery authorized under section 434.302 on behalf of the benefit recipient or his or her heirs or beneficiaries and the state, and may exercise the investigative and enforcement powers authorized under chapter 407 to the attorney general and the attorney general may have such recovery of costs as authorized under chapter 407.
            434.304. Nothing in sections 434.301 to 434.303 shall prohibit any action permitted under chapter 409.