embarassedtaxpay er

Saint Louis, MO

#1906 May 9, 2013
Addit wrote:
One more thing just to see if this helps the furor over the McNash hire hit home, the teacher salary schedule for 2013-2014 was just proposed:
An educated person, after having spent 4 years in college getting a Bachelor's degree in education at a huge financial cost to themselves or their parents, will start at $37,265.
A teacher with the same degree, after 15 years (that's 15 years, people), will make $52,655.
A teacher with a Bachelor's degree AND a Master's degree AND an extra 45 post-graduate hours AND 15 years experience will be paid $63,946!!!
Fry girl, with no degree or experience planning nutrition, STARTED AT $65,000!!!!
Teachers have to earn a Master's AND work 19 years to make $64,429 (still less than our Director of Nutrition who met NO posted qualifications) and 20 years to make more than the high school graduate, MCNASH, at $66,039.
Something is big-time wrong with this picture and it's called Nepotism. She might be a fabulous person, but she carries NO qualifications for the job and should never have been considered, much less hired.
I say, carry on Sam and carry the torch for us.
This is totally insane. Critchlow,s NEPOTISM POLICY has created a huge disaster for the FOX DISTRICT. I believe Elliote from channel 2 needs to return to get the SUPER'S explanation for the pay differential. UNQUALIFIED FRIED COOK starting pay $65,000.00 per/yr. compared to TEACHER with 19 years on job with MASTERS DEGREE @$64,000.00per/yr. What A JOKE! What a slap in the face to all of our employees of the FOX DISTRICT. We are paying the SUPER $238,000.00 per/yr for these incompetent decisions. I can see why SHE hides in her IVORY OFFICE,So she doesn't have to do the DODGE AND WEAVE DANCE to avoid QUESTIONS.
Sam Ferry

Saint Charles, MO

#1907 May 9, 2013
Dixie........Thinking about you all day. Just wanted to end the day by sending out my thanks to you, and letting you know all is going well.

Thank you Dixie!
Show time

United States

#1908 May 10, 2013
I wonder if the co-director of maintenance gets her daughter the job as assistant food director, if anyone will think Nepotism ?
Sam Ferry

Saint Charles, MO

#1909 May 10, 2013
Show time wrote:
I wonder if the co-director of maintenance gets her daughter the job as assistant food director, if anyone will think Nepotism ?
Yeah, I will. I say that meerly for the fact that Nepotism had previously swung so far in one direction that is must swing the other way to straighten it out. In other words if it APPEARS to be nepotism then it should come into question. If something is completely unfair then until public trust is restored it should be completely fair, so to speak.

Through the bullying, the scare tactics, the absolute arrogance of this administration nothing has done the damage nepotism has to individuals! Leadership, of any sort should be spread around!
Red 5

Saint Louis, MO

#1910 May 10, 2013
soo what can be done wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's all keep this in mind when the new Assistant Director is announced. No doubt they already know who is taking her place even before any interviews are conducted.....Will it be one of the FQ's cronies from McD's or will it be the daughter of the maintenance department co-supervisor, or will it be someone from the inside....
regardless that person is already decided upon
674

According to my source in HR there are 19 applicants for the food service assistant director's job. NINETEEN! Twelve are from women who claim to be married to Linda Nash's sons. Three say they are Linda's sons. Two say they'd be willing to sleep with Linda's sons. One is from some guy named Troop willing to fight Linda's sons, and, finally, one is from a registered dietitian with 22 years experience in school food service who says he'd love to work at Fox.

So far our crack HR director has eliminated the one obviously bogus applicant. Even he's not stupid enough to believe there's an experienced dietitian out there willing to work at a place like Fox.
Randy

United States

#1911 May 11, 2013
Addit wrote:
One more thing just to see if this helps the furor over the McNash hire hit home, the teacher salary schedule for 2013-2014 was just proposed:
An educated person, after having spent 4 years in college getting a Bachelor's degree in education at a huge financial cost to themselves or their parents, will start at $37,265.
A teacher with the same degree, after 15 years (that's 15 years, people), will make $52,655.
A teacher with a Bachelor's degree AND a Master's degree AND an extra 45 post-graduate hours AND 15 years experience will be paid $63,946!!!
Fry girl, with no degree or experience planning nutrition, STARTED AT $65,000!!!!
Teachers have to earn a Master's AND work 19 years to make $64,429 (still less than our Director of Nutrition who met NO posted qualifications) and 20 years to make more than the high school graduate, MCNASH, at $66,039.
Something is big-time wrong with this picture and it's called Nepotism. She might be a fabulous person, but she carries NO qualifications for the job and should never have been considered, much less hired.
I say, carry on Sam and carry the torch for us.
You are nuts. I guess you think the President's secretary after working in the White House for 30 years should make more than the President. Are you for real. Positions have salaries attached to them already and it doesn't matter how long you work, you may or may not earn more than a higher paid position after years of service.

As far as Nash's qualifications, I have read on here that she was hired because of her years of experience as a "manager" of people. Now I guess those years of experience do not count because she is related to someone. I would say if someone (not related to a board member) was hired with the same years of management experience all of these complaints would not be occuring. Your prejudice is showing.
Hey

Saint Louis, MO

#1912 May 11, 2013
Randy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are nuts. I guess you think the President's secretary after working in the White House for 30 years should make more than the President. Are you for real. Positions have salaries attached to them already and it doesn't matter how long you work, you may or may not earn more than a higher paid position after years of service.
As far as Nash's qualifications, I have read on here that she was hired because of her years of experience as a "manager" of people. Now I guess those years of experience do not count because she is related to someone. I would say if someone (not related to a board member) was hired with the same years of management experience all of these complaints would not be occuring. Your prejudice is showing.
You have no clue, do you Randy? She met none of the qualifications for the job. Better wipe your chin, you're drooling.
Randy

United States

#1913 May 11, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no clue, do you Randy? She met none of the qualifications for the job. Better wipe your chin, you're drooling.
How do you know?? Please tell me exactly why she met none ofthe qualifications? I dare you to be specific. Did ANY of the other candidates have as much "management experience" as Nash??? If so tell me who and how much that they had.

Also, I have interviewed thousands of people in my career. You NEVER can tell a person by their cover(resume). I have hired some people who really did not have great resumes but impressed me with thier answers as to how they would handle a particular situation and you know what, most of the time in my experience, those have turned out to be the best employees; isn't that what we want for the Fox district. Give Nash a chance to prove to the district what the interviewers saw in her. Don't give me balony that she shouldn't have been interviewed because that is just NOT TRUE with her years of management experience.

You and others make the "ASSUMPTION" that she was hired entirely base on her name but NONE OF WERE IN THE INTERVIEW AND KNOWS HOW THAT INTERVIEW SOUNDED. If I were looking for someone with management experience to run a program, I have often hired people completely outside of our related business just based on how they handled the interview.

Those of you on here that are making assumptions are doing just that.
Sam Ferry

Saint Charles, MO

#1914 May 11, 2013
Randy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are nuts. I guess you think the President's secretary after working in the White House for 30 years should make more than the President. Are you for real. Positions have salaries attached to them already and it doesn't matter how long you work, you may or may not earn more than a higher paid position after years of service.
As far as Nash's qualifications, I have read on here that she was hired because of her years of experience as a "manager" of people. Now I guess those years of experience do not count because she is related to someone. I would say if someone (not related to a board member) was hired with the same years of management experience all of these complaints would not be occuring. Your prejudice is showing.
You have "read on here" and that is what you came away with? All your reading brought you to the in depth conclusion that she was the best hire because of her extensive management experience? Did you read she was not qualified in any way to run that department? Did you read she was two years as an assistant manager of a McDonalds? Did you read she was a high school grad? Did you read there were not only management able applicants but ones that had the qualifications and education for the position? Your dishonesty is showing!

You missed Addit's point Danny boy. Stop and think......there are five certified teachers applying for a job, and one applicant that is exceptional with kids but does not have a teaching degree. In fact she is just a high school grad. By your logic the high school grad should get the job, after all she has years of experience as a mom. THAT is what happened with Kelly Nash! Why oh why should anyone go to school? She was hired for one solitary reason, her name is Nash, anyone who says otherwise has yet to learn how to tell the truth!
Sam Ferry

Saint Charles, MO

#1915 May 11, 2013
Randy,sorry about the calling you Danny.
Swan

Arnold, MO

#1916 May 11, 2013
Randy wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know?? Please tell me exactly why she met none ofthe qualifications? I dare you to be specific. Did ANY of the other candidates have as much "management experience" as Nash??? If so tell me who and how much that they had.
Also, I have interviewed thousands of people in my career. You NEVER can tell a person by their cover(resume). I have hired some people who really did not have great resumes but impressed me with thier answers as to how they would handle a particular situation and you know what, most of the time in my experience, those have turned out to be the best employees; isn't that what we want for the Fox district. Give Nash a chance to prove to the district what the interviewers saw in her. Don't give me balony that she shouldn't have been interviewed because that is just NOT TRUE with her years of management experience.
You and others make the "ASSUMPTION" that she was hired entirely base on her name but NONE OF WERE IN THE INTERVIEW AND KNOWS HOW THAT INTERVIEW SOUNDED. If I were looking for someone with management experience to run a program, I have often hired people completely outside of our related business just based on how they handled the interview.
Those of you on here that are making assumptions are doing just that.
I would suggest that Randy go back to the beginning of this thread and read it through and make special note taxpayer funds are being expended on this $65,000 salary, not private discretionary funds of a business or corporation. The district application process includes and in-house only application period. Were all in-house applicants discarded to favor an outside applicant that just happened to be the BOE President's daughter-in-law, or was that just coincidence? Now on to the subject of walking and quacking ducks.
Red 5

Saint Louis, MO

#1917 May 11, 2013
Randy, how many times in preparation for the thousands of interviews you've done for director's level and above positions did you throw potential applicants' resumes in the the little round filing cabinet beside your desk because the applicant didn't posses any of the technical qualifications necessary to do the job? Asked another way, in all your years how many times did you have to give applicants for this level of position two years to meet all the other minimal requirements besides enthusiasm?
Addit

Stockton, MO

#1918 May 11, 2013
Randy wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know?? Please tell me exactly why she met none ofthe qualifications? I dare you to be specific. Did ANY of the other candidates have as much "management experience" as Nash??? If so tell me who and how much that they had.
Also, I have interviewed thousands of people in my career. You NEVER can tell a person by their cover(resume). I have hired some people who really did not have great resumes but impressed me with thier answers as to how they would handle a particular situation and you know what, most of the time in my experience, those have turned out to be the best employees; isn't that what we want for the Fox district. Give Nash a chance to prove to the district what the interviewers saw in her. Don't give me balony that she shouldn't have been interviewed because that is just NOT TRUE with her years of management experience.
You and others make the "ASSUMPTION" that she was hired entirely base on her name but NONE OF WERE IN THE INTERVIEW AND KNOWS HOW THAT INTERVIEW SOUNDED. If I were looking for someone with management experience to run a program, I have often hired people completely outside of our related business just based on how they handled the interview.
Those of you on here that are making assumptions are doing just that.
Randy, you still don't get it. Start from the beginning of the thread and maybe you will see why the community is upset. McDonald's, high school diploma, and a smile were never listed as requirements for the job.
Randy

United States

#1919 May 12, 2013
Addit wrote:
<quoted text>
Randy, you still don't get it. Start from the beginning of the thread and maybe you will see why the community is upset. McDonald's, high school diploma, and a smile were never listed as requirements for the job.
Sorry, I have been interviewing people "probably" before you were born and I am telling you, you do not know all the facts behind this hire. I have read EVERY LINE in this thread but I know the general public are usually clueless about interviews(that is why a lot of them can't get hired).

My guess from "reading between the lines" is other candidates had poor interviews and Nash had a great interview and since the administration was leaning in her direction, she got the job. This is the only way I would have hired her.
Hey

Saint Louis, MO

#1920 May 12, 2013
Randy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I have been interviewing people "probably" before you were born and I am telling you, you do not know all the facts behind this hire. I have read EVERY LINE in this thread but I know the general public are usually clueless about interviews(that is why a lot of them can't get hired).
My guess from "reading between the lines" is other candidates had poor interviews and Nash had a great interview and since the administration was leaning in her direction, she got the job. This is the only way I would have hired her.
Ummm, more like daughter-in-law to BOE President...that is the only reason she was hired.
Just Say No

Arnold, MO

#1921 May 12, 2013
Randy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I have been interviewing people "probably" before you were born and I am telling you, you do not know all the facts behind this hire. I have read EVERY LINE in this thread but I know the general public are usually clueless about interviews(that is why a lot of them can't get hired).
My guess from "reading between the lines" is other candidates had poor interviews and Nash had a great interview and since the administration was leaning in her direction, she got the job. This is the only way I would have hired her.
Look it is clear that Randy is not going to concede here. He is either with the administration or a close personal friend of the super or the board president. It doesn't matter to him that the french fry queen wasn't qualified, period. He will defend her hire. Maybe he is married to her, or maybe he was her manager at Mickey D's for seventeen years and was glad to see her move on. Seriously, if she was so good at managing people in all her years at McD's, she would have become a manager there, after 17 years she was still not one, that tells me she didn't qualify to manage a whole store, why would you think she was qualified to run a whole school district's food operation? Really, use a little common sense and try adding some logic to the equation.
Sam Ferry

Saint Charles, MO

#1922 May 12, 2013
Randy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I have been interviewing people "probably" before you were born and I am telling you, you do not know all the facts behind this hire. I have read EVERY LINE in this thread but I know the general public are usually clueless about interviews(that is why a lot of them can't get hired).
My guess from "reading between the lines" is other candidates had poor interviews and Nash had a great interview and since the administration was leaning in her direction, she got the job. This is the only way I would have hired her.
Not before i was born pal, and you are not telling anybody anything about this hire! Unless you are saying you know what was said and done in that process. And of course you can not know that unless you were there. If you were then shame on you for not being able to keep your mouth shut. If you were not part of the group that interviewed, or directly hired her, then you could only know about it through someone who was there, and shame on anyone that may have told you anything>

You can not even cover your own tracks you coward. Just how long do you plan on hiding? It is all downhill for you and your kind, the clock favors those willing to stand up to you. Watch and learn how the "clueless general public" diposes of the people responsible for pissing away their tax dollars. I actually should not be telling you this again but it is your very arrogance that caused the downhill spiral of this board and soon to be administration.

Who in their right mind would want you to concede? You are the very reason the "clueless public" will prevail! With the exception of Troop, who's just scared, you administration but kissers just cant't help yourself. You are going to sink your own ship no matter what we do, it is your arrogant nature!
Sam Ferry

Saint Charles, MO

#1923 May 12, 2013
If you haven't seen the Elliot Davis promo for Monday night at 9:00 pm, here are the tag words. NEPOTISM, FOX C-6, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, GOVENOR.
Red 5

Saint Louis, MO

#1924 May 12, 2013
It seems from the sudden influx of pro-administration comments that something is about to happen with the ass't director's job. Could Kelly be hand-picking a couple of cronies whose qualifications won't make her own hire look too bad or will a need for someone competent in the school food service office win out? Who wins if Kelly wants a couple of people and Todd and Dianne want someone else? Does being Linda's DIL trump Dianne's choice de jure? I still don't understand the dynamics of the administration. Todd is obviously a tool, but is he Dianne's or the BOE's?

How many current managers have applied for the job? Will they even bother doing sham interviews? What happens if a couple of the current managers are Kelly's favorites? Does she screw the other managers the same way Dianne and Todd screwed the old assistant?

What's the consensus out there?
Bad Food Risin

Arnold, MO

#1925 May 12, 2013
From conversations I have been having with students, the food is horrible. Can't get a cup of water without going to the drinking fountain. Maybe some Moms ought to volunteer to make sure the kids get good food instead of the crap they serve. Make odds that if EVERYONE took their lunch as a boycott move, they would fix their fare real fast.
When I went to grade school, we had two lunch ladies and student volunteers who made a hot lunch everyday, it was great. We need to go back to that instead of the food that gets catered in on trays, with frozen juices, etc.

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
VP teacher being investigated 7 hr Grasshopper 2
Super Chinese Buffet (Apr '09) Fri Chris 52
Lakewood Apartments (Mar '06) Fri Katrina 52
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) Fri Eileen 967
prostitution in bars (May '06) Jan 25 Moman 13
Food Service Contract Jan 24 what's up with that 3
Gate on Ambrose Crossing (Jun '11) Jan 24 what's up with that 56
Arnold Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Arnold People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:06 am PST

Bleacher Report 5:06AM
Ranking Re-Sign Priorities for Chiefs
Bleacher Report 6:15 PM
Why the St. Louis Rams Must Draft Dorial Green-Beckham
NBC Sports 5:32 AM
Eric Berry "in good spirits" during visit from Chiefs brass
NBC Sports 8:37 AM
Nathaniel Hackett interviewing for Rams offensive coordinator on Thursday
Yahoo! Sports 8:12 AM
The lure of LA for the NFL - mirage or 'must do'?