Nepotism on Fox schoolboard
hmmmmmm

United States

#1824 May 2, 2013
At least Nash didn't get the job on her back like the last person did.
Tim

Mount Vernon, MO

#1825 May 2, 2013
hmmmmmm wrote:
At least Nash didn't get the job on her back like the last person did.
I don't consider that progress! Just saying
Apu

Fenton, MO

#1826 May 2, 2013
hmmmmmm wrote:
At least Nash didn't get the job on her back like the last person did.
Classy.
What's wrong with you?
Ron

United States

#1827 May 2, 2013
Thinking Cap On wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a nepotism policy in place. It is state law.
Article VII, Section 6 of the Missouri Constitution states the following:
"Any public officer or employee in this state who by virtue of his office or employment names or appoints to public office or employment any relative within the fourth degree, by consanguinity or affinity, shall thereby forfeit his office or employment."
2. No seven-director, urban, or metropolitan school district board of education shall hire a spouse of any member of such board for a vacant or newly created position unless the position has been advertised pursuant to board policy and the superintendent of schools submits a written recommendation for the employment of the spouse to the board of education. The names of all applicants as well as the name of the applicant hired for the position are to be included in the board minutes.
The game playing, i.e. the mother in law left the room, he wasn't my husband at the time,etc. is just flagrantly thumbing noses at the spirit of the law and going around it. You pat my back, I'll pat yours, we'll make sure your(fill in the blank, wife, son, daughter, cousin, grandma, BFF) gets hired and you can pretend you had no idea about it.
Were all of the applicants for teh position included in the board minutes for all to see?
It is a shame they let such uneducated people on here but, it is America so why not? I will state it to you in plain english:

THERE IS NO LAW FORBIDDING THE HIRING OR RELATIVES IN MISSOURI.

If so about 99% of the districts in Missouri would be violating the law. The "law" you are quoting forbids people from voting or being a part of the process. Again, there is NO LAW that was broken by Fox or the other 500 districts in Missouri that have done the same thing. Sorry if you don't like the way the law works but those are the facts of the law. If you don't like it go to your representatives and ask them to change it.

NOTHING HAS TO BE DONE....With that being said I do believe Mr. Smith is working on doing something to change how things are done in the hiring. I have also heard he is going to be working in Jefferson City on something, not sure exactly what so he is not making this change to "save his position" next year because my understanding is he will not be here much and would not be able to run anyway for his seat.
seckman parent

United States

#1828 May 2, 2013
Apu wrote:
<quoted text>Classy.
What's wrong with you?
What does this mean?
Uneducated Hick

Arnold, MO

#1829 May 2, 2013
Ron wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a shame they let such uneducated people on here but, it is America so why not? I will state it to you in plain english:
THERE IS NO LAW FORBIDDING THE HIRING OR RELATIVES IN MISSOURI.
If so about 99% of the districts in Missouri would be violating the law. The "law" you are quoting forbids people from voting or being a part of the process. Again, there is NO LAW that was broken by Fox or the other 500 districts in Missouri that have done the same thing. Sorry if you don't like the way the law works but those are the facts of the law. If you don't like it go to your representatives and ask them to change it.
NOTHING HAS TO BE DONE....With that being said I do believe Mr. Smith is working on doing something to change how things are done in the hiring. I have also heard he is going to be working in Jefferson City on something, not sure exactly what so he is not making this change to "save his position" next year because my understanding is he will not be here much and would not be able to run anyway for his seat.
Yes, something does have to be done. A nepotism policy needs to be implemented for the Fox C-6 School district. The Superintendent needs to be prevented from creating jobs and filling them with her friends and relatives whether it be pre or post nuptual. The Board of Education needs to post the job Kelly Nash currently holds and hire someone truly qualified to do it. Board President Nash, should step down. In the future, instead of judging job candidates by their last name, they should be candidate A, B, C and D and be awarded the job based on their credentials by a panel. There are better ways of staffing the district than are currently utilized.
Sam Ferry

United States

#1830 May 2, 2013
Ron wrote:
<quoted text>
NOTHING HAS TO BE DONE....
It is a shame they let such butt kissing cowards on here but, it is Fox C-6 so why not?

After your post yesterday you could of responded to Voice of Reason, or Not Fooled, or So What Can Be Done, or Your, or me. All of which pointed out the complete error of your logic and yet not a peep. You instead choose to insult someone.

Yes it has been noted and is well known that the gutless BOE did not break the law. What they did do was ethically and morally wrong though, and you will never have an argument against that. Nepotism is wrong, the hiring of Kelly Nash was wrong.

SOMETHING IS ALREADY BEING DONE.....Mr Smith will meet the same fate as the last two should he decide to run. Mrs. Nash and Mr. Palmer will not be forgotten either. They can not be removed quickly enough for this district!
seckman parent

Imperial, MO

#1831 May 2, 2013
Sam Ferry wrote:
<quoted text>It is a shame they let such butt kissing cowards on here but, it is Fox C-6 so why not?

After your post yesterday you could of responded to Voice of Reason, or Not Fooled, or So What Can Be Done, or Your, or me. All of which pointed out the complete error of your logic and yet not a peep. You instead choose to insult someone.

Yes it has been noted and is well known that the gutless BOE did not break the law. What they did do was ethically and morally wrong though, and you will never have an argument against that. Nepotism is wrong, the hiring of Kelly Nash was wrong.

SOMETHING IS ALREADY BEING DONE.....Mr Smith will meet the same fate as the last two should he decide to run. Mrs. Nash and Mr. Palmer will not be forgotten either. They can not be removed quickly enough for this district!

Will the First Baptist political machine get out to help Mr. Palmer?
Sam Ferry

United States

#1832 May 2, 2013
seckman parent wrote:
<quoted text>
Will the First Baptist political machine get out to help Mr. Palmer?
I am sure his church will support him, as they should if it is a church worth anything. But I do not think the church is a match for the discontent within the ranks of C-6, and that is the machine to be contended with. He personally benifited from nepotism while he was a board member, he voted yes to all nepotism including of course Kelly Nash. He has yet to publicly or privately acknowledge the error of that hire. Hopefully the NEA will not support him. The teachers should get alot of the credit for the two new board members and I see no reason to believe they will not show up next year and do the same.
Apu

Fenton, MO

#1833 May 2, 2013
seckman parent wrote:
<quoted text>
What does this mean?
It means that it is a cheap, uncalled-for comment.
This "poster" needs to do some self-evaluation. I am not even aware of whom he/she is referring to- and I don't want to know.
Albert

Mount Vernon, MO

#1834 May 2, 2013
Sam Ferry wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure his church will support him, as they should if it is a church worth anything. But I do not think the church is a match for the discontent within the ranks of C-6, and that is the machine to be contended with. He personally benifited from nepotism while he was a board member, he voted yes to all nepotism including of course Kelly Nash. He has yet to publicly or privately acknowledge the error of that hire. Hopefully the NEA will not support him. The teachers should get alot of the credit for the two new board members and I see no reason to believe they will not show up next year and do the same.
If it's a church worth anything, it will realize wrongdoing and vote for a non member when that's what's best for the kids, and the community for that matter .
MUST GO

Arnold, MO

#1835 May 2, 2013
Those of you who are disillusioned by our Superintendent and her school board members, should go to the Fox C-6 - WATCHDOGS Website. In the last 2 days, a lot of interesting information has been written, concerning the non compliance of following federal laws. After reading the posts, it is pretty obvious that our superintendent and her administration does not want this information to become public knowledge. Another reason that our super, administration and her board must GO!
Sam Ferry

United States

#1836 May 2, 2013
Albert wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's a church worth anything, it will realize wrongdoing and vote for a non member when that's what's best for the kids, and the community for that matter .
I knew when I wrote that it would be misunderstood. Wrongdoing is not as easy to "realize" as you and I might think. All I meant is as a body, as a unit, as a family the church should support him. Now if "the church" as a whole knows what you and I see so clearly and they still support it, well of course I would strongly disagree with that. But everything in the pews is not understood on the pulpit, and visa versa.
soo what can be done

Saint Louis, MO

#1837 May 2, 2013
Ron wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a shame they let such uneducated people on here but, it is America so why not? I will state it to you in plain english:
THERE IS NO LAW FORBIDDING THE HIRING OR RELATIVES IN MISSOURI.
If so about 99% of the districts in Missouri would be violating the law. The "law" you are quoting forbids people from voting or being a part of the process. Again, there is NO LAW that was broken by Fox or the other 500 districts in Missouri that have done the same thing. Sorry if you don't like the way the law works but those are the facts of the law. If you don't like it go to your representatives and ask them to change it.
NOTHING HAS TO BE DONE....With that being said I do believe Mr. Smith is working on doing something to change how things are done in the hiring. I have also heard he is going to be working in Jefferson City on something, not sure exactly what so he is not making this change to "save his position" next year because my understanding is he will not be here much and would not be able to run anyway for his seat.
You are a complete idiot. Look at the board regulation 4115.2 Only if there are not 3 qualified candidates from within, then can they go outside. Well considering the qualifications of Nash, the 3 who did apply were more qualified. Keep looking into that same policy and you will find the nepotism regulation. Maybe you need to keep your nose where it belongs, and not in the district..Know your facts first.
Ron

United States

#1838 May 3, 2013
soo what can be done wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a complete idiot. Look at the board regulation 4115.2 Only if there are not 3 qualified candidates from within, then can they go outside. Well considering the qualifications of Nash, the 3 who did apply were more qualified. Keep looking into that same policy and you will find the nepotism regulation. Maybe you need to keep your nose where it belongs, and not in the district..Know your facts first.
I know my facts a whole lot better than you do and maybe there is a reason why it sounds like my words come from a lawyer??? I have looked closely at the policy and the law. Let me make this clear again....NO POLICY OR LAW WAS BROKEN!!!!

Mr Ferry was right in saying morally it may have been wrong but that is why we have elections. If LAWS are broken, that is why we have prisons. There were NO LAWS broken here.

Next point. None of us were involved in the interview. You say someone else in the district was more qualified. What IF when asked a series of questions that person did not have a clue of how to handle situations in the job. You can tell a great deal in an interview and to be an "armchair quarterback" and second guess the interview is ludicrous.

If you "feel" this was a bad choice then that is your opinion and you have a right to that opinion and can vote accordingly. But to come on this venue and misquote law and try to make other believe you understand how policies are interpreted is laughable.
again

United States

#1839 May 3, 2013
Albert wrote:
<quoted text>If it's a church worth anything, it will realize wrongdoing and vote for a non member when that's what's best for the kids, and the community for that matter .
Perfect! If the 1st baptist cult of Arnold supports him, I will then have 101 reasons to NOT VITE FOR HIM!
Uneducated Hick

Arnold, MO

#1840 May 3, 2013
Ron wrote:
<quoted text>
I know my facts a whole lot better than you do and maybe there is a reason why it sounds like my words come from a lawyer??? I have looked closely at the policy and the law. Let me make this clear again....NO POLICY OR LAW WAS BROKEN!!!!
Mr Ferry was right in saying morally it may have been wrong but that is why we have elections. If LAWS are broken, that is why we have prisons. There were NO LAWS broken here.
Next point. None of us were involved in the interview. You say someone else in the district was more qualified. What IF when asked a series of questions that person did not have a clue of how to handle situations in the job. You can tell a great deal in an interview and to be an "armchair quarterback" and second guess the interview is ludicrous.
If you "feel" this was a bad choice then that is your opinion and you have a right to that opinion and can vote accordingly. But to come on this venue and misquote law and try to make other believe you understand how policies are interpreted is laughable.
Are you trying to insinuate that you are a lawyer? Not buying it. Twit is more like it. You lose this round as did the two candidates who had to pack their bags. In less than a year you will see that happen to three more people.
Were the names of all the candidates listed in the board minutes? Next election...all three gone. Same campaign "Fry Queen Unqualified" hired because she was the board president's daughter in law, paid more to start with no college or certifications than teachers with advanced degrees. It's wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Oh, I get it! Ron is short for Ronald McDonald!!!! Just pumping up a team member, right.....
Sam Ferry

United States

#1841 May 3, 2013
Ron wrote:
<quoted text>
I know my facts a whole lot better than you do and maybe there is a reason why it sounds like my words come from a lawyer??? I have looked closely at the policy and the law. Let me make this clear again....NO POLICY OR LAW WAS BROKEN!!!!
Mr Ferry was right in saying morally it may have been wrong but that is why we have elections. If LAWS are broken, that is why we have prisons. There were NO LAWS broken here.
Next point. None of us were involved in the interview. You say someone else in the district was more qualified. What IF when asked a series of questions that person did not have a clue of how to handle situations in the job. You can tell a great deal in an interview and to be an "armchair quarterback" and second guess the interview is ludicrous.
If you "feel" this was a bad choice then that is your opinion and you have a right to that opinion and can vote accordingly. But to come on this venue and misquote law and try to make other believe you understand how policies are interpreted is laughable.
I did not say "maybe". IT WAS MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG! So the Board, you're friends, and you, when it comes to this hire are immoral and unethical. That's cool because at least you are legal! This district proclaims to be a National School Of Character and it is run and supported by the immoral and unethical, which of course is the reason it is a laughingstock

I was not a member of the jury at the O. J. Simpson trial and there was alot of information that I was not privy to. But I can state before God, and you, and Mr. Simpson himself that he is guilty! What about you? Any common sense or sound judgement allowed in your realm? You are not as near as bright as you would like others to think you are.

The fact that I was not involved with the interview procees at Fox does not have crap to do with whether the "best" person was hired! You have lost your credibility because you admit to supporting the immoral and unethical.

SHE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE INTERVIEW PROCESS!!!
THE ONLY REASON SHE WAS THERE IS BECAUSE HER LAST NAME IS NASH!!!

I do not understand all of the laws that I am sure you are so dedicated to, but plenty of us here understand Nepotism and what it has done to this district! Your efforts will fail!
Ron

United States

#1842 May 3, 2013
Sam Ferry wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say "maybe". IT WAS MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG! So the Board, you're friends, and you, when it comes to this hire are immoral and unethical. That's cool because at least you are legal! This district proclaims to be a National School Of Character and it is run and supported by the immoral and unethical, which of course is the reason it is a laughingstock
I was not a member of the jury at the O. J. Simpson trial and there was alot of information that I was not privy to. But I can state before God, and you, and Mr. Simpson himself that he is guilty! What about you? Any common sense or sound judgement allowed in your realm? You are not as near as bright as you would like others to think you are.
The fact that I was not involved with the interview procees at Fox does not have crap to do with whether the "best" person was hired! You have lost your credibility because you admit to supporting the immoral and unethical.
SHE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE INTERVIEW PROCESS!!!
THE ONLY REASON SHE WAS THERE IS BECAUSE HER LAST NAME IS NASH!!!
I do not understand all of the laws that I am sure you are so dedicated to, but plenty of us here understand Nepotism and what it has done to this district! Your efforts will fail!
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree. All the posting in the world and all the whining does NOT change the law.
Paul

United States

#1843 May 3, 2013
again wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfect! If the 1st baptist cult of Arnold supports him, I will then have 101 reasons to NOT VITE FOR HIM!
Spoken like a true Christian. You might not want to "vote" for him either. LOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arnold Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
con artist beware Tue Melinda 3
Lindsay Owens (Jan '17) Tue Lindsays Man 3
Family of Bullies (May '16) Tue Sherminator 8
Questions == FOR ==== JOYCE == MEYER (Apr '13) Tue The Real Joyce Meyer 18
News 7 Arrested for Stealing at Walmart in Arnold (May '13) Mon Ricardo montobomb 5
John Peppercorn the singer Mon Ricardo montobomb 1
Yards in town (Sep '12) Aug 20 Jake Richards 8

Arnold Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Arnold Mortgages