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.

KMOV 4 News Covers Fox's $2.72+ Million Dollar Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan Payout

Fox C-6 Will be Paying More than $2.72 Million in Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan Payouts

According to the most recent revision of the February 24, 2015 Fox C-6 school board packet on the district website, the amount of Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan payout so far will be more than $2.72 Million dollars.

Three different versions of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan payout have been posted on the district website.

One of the notable names on the VSIP plan is Fox's Director of Curriculum Kristen Pelster. Her name was not on the original VSIP report that was available prior to the February 24, 2015 Fox C-6 BOE meeting.

The late materials that were added to the February 24, 2015 board meeting packet after the BOE meeting also includes an updated listing of the Employment of Classified Staff report. The updated list includes a new Superintendent Secretary / School Board Secretary with an annual salary of $59,991.00.

I assembled all 3 versions of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan listings into a single document along with the two versions of the Classified Employment for review.

February 24, 2015 Board Packet

Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan Payouts and Employment of Classified Staff Reports

Costly Lessons Learned on Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program

Last night's Fox C-6 school board agenda was changed after the board learned that they did not have to vote on approving Early Retirement or Early Separation agreements with employees. Per the district attorney, once the offer is made to an employee and the offer is accepted the district has a contract with the employee. This was explained in CFO John Brazeal's Voluntary Separation Incentive Program response that he sent me on Monday November 17, 2014 which I posted in yesterday's article.

It wasn't until after I had written about the changes made at the November 3, 2014 workshop to the VSIP program that Mr. Brazeal began looking into how the changes came about to the policy since my information appeared inaccurate. That's because Mr. Brazeal had been provided with the most recent version of the plan which hadn't been updated on the website. My research into the issue was based on what was currently known to the public. That's how the VSIP response came about that I wrote about yesterday and linked to below.

Say No to the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program Payout!

That being said, the changes to remove the 10 Years of Service requirement to the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program were made in February 2014. The 10 Years of Service requirement language had been removed at the same time that the upper limit was removed when former superintendent Dianne Critchlow presented the changes to the board. Fox's former legal counsel had informed the board that the upper limit was discriminatory and that it needed to be removed.

This is another example of how lack of transparency makes it very easy for the administration to manipulate the board and the public. The board nor the public were provided proper time to review the changes made to policies prior to the board meeting or workshop.

By not providing documents to board members days in advance for review made it very easy for former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Critchlow to get changes approved with little to no review.

That's why the board is "taking a serious look" at it's options as quoted in today's Post Dispatch article posted below. This should not have taken place but it did. It occurred on numerous occasions over the years and that's why I was continually pressing to make the board packets available to the public prior to the board meetings. It should have been much easier to hold the district accountable. But, as everyone has learned, hiding things from the public makes it easy to get away with a lot of things before people begin catching on to what's been going on.

As far as transparency goes, you know you've made a little progress when you see people at Fox C-6 school board meetings now following along on their tablet computer or phone reading the board meeting packet!

Hopefully the Fox school board will be able to correct the changes that were made to the Voluntary Early Retirement Program and restore the 10 Years of Service requirement prior to paying out taxpayer money to those that would not have been eligible prior to February 2014.

Post Dispatch
Fox names new superintendent, tightens anti-nepotism policy

Say NO to the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program Payout!

Monday morning November 17, 2014, I sent an email to the Fox C-6 School Board, CFO John Brazeal and board secretary Debby Davis regarding the proposed Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP) payment to Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman. I stated my concerns regarding the removal of the 10 Years of Service with the Fox C-6 School District that just somehow happened to no longer apply even though it's in our current school district policies, including the most recent version that was posted for review on the district in March 2014.

Later that morning I received an email from Fox's CFO John Brazeal with a PDF attachment explaining the history of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program explaining what changes were made and when over the past 9 years. I have included the district's response below. Much of the language in the response appears to be responding to my concerns in recent articles regarding the issue.

On Tuesday November 11, 2014 I wrote an article about this issue after reviewing the Tuesday November 18, 2014 Fox C-6 board meeting packet. In that board packet, there was a request to approve paying Andy Arbeitman a $67,747.50 for voluntarily departing from the district early.

My article spurred a news story on KMOV Channel 4 by Russell Kinsaul due to the fact that after only 2 years of service at Fox C-6, the taxpayers are being asked to approve paying $66,747.50 for Mr. Arbeitman for leaving early. Not so fast!

For years, Fox C-6's policies/regulations have required a minimum of 10 Years of Service in the Fox C-6 School District as explained in the district's response.

It's pretty apparent that many taxpayers and school employees are not happy about the decision to offer this early payout after only two years of service. Fox's board approved new changes to the VSIP at the November 3, 2014 school board meeting that required employees to sign an agreement stating that they would not sue the school district if they took the Early Incentive Pay.

Vested in the Public School Retirement System
It's Fox C-6 taxpayer dollars that are being used to buy out anyone that wants to take the early out. It's not Public School Retirement System (PSRS) money. The rules requirements have been changed so that an employee simply had to be vested in the PSRS in order to receive the Early Incentive Pay. You must read the response from Fox to see how this has all come about.

Board Minutes and Packets Void of Changes
Over the weekend I reviewed board meeting minutes and school board meeting packets looking for the changes that had been made over the years in regards to the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program. Neither the board meeting minutes nor the board packets had any documentation pertaining to the removal of the 10 Years of Service requirement.

The response from the district states that "a vote that should have been taken in open session was taken in closed session" with regards to the changes that were made.

Not voting or discussing this issue during the Public Session or even providing documentation to the board in their board packets is a serious problem. It warrants being reviewed by the State Auditor as well as the Attorney General.

You must question why these changes weren't discussed during Public Session. The public should have been made aware of the changes. It's somewhat explained in the district's response below.

There is a Fox C-6 school board meeting this evening Tuesday November 18, 2014 at 7PM at the Fox C-6 Service Center. I encourage everyone to attend and voice your concerns to the Fox C-6 school board regarding this issue prior to them giving another hand out of cash.

According to both the current school district policy and the newly revised version posted March 2014 version "For Review", Mr. Arbeitman is not eligible for the incentive which requires 10 years of service with the Fox C-6 School District. Mr. Arbeitman began working for the district on July 1, 2013.

Below is a copy of the response I received from Fox's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) John Brazeal on this issue. It's imperative that you share this explanation with your friends and neighbors in the Fox C-6 School District. After all, it's your money that the district keeps handing out!

You can also download a copy of the original PDF version of the document I received from here:

Fox C-6 VSIP 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.