How Do You Decide Who To Vote For in School Board Elections?

The 2022 Fox C-6 School Board election is next week on Tuesday April 5, 2022.

Please Vote! Your Vote Matters!

So, how do you decide who you should vote for? 

In many of Fox's nearby school districts, you can find school board candidate information posted on the school district's website. Fox doesn't provide that information like they do in other school districts.

But, once I find out who has filed to run for school board, I search for the candidate's website or any other social media site where they may have posted information.

Next, I want to know who the treasurer is for their campaign and what their affiliations may be with the school district.

Once it gets closer to the election (40 days out), I look up their campaign finance reports to see who is helping fund their campaigns.

You can use the MEC's website to search for candidates who have registered with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

You can find this information at the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) website:

https://www.mec.mo.gov/MEC/Campaign_Finance/CFSearch.aspx

Each candidate who files with the MEC is assigned an MEC ID. You will notice that ID in the links below which link directly to the candidates information on the MEC website. It's the same link that you would find when you enter a search into the MEC website. 

Below are MEC links for the candidates in the order that they will appear on the April 5th ballot.

Once you click on the link, look for the dark gray Reports tab to the right of the Information tab to find the Electronic Reports for each of the candidates.

Click on the year 2022 for the current year which will then display the various reports that you can view.

There are multiple MEC reports:

8 Day Before General Municipal Election - 4/5/2022

40 Day Before General Municipal Election - 4/5/2022

Sometimes you may see an AMENDED report as well. 

Click on the link for each of the reports to see how much was spent or how much each candidate received in donations.

THREE YEAR TERM CANDIDATES

Kenneth Woolsey

https://www.mec.mo.gov/MEC/Campaign_Finance/CommInfo.aspx?MECID=A222179

Todd Scott

https://www.mec.mo.gov/MEC/Campaign_Finance/CommInfo.aspx?MECID=A222164

Brandon Williams

https://www.mec.mo.gov/MEC/Campaign_Finance/CommInfo.aspx?MECID=A222174

Cathey “Break” Michalski

No Committee Formed

Raymond “Curtiss” C Frazier III

https://www.mec.mo.gov/MEC/Campaign_Finance/CommInfo.aspx?MECID=A222156

Tara Hagin

https://www.mec.mo.gov/MEC/Campaign_Finance/CommInfo.aspx?MECID=A222063

ONE YEAR TERM CANDIDATES

Travis Lintner

https://www.mec.mo.gov/MEC/Campaign_Finance/CommInfo.aspx?MECID=A222187

Vicki Hanson - No Committee for 2022 / (2018 and 2021 Campaign Finance Reports)

https://www.mec.mo.gov/MEC/Campaign_Finance/CommInfo.aspx?MECID=A180051

David Knoll

No Committee Formed

Ryan Giesler

No Committee Formed

When to Form and Register a Committee

https://www.mec.mo.gov/WebDocs/PDF/CampaignFinance/Forming_Registering_Committee.pdf

Former Superintendent Critchlow Asked Her Cabinet To Post Positive Comments About the District on TOPIX

Recently, I posted the handwritten notes former Fox C-6 assistant superintendents Tim Crutchley and Todd Scott wrote after their conversation with former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Critchlow in which she told them that her husband Jamie Critchlow had been posting comments on the TOPIX.COM website. As I mentioned in that post, getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from some of Fox's former school district administrators had been a huge problem for years.

According to Tim Crutchley's deposition, former superintendent Dianne Critchlow had been concerned with comments that were being posted on TOPIX.COM for quite some time. Mr. Crutchley stated that comments on TOPIX were discussed quite often in their "cabinet" (assistant superintendent) meetings. In fact, she asked her "cabinet" (the assistant superintendents) to post positive comments on TOPIX about the school district in response to the comments that were critical of the district.

Former superintendent Dianne Critchlow's directive lead to some administrators posting comments on TOPIX.COM during the school day as well as at home. Not all of the comments posted were positive as you can see by reading the ones listed in the exhibits in the lawsuit that was filed with Jefferson County courts in November 2014.

Comments Posted On TOPIX from Fox's IP Address Date Back to 2010

Some of the earliest posts made on TOPIX that came from the school district's IP address date back to October 2010. They were made by a user named "Bullwinkle" who responded to a post that I had made on Topix regarding my concerns about the school district's open District Wide Compliance Review.

Former superintendent Dianne Brown was not happy that we had filed an OCR complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights in August 2008. And then in March 2010, Washington D.C. Office of Civil Rights informed superintendent Brown that her school district would be undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review adding insult to injury.

Making the public aware of the District Wide Compliance Review was something that former superintendent Dianne Brown didn't want. When I would ask the school board about it during public comments, Dianne would respond saying that it couldn't be discussed due to litigation. But, there was no litigation related to the Compliance Review. Stating that there was ongoing litigation was a simple way to make everyone believe that it couldn't be discussed. It was simply another tactic used to keep people from questioning things in the district. The District Wide Compliance Review was an investigation of the school district's Section 504 practices.

So, when a comment was posted on TOPIX by Bullwinkle referencing the recent Due Process decision for the OCR complaint, it was very obvious to me as to who would have posted that online comment. I just couldn't prove at the time that the comment came from a school district computer.

Dianne Brown and former assistant superintendent and Section 504 Coordinator, Dan Baker, had both been involved with the OCR complaint and Due Process Hearing as well as the District Wide Compliance Review in 2010 and were aware of the recent ruling.

So, when it was confirmed that Bullwinkle's comment that was posted on TOPIX.COM on November 16, 2010 came from a the school district's IP address, it helped validate my suspicions.

Below is part of Bullwinkle's comment that was posted on TOPIX. The comment seems to have a bit of an attitude resonating from it: 

"Channel person. You must be the disgruntled parents over the OCR case. get over it! you lost."

The Due Process Hearing ruling had made by an attorney who was hired by the school district and who just happened to be a former law associate in two different law firms of the attorney who represented the school district during the Due Process Hearing. The attorney hired by the district to hear the Due Process Hearing was supposed to be "Fair and Impartial" but that was not the case. That's just how the game has been played in our state for a very long time.

Bullwinkle also responded to another comment in which I had talked about speaking to Fox's school board president in 2008 about speaking to the school board and superintendent Brown blocked the school board from speaking to me. When superintendent Brown arrived at the meeting, she told me that the school board had already decided not to speak with me.

However, the board president at the time wasn't aware of this decision as we were already speaking about getting on next months agenda since he had forgotten to put me on the agenda for that evening. Apparently, superintendent Brown forgot to tell him that "he" had already decided not to speak with me. Superintendent Brown seemed to be the only person who knew that the school board had decided not to speak with me.

Bullwinkle didn't catch that my comment was about speaking with the board president in the fall of 2008. I guess being angered by information being posted in a public forum that had been kept quiet for so long was causing unrest in the upper ranks. My comment related to this incident caused Bullwinkle to post the following comment on TOPIX.COM:

11/16/2010 - 08:10AM

"The school board president is a female and has been president since early last spring you dip stick. 

Mr Critchlow, I will call you and we can start our own campaign against these crazy parents.. LOL Perhaps we can find them something to do at your school... hahahaaa"

Bullwinkle posted 5 comments on TOPIX.COM during October and November 2010. Several of Bullwinkle's online posts made "positive" comments about superintendent Brown and the school district. Bullwinkle certainly wanted to make sure that the community was aware of the great job that superintendent Brown was doing for our school district.

What helped confirm my suspicions that Bullwinkle was most likely superintendent Brown, was that the language and writing style used by Bullwinkle was strikingly similar to that found in the Superintendent Messages written by Superintendent Dianne Brown that she posted on the district website and also published in The Rock newspaper.

There was no doubt in my mind as to who Bullwinkle was who was posting on TOPIX defending superintendent Brown and responding to criticisms that were made on the Fox High School Superintendent thread.

Even though Bullwinkle didn't post that many messages, the phrases and keywords used by Bullwinkle gave you the impression that you were reading comments written by superintendent Dianne Brown herself.

Here are some of the phrases and keywords that stood out in Bullwinkle's comments. Compare the phrases to those used in Dianne Brown-Critchlow's Superintendent Messages from 2010 to 2013:

• Kudos to you
• second to none
• I applaud
• I'm proud of
• positive attitude

Below are the comments posted on TOPIX by Bullwinkle in 2010 from the school district's IP address with the dates and local time that they were posted:

10/19/2010 - 9:51AM

This is obsurd. Those of you who are relishing in these rumors are worse than the rumors theirselves. Complete rubbish. I have two kids that graduated from the district. Couldnt be more impressed with their experience and education. I applaud the superintendent and all her efforts. Her personal life is exactly what it is. Hers...not yours! Get a life people!

In 2010 when the message above was posted, Dianne Brown did have two kids that had already graduated from the district.

11/05/2010 - 11:19AM

Who here has been divorced or has had a close friend or relative get divorced? Because your not a public figure does that give all of us the right to judge you/her? Nope dont think so. One thing thats a common factor here is about the kids. Do you think your children would be proud of you guys posting negative remarks about their teachers and administration? Think about that... 

I love humans nowadays. Collectively forming a cyber‐subpar lynch mob with nothing to do other than try to tear people down. 

As you judge others always keep in mind you too will be judged when your time comes. 

Im proud of the school district. Its teachers, faculty, administration and staff are second to none. Kudos to you guys!!! I know your doing everything you can to help our children succeed.

The next comment posted by Bullwinkle was quite intent on defending superintendent Brown who had been getting criticized online about her close relationship with Jamie Critchlow.

11/08/2010 - 10:33AM

"Dear unknowing fellow constituents,... 

I am amazed that any of you morality, podium pounding blabber‐mouths feel you have any right to judge. Do you know the superintendant or any of the people being accused on here? What are your facts? I'm sure you caught wind of a rumor and you took it to the highest level without knowing a damn bit of whats going on. Have you lived in her house? Have you been in her former marriage? Have you had her confide in you why she got a divorce? NO... you have not and don't kid yourself if you think you have a clue. This is where the term "hypocrite" applies. 

I know the parents and board hold her in high regard and have nothing but the utmost respect for her. And my opinion still remains the same. Get a life and find a positive place in your head to venture to. The world is crappy enough without this rubbish and your nonsense. Be a parent with a positive attitude...not a bad one."

11/16/2010 - 8:10AM

The school board president is a female and has been president since early last spring you dip stick. Again...more lies to harm others. 

Mr Critchlow, I will call you and we can start our own campaign against these crazy parents..LOL Perhaps we can find them something to do at your school...hahahaaa

Below is the complete post that was made by Bullwinkle in response to my comment about the District Wide Compliance Review being conducted by OCR. In that same post, Bullwinkle also responded to another person who used the screen name "Please" which was not me:

11/16/2010 - 10:03AM

Channel person. You must be the disgruntled parents over the OCR case. get over it! you lost. 

"Please" You are correct in that affairs in the work place are frowned upon and Im sure Paul would agree with you. However, making accusations without proof is slander and you, my friend, are crossing the line repetitely. You lose. get over it! 

Put your name out there like Mr Critchlow did. Hes being ripped on here too and I applaud him for his righteousness.

Bullwinkle certainly thought highly of former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Brown back then and also thought that the school board held "her in high regard". Bullwinkle's comments certainly had a familiar ring to them.

I wrote an article about this in July 2014 titled:

What Got Our Educators Riled Enough To Write Defamatory Comments?

Comments Posted From District and Home Computers and Cell Phones
If you read through the exhibits in the publicly available lawsuit, you will see date / time stamps and an IP address recorded for each post. The school districts IP address was documented by MOREnet. Other IP addresses that were traced back to individual homes and cell phones were verified by the respective Internet Service Providers.

You'll probably notice that not all of the posts made on TOPIX that were traced back to the school district or to the homes or phones of school district administrators were "positive" posts.

The dates and times in the exhibits from TOPIX.COM are in Pacific Standard Time. So, you must to add 2 hours to the times that are documented in military time in the exhibits. The text of the lawsuit didn't properly document the times when they were converted from the exhibits into the lawsuit text.

Did Jamie Critchlow Use a School District Computer to post comments?

In Tim Crutchley's notes of his conversation with Jamie Critchlow, Mr. Crutchley documented that Mr. Critchlow didn't use any district computers when he posted comments on TOPIX.COM, "We asked if he used personal or district computers and he said he used personal computer."

Did Mr. Critchlow tell the truth when he told Mr. Crutchley that he didn't use a district computer?

On November 16, 2010 at 7:49AM, there was a comment posted on TOPIX by someone using the screen name, "Jamie Matthew Critchlow". The online post was removed from TOPIX long ago but was provided by TOPIX when subpoenaed since it originated from the school district's IP address.

The original comment posted by the screen name, Jamie Matthew Critchlow was as follows except that I redacted part of the phone number that was made in the original online post and in the lawsuit exhibits:

Public...let me introduce myself. I am Jamie Critchlow. Principal of the Bridges program at Fox C‐6. I have been made aware of this website and rumors as of late. I am on here to speak to you as a concerned parent. I am truly apathetic for anyone who finds comfort in these negative words. Dr Brown and I are great friends who have found solitude in each others friendship through difficult times. The light in which both she and i have been shed on this website is at best ridiculous. If you have any questions you would like to ask please call my personal cell at 314‐775‐XXXX.

Read through the TOPIX.COM posts that are documented in the lawsuit that was filed electronically in the Jefferson County courts in November 2014. You can see just how many comments were made on TOPIX from the school district's IP address. The district said they were unable to trace which specific computers the posts came from when asked to do so. However, there's a definite pattern in the content that goes along with certain screen names in many of the online comments.

Hopefully reading through the online comments will give everyone a little more perspective as to why I've put so much time and effort into documenting what was going on in our school district. It's important to get the facts and the truth to the public so this type of behavior never happens again in our school district.

Fox's former superintendent, Dianne Brown/Critchlow invested a lot of time and effort into hiding information from the public for years. That allowed her to get away with a lot of things that never should have happened. It's very well documented in my emails to board members and administrators as well as audio recordings that I made when I attended school board meetings as to what was going on.

It's extremely hard for anyone to even imagine that this sort of harassment could or would occur especially since it was being done by some of the top administrators in our school district.

It's even harder to imagine that our Fox C-6 school board members did nothing to stop it. I repeatedly spoke to them and emailed them about this harassment for years.

In 2014 after obtaining IP addresses, we provided the lawsuit information to the Office of Civil Rights since this sort of behavior would surely be considered retaliation under Section 504 Law. However, the Office for Civil Rights told us they couldn't do anything until there was a court ruling. We also spoke to the Department of Justice as well.

There's a huge problem with the system and the people involved when this type of harassment cannot be stopped. Perhaps this will be a lesson that everyone will learn from.

The following document contains all of the online posts that were submitted in the original lawsuit along with the locations that the online posts were made from. Reading through the online comments that were posted and from where shows is a very sad example of how desperate people were to keep their jobs as I brought my concerns to our school board that our superintendent did not appreciate.

Lawsuit With Exhibits Electronically Filed in Jefferson County Court in 2014 over TOPIX.COM Posts

May 27, 2014 - Critchlow Tells Crutchley and Scott That Her Husband Was Posting on TOPIX.COM

I'm glad to see that the Fox C-6 community is finally questioning all of those denials of wrong doing over the years by former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow.

Telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth was a huge problem for some of Fox's school district during the Dianne Brown / Dianne Critchlow Era of our school district.

Seeing some of the comments posted by parents, taxpayers and students on some of the news sites and Facebook helps validate years of work spent chasing down and documenting the corruption going on in our district as school board members turned a blind eye.

Below is a link to a few pages of notes written by former assistant superintendent Tim Crutchley and former assistant superintendent Todd Scott on May 25, 2014 soon after Dianne Critchlow informed them that she knew that her husband Jamie Critchlow had been making posts on TOPIX.COM. Dianne met with Tim Crutchley and Todd Scott shortly after the Post Dispatch newspaper published a story about the internet scandal lawsuit.

Their notes aren't very detailed. But, I thought it would be helpful for the community to get a glimpse at some of the things that were going on behind the scenes two years ago.

It's hard to believe that it's already been two years since the internet scandal broke things loose for the school district. It wasn't long after the internet scandal, that the credit card spending scandal hit the news. What a crazy time it was!

While Dianne Brown-Critchlow was touting Fox as being a National District of Character, she was busy padding her pockets and using district credit cards to pay for red light tickets and meals as well as purchase logging tongs, cameras and softball equipment on Amazon.com.

As documented in Tim Crutchley's hand written notes, Dianne Critchlow asked Tim Crutchley and Todd Scott to tell the board  "about her wanting to to retire right away and that she has gotten bad health news and was going on FMLA right away. She also wanted us to get board to move Jamie's retirement up right away because of her health concerns."

I'm betting that Dianne Critchlow didn't feel too well after being contacted by her Internet Service Provider and being told that their IP information was being requested for a lawsuit.

Crutchley and Scott's Hand Written Notes Document Critchlow's Knoweledge of Posting On TOPIX.COM

Wow! Dan Baker Chosen as Seckman Elementary Principal Over 58 Other Applicants

I do believe that Fox made some good decisions in the hiring of the new Fox Senor High School Principal, our new assistant superintendent in charge of Human Resources as well as Fox's new Food Nutrition Director.

However, it's quite obvious that Dr. Wipke, Fox's BOE and the selection committees never read the May 2009 Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) that Dan Baker signed on May 1, 2009.

Dan Baker was Fox's Section 504 Coordinator when he agreed to make corrections to bring Fox into compliance with federal law. It's now been nearly 6 years since Dan Baker signed the Resolution Agreement and it's still open.

It also appears that Dr. Wipke, Fox's BOE and the selection committee never read the USDA OCR's August 2011 Final Agency Decision that found Fox C-6 Non-Compliant with Section 504 and the ADA AA. That agreement told the district to immediately reinstate a Section 504 that was removed in September 2008. It took until August 2014 and the removal of Dan Baker as the Section 504 coordinator before the district complied with that decision.

Did Fox's board of education not take the district's Non-Compliance issues into consideration when the they voted 6-0 to hire Dan Baker as the next principal of Seckman Elementary School?

As Dan Baker and Dianne Brown-Critchlow told me many times at board meetings, they kept the BOE informed about what was going on with the Resolution Agreement, the District Wide Compliance Review and the USDA's Final Agency Decision. However, the district never publicly acknowledged the problems. David Palmer is the only person that is still serving on the board when the Resolution Agreement and District Wide Compliance Review was initiated and he is running for school board again.

Did David Palmer ever ask why the district still hasn't complied with the May 2009 Resolution Agreement?

David Palmer's wife Gee Palmer also played a huge part in the Non-Compliance issues as the Director of Nursing. She participated in 504 Team meetings and was deposed during the Due Process Hearing.

Dianne Brown-Critchlow and Dan Baker have made comments about the Resolution Agreement and the District Wide Compliance Review during Public Sessions at board meetings but I don't believe any of their comments were documented in board meeting minutes. This all occurred before the district began audio recording school board meetings. Luckily, I've been recording meetings ever since I began attending them.

It would certainly be interesting to see if any of the other 58 applicants denied Section 504 protections to students for 6 years like Dan Baker did while he was the Section 504 Coordinator for the district.

It's interesting to note that after Dan Baker was removed as the district's Section 504 Coordinator in June 2014, students that had been previously denied Section 504 plans under his watch are now being found eligible for Section 504 and are being provided 504 plans in the district.

That fact alone should certainly be cause concern for the Fox C-6 community when being told that Dan Baker was the best candidate for the job.

Yes, Dan Bakers home was linked to derogatory comments that were posted online. But Dan has never admitted to actually making any comments online. However, he did apologize that his home was linked to those comments.

Fox's CFO John Brazeal told me that he asked Dan Baker directly if he had posted comments online and he said that Dan Baker did not answer.

So if Dr. Wipke did not read the USDA OCR's August 2011 Final Agency Decision that found Fox Non-Compliant with federal law, it would appear that he didn't have all of the facts that he should have taken into consideration when he made his decision to recommend Dan Baker to the Fox C-6 Board of Education as the best candidate for the job.

Reading the article in this week's Arnold-Imperial Leader about the hiring of Dan Baker and Todd Scott demonstrates that the "rigorous process" wasn't rigorous enough in it's screening of candidates.

Was Todd Scott still the assistant superintendent of Human Resources while he was going through the "rigorous process" when he applied for the principal position at Seckman Senior High School?

Fox C-6 board member Dan Kroupa told the Arnold-Imperial Leader that Todd Scott was selected after a "thorough and unbiased screening process." You can take that comment for what it's worth!

Acting superintendent Tim Crutchley, incoming superintendent Dr. Jim Wipke and the Fox C-6 Board of Education must be hoping that the community won't be able to see through all of the "smoke and mirrors" that they are feeding the public in the media.

Perhaps they're hoping that the community will eventually forget about all of the wrong doings and that everyone will just give up on trying to making changes in our district so they can get back to doing what they've been doing for years.

Should Fox's BOE publicly acknowledge the May 2009 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR that Mr. Baker agreed to uphold. It's very entertaining to read the years of "monitoring letters" that were sent to the district informing them that they still hadn't complied with the Resolution Agreement. ED OCR just kept giving the district new deadlines to meet which they never did.

How many years does it take a school district to comply with federal law?

Should the district publicly acknowledge the District Wide Compliance Review investigation that was initiated by ED OCR in March 2010 that is still an open investigation?

Since Dan Baker was responsible for all of the OCR Non-Compliance issues along with Dianne Brown-Critchlow that are still hanging over the district after more than 5 years, one would think that Fox's Board of Education would have taken that into consideration before they voted 6-0 to hire Dan Baker as Seckman Elementary School principal.

Did Dan Baker not know or understand Section 504 law when he was the district's Section 504 coordinator from 2008 to 2014?

Is that why the district spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees between 2008 and 2014?

Did Fox's Board of Education ever review any of the invoices for legal services between 2008 and 2014 while Dan Baker was the district's Section 504 Coordinator to see why the district was spending so much money in legal fees?

It's certainly hard to believe that the other 58 candidates that applied for the principal position at Seckman Elementary School were given a fair chance considering who was on the screening committees and final interviews. It was stated that the Seckman Elementary School teachers heavily influenced the decision to hire Dan Baker as the new principal at Seckman Elementary. Are the teachers responsible for hiring their own boss?

You can read Tim Crutchley's response as to who participated in the hiring process in my previous article:

Fox's Rigorous Process that You Should Trust for the Latest New Hires!

Is moving an educator who denied services and protection to students for 6 years what's really best for our students and parents at Seckman Elementary School?

Read the Arnold-Imperial Leader article to learn more about what some of our school board members had to say about the recent hiring of Dan Baker and Todd Scott by using the link below.

March 26, 2015 Arnold Imperial Leader Article on Hiring Dan Baker and Todd Scott

Fox C-6 Administrators Dan Baker, Todd Scott and Andy Arbeitman have applied for Early Retirement!

According to the December 19, 2014 edition of The Countian - Jefferson County newspaper, Fox C-6 assistant superintendents Dan Baker, Todd Scott and Andy Arbeitman have all applied for Early Retirement.

Mr. Arbeitman had previously submitted his request to retire early to Fox's Board of Education (BOE).

You can expect to see Dan Baker, Todd Scott and Andy Arbeitman walk away from our district with 50% of their current salary due to the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP).

Based upon their current contract amounts:

Dan Baker will walk away with: $74,167.50

Todd Scott will walk away with: $72,693.00

Andy Arbeitman will walk away with: $66,747,50 (despite only working for Fox for 2 years)

Both Dan Baker and Todd Scott had each completed 20 years of service with the Fox C-6 School District at the end of the 2013-2014 school year according to Missouri DESE records.

Dan Baker's Contracts
Dan Baker's current contract has his salary listed at $148,335.00 for the 2014-2015 school year which reflects the 5% Voluntary Pay Cut he agreed to take.

Dan Baker's February 2014 contract had his salary listed at $156,142.00 for the 2014-2015 school year.

On June 4, 2014 Dan Baker and his wife Angie Burns Baker were placed on paid administrative leave after derogatory comments directed at district critics were traced to the Bakers' home computer and cellular phone.

However, in July, acting superintendent Tim Crutchley told the media that only one comment was posted from the Bakers' home computer. Mr. Crutchley's statement was incorrect.

Mr. Crutchley's incorrect statement gave the public the impression that what the Bakers had done wasn't that bad and that's why the Bakers got to keep their job.

Below is Mr. Crutchley's statement that appeared in the July 24, 2014 Arnold-Imperial Leader:

"School officials investigated the claims made in the lawsuit and decided only one comment was posted from the Bakers' home computer and that the two could keep their job, following disciplinary measures, Crutchley said."

Not only was Mr. Crutchley's statement incorrect about the number of posts, but it didn't reflect the fact that multiple posts were traced not only to the Bakers' home computer but also to their cellular phone.

Mr. Crutchley should have also pointed out the fact that when the online comments were posted by the Bakers, Dan Baker was Fox C-6's Section 504 Coordinator. As the 504 Coordinator for the District, Mr. Baker was responsible for ensuring that the District properly followed Section 504 Law.

In fact, Mr. Baker was responsible for signing an Assurance Agreement each year stating that the district would comply with Federal law including Section 504 Law as documented in board meeting minutes.

Section 504 Law prohibits retaliating against anyone that files an OCR complaint or advocates for a right protected by Section 504 law. Since one of the derogatory comments traced to the Baker's was directed at me and I had filed complaints with OCR as well as advocated for a right protected by Section 504, the Bakers violated Section 504 Law.

According to the exhibits in the amended lawsuit petition filed on November 14, 2014, multiple posts were made on the Topix forum from the Bakers' home computer and cellular phone. I covered this issue in more detail in the following article which lists some of the comments posted by the Bakers:

Was the Fox C-6 School Board Misled by the Bakers?

Dan Baker had a Loss of Compensation and Rank?

Also, Mr. Crutchley stated in his December 19 response to Nikki McClain that Mr. Baker had "a loss of compensation and rank" when he responded to Ms. McClain's concerns about Dan Baker being appointed as the interim principal at Seckman Elementary School.

If Mr. Baker had a loss of rank why wasn't his salary reduced?

Was Mr. Baker's salary reduced at the December 16, 2014 Fox C-6 BOE meeting?

Mr. Baker's most recent contract was provided to me by the district on December 2, 2014 and it is only 5% less than his previous contract.

Mr. Baker is expected to start working as the interim principal at Seckman Elementary School on Monday January 5, 2015. This was a very bad decision by the District. Mr. Baker should not have even been considered for the position at Seckman Elementary School.

Dan and Angie Baker's 2014-2015 Employment Contracts Before and After Settlement Agreement and 5% Voluntary Pay Cut

Todd Scott's Contracts
Todd Scott's current contract has his salary listed at $145,386.00 for the 2014-2015 school year which reflects the 5% Voluntary Pay Cut he agreed to take.

Todd Scott's February 2014 contract had his salary listed at $153,038.00 for the 2014-2015 school year.

Todd Scott's 2014-2015 Employment Contracts Before and After 5% Voluntary Pay Cut

Many Notable Items! Fox C-6's December 16, 2014 Board Packet Review

Fox posted the December 16, 2014 board meeting agenda and board packet on the district website on Wednesday December 10, 2014. The agenda may state that it was posted on December 9, 2014. But I looked for it on Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning and it wasn't there. Plus, the PDF document wasn't created until Wednesday December 10, 2014 at 4:05pm despite the fact that the agenda states that it was posted on Tuesday December 9, 2010. Don't always trust the documentation. Read but verify!

It took several years of asking and prodding the Fox C-6 school board to get the board packets published on our district website. It then took quite a while to get them published on the district website ahead of school board meetings as they should be. That's how the public stays informed of what's going on in their school district. That allows taxpayers to find out what's going on ahead of time so they can ask their 7 board members questions before they make decisions for the taxpayers without public input or concerns.

Currently, the Fox C-6 school board only has 6 members after the resignation of former long time board member Cheryl Hermann due to a spat with the un-hiring of her daughter by the board.

Daniel Jones and Associates Annual Audit Report
The December board meeting typically has quite a few important items on the agenda. For one, Daniel Jones and Associates usually presents their annual audit of the Fox C-6 school district for the preceding school year. They will be presenting again at the December 2014 board meeting. However, this is the first time that they are presenting their report after the infamous uncovering of the huge credit card debacle and extravagant vacations professional development trips that some of our top district administrators attended throughout the year.

The board packet notice for the annual audit report has some CYA language from Daniel Jones & Associates documenting some of the things that went on in the district that's finally been uncovered and brought to the public's attention. 

Make sure you read this page of the board packet!

It's certainly worth reading considering the fact that they never noticed any of the credit card issues or professional development meal purchases in their previous audits of our school district for years.

Cheryl Hermann stated at a board meeting that she couldn't understand how these things could have been going on while she was still on the school board since the district was audited every year. That's because the annual audit is MUCH different than the State Audit that's currently being conducted by the Missouri State Auditor's office.

Ignorance Is Bliss!
Not reviewing reports and asking for credit card statements can cause your school district and community a lot of embarrassment like what's occurred in our school district this year.

You can talk to your school board members until your blue in the face about issues during your 3 minutes each month and in numerous emails and letters sent to board members as well as lengthy phone conversations and face to face conversations for years and the board still did nothing. Perhaps they didn't want to hear it. Or, was it because they trusted those in charge and they believed what they were being told? 

Everyone now know what happens when your school board members don't want to hear or listen to what's truly going on and do something about it.

Missing Names on Annual Admin Contract Renewal Report
It's unusual to see a report with a list of administrator names of who's contract is getting renewed for next year in the Fox C-6 School District public board packet . In the past, I had to make a Sunshine Request to get that type of information.

Previous year's reports sent to me contained a listing of administrator names with XXXX's where their salary amounts would be listed rather than an actual salary amount. This year at least there's a report and rather than publishing XXXX's for salary amounts they just left that part off. At least we have a list of names without having to ask. 

So Who's Missing From the Report?

• Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker
• Assistant Superintendent Todd Scott
• Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman

Other notable people missing from the list are former Ridgewood Middle School principal Kristen Pelster and Seckman Elementary principal Christine Simokaitis.

Dan Baker and Todd Scott shouldn't have been listed on the annual contract renewal for obvious reasons. It will be interesting to learn why Kristen Pelster and Chris Simokaitis aren't on the list. Hopefully the community will learn why. But, with as much sweeping of things under the rug that's gone on for years, we may never learn the truth.

2014-2015 Budget Amendment
Take a look at the proposed budget amendment that is intended to more properly fund each school building in the district with Instructional Supplies and Textbooks as well as Copier Paper. 

Fox's former superintendent insisted many times over that our district had enough books for our students. But, everyone in the know and even parents and students knew that her statements weren't true! So, I'm definitely glad to see that our district's budget is being amended to help alleviate this problem.

Other Notable Items
One other notable item missing from this month's board packet was a letter that I sent to the Fox C-6 school board regarding the changes made to the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program that is now known as the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP) that I specifically asked the board to include in this months packet so the community could read what I asked our school board members. My email to the board was sent as a letter to the board.

This isn't the first time that the district left out one of my letters from the board packet or meeting minutes. This has simply been their standard mode of operation for nearly a decade in keeping information and issues from the public. Of course, letters of praise typically made it in the board packet. But letters of concern just don't seem to make it to the public. This will need to change in order for the community to trust our district administrators and our school board.

I certainly hope that Mr. Arbeitman decides to VOLUNTARILY forego taking ANY Voluntary Separation Incentive Payout from the Fox C-6 taxpayers as he departs our school district. It certainly be the honorable thing to do considering that the changes made to the VSIP program were made to benefit those that didn't deserve the incentive. Plus, the $66,737.50 could be used toward purchasing much needed books for our students that the district hasn't had for years.


Looking Forward To New Leadership
I have very high hopes for Dr. Jim Wipke who was chosen as the next Fox C-6 School District Superintendent. I have had numerous emails, phone calls and conversations with people who have worked with him or have had children attend schools where he was principal. 

Our school district deserves to have a person with high integrity leading our district after enduring the last decade of deception and lack of transparency.

Download and Read the Board Packet
Since the community is able to download and read the Fox C-6 board packets ahead of the school board meetings now, I highly encourage everyone to go to the district website and download the board packet for the December 16, 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting.

There's a link below that will get you to the folder that contains the file on the district website. Since board packets usually get updated each month which generates a new hyperlink, I am only providing you a link to the folder.

NOTE: I updated links to BoardDocs where the Annual Audit Reports are now stored on 03/17/2023.

Use the links below to download the 2013-2014 Fox C-6 Annual Audit Report and compare it to the 2012-2013 Fox C-6 Annual Audit Report.

The 2013-2014 Annual Audit Report states on Page 60 that: 

"Effect: Prior management of the District did not review or question credit card purchases made by the District employees. This can cause personal expenditures to be paid by the District."

2013-2014 Fox C-6 Annual Audit Report BoardDocs Page

2013-2014 Fox C-6 Annual Audit Report (PDF) Document from BoardDocs

December 16, 2014 Board Meeting Minutes on BoardDocs

2012-2013 Fox C-6 Annual Audit Report BoardDocs Page

2012-2013 Fox C-6 Annual Audit Report (PDF) Document from BoardDocs

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.