Nepotism on Fox schoolboard
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#2639 Jan 20, 2014
Mary T wrote:
<quoted text>
"Any future financial problems can be directly attributed to the past board decisions???? Sure it is all still Bushes fault. NO, NO ,NO. Going forward the BOE making decisions are 'THEMSELVES" making those decisions and are the be held responsible for those decisions.
It is so easy to keep saying it's all Bushes fault. That way the decisions of the current administration can never be held accountable.
Again, mark my words this day future BOE's headed by the NEA elected will make decisions that will not only make decisions that do not have our children's best interest in mind but will also be decisions that will require more tax payer money and destroy the school's reserves.
I guess in your world that the current BOE is responsible for the decision to fire Borisaw. To keep looking backward and blaming past elected officials is simply irresponsible. How would you like to be blamed for decisions made today at City Hall is your fault because you served in the past?
Think about it.
Have you looked at what our tax money is being spent on and how much they are spending? Just the Nash hire has cost that much too high salary, a couple of assistants, the lady who left had to come back and straighten things out because they were such a mess, that is on the old board and administration not the future ones. Results of money being spent and the decisions being made today most certainly can be attributed to the past administration.
You may be a bit confused, the board that fired Bourisaw directly after they renewed her contract are responsible for all that money that went down the drain. That was probably one of those unanimous decisions, too bad it cost taxpayers over $300,000...but I guess that is OK in your book.
The decisions made in the past are what impact the budget today, pledging future income is not the way to do things. If there is no growth or there could be a drain caused by more TIFs or TIDs or Series 100 Bonds that decrease the flow of cash into the system, we will hear the cry for another tax increase. Don't forget the farcical no tax increase bond issue that was passed last year, there most certainly was a tax increase, just when the property owners were about to realize a tax reduction! Oh no, the district can't let that happen, now can it? They are addicted to spending, must have more money and find things to spend it on to justify the expenditures.
no name

United States

#2640 Jan 21, 2014
Doris Borgelt wrote:
<quoted text>Have you looked at what our tax money is being spent on and how much they are spending? Just the Nash hire has cost that much too high salary, a couple of assistants, the lady who left had to come back and straighten things out because they were such a mess, that is on the old board and administration not the future ones. Results of money being spent and the decisions being made today most certainly can be attributed to the past administration.
You may be a bit confused, the board that fired Bourisaw directly after they renewed her contract are responsible for all that money that went down the drain. That was probably one of those unanimous decisions, too bad it cost taxpayers over $300,000...but I guess that is OK in your book.
The decisions made in the past are what impact the budget today, pledging future income is not the way to do things. If there is no growth or there could be a drain caused by more TIFs or TIDs or Series 100 Bonds that decrease the flow of cash into the system, we will hear the cry for another tax increase. Don't forget the farcical no tax increase bond issue that was passed last year, there most certainly was a tax increase, just when the property owners were about to realize a tax reduction! Oh no, the district can't let that happen, now can it? They are addicted to spending, must have more money and find things to spend it on to justify the expenditures.
Frivolous law suits cost the district also. How do you propose they handle that!
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#2641 Jan 21, 2014
What lawsuits would you be referring to? Please elaborate.
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#2642 Jan 21, 2014
One personal injury lawsuit 10/12/10 Four personal injury lawsuits 6/15/11, 7/22/11, 8/26/11, 11/1/11 and two to remove name from ballot 2/16/12 and 2/1/13....all have been settled or were dismissed. Which of them do you believe to have been frivolous?
Pat

Saint Louis, MO

#2643 Jan 21, 2014
Doris Borgelt wrote:
One personal injury lawsuit 10/12/10 Four personal injury lawsuits 6/15/11, 7/22/11, 8/26/11, 11/1/11 and two to remove name from ballot 2/16/12 and 2/1/13....all have been settled or were dismissed. Which of them do you believe to have been frivolous?
These are not the School District. They are the City.
Your conspiracies are getting mixed up.
Ssdd

Imperial, MO

#2644 Jan 21, 2014
Each and everyone of the board members that said yes to hiring the fry girl should be voted off the board. I don't care who they are. The board is made up of big girls and boys. No! Should have been said by someone? Not one person thought this was wrong? Stand up for the weak (the unsuspecting children that deserve a decent meal) none of them did shit! Except say yes! On Election Day remember that.
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#2645 Jan 22, 2014
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
These are not the School District. They are the City.
Your conspiracies are getting mixed up.
As a matter of fact, they ARE lawsuits in which the Fox C-6 School District were involved. I am not confused by any stretch of the imagination.
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#2646 Jan 22, 2014
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
These are not the School District. They are the City.
Your conspiracies are getting mixed up.
FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT 10JE-CC00914 CC Pers Injury-Other 10/12/2010
ARNOLD, MO Circuit 23 Jefferson Jefferson Circuit Court
FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT 11JE-CC00588 CC Pers Injury-Other 06/15/2011
ARNOLD, MO Circuit 23 Jefferson Jefferson Circuit Court
FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT 11JE-CC00710 CC Pers Injury-Vehicular 07/22/2011
ARNOLD, MO Circuit 23 Jefferson Jefferson Circuit Court
FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT 11JE-CC00852 CC Pers Injury-Other 08/26/2011
ARNOLD, MO Circuit 23 Jefferson Jefferson Circuit Court
FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT 11JE-CC01063 CC Pers Injury-Other 11/01/2011
ARNOLD, MO Address on File Circuit County Location
FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT 12JE-CC00146 CC Other Miscellaneous Actions 02/16/2012
ARNOLD, MO Circuit 23 Jefferson
FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT 13JE-CC00094 CC Other Miscellaneous Actions 02/01/2013
ARNOLD, MO Circuit 23 Jefferson
interested

Ballwin, MO

#2647 Jan 22, 2014
I tried a search by copying and pasting, but it came up empty. It appears there are 7, correct? Can you please suggest how I can get more information on each of those suits?
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#2648 Jan 22, 2014
They were all filed in Jefferson County, the case numbers appear in my post. If you go to https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/
There are diffferent ways to seach. You can search by name, Fox C-6 and will be able to see all of the cases, not just from 2010 on or you can type in the case numbers individually.
interested

Ballwin, MO

#2649 Jan 22, 2014
Thank you.
Doris Borgelt

San Jose, CA

#2650 Jan 22, 2014
You're welcome
Mary T

Montague, MI

#2651 Jan 23, 2014
Doris Borgelt wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you looked at what our tax money is being spent on and how much they are spending? Just the Nash hire has cost that much too high salary, a couple of assistants, the lady who left had to come back and straighten things out because they were such a mess, that is on the old board and administration not the future ones. Results of money being spent and the decisions being made today most certainly can be attributed to the past administration.
You may be a bit confused, the board that fired Bourisaw directly after they renewed her contract are responsible for all that money that went down the drain. That was probably one of those unanimous decisions, too bad it cost taxpayers over $300,000...but I guess that is OK in your book.
The decisions made in the past are what impact the budget today, pledging future income is not the way to do things. If there is no growth or there could be a drain caused by more TIFs or TIDs or Series 100 Bonds that decrease the flow of cash into the system, we will hear the cry for another tax increase. Don't forget the farcical no tax increase bond issue that was passed last year, there most certainly was a tax increase, just when the property owners were about to realize a tax reduction! Oh no, the district can't let that happen, now can it? They are addicted to spending, must have more money and find things to spend it on to justify the expenditures.
The past BOE's have kept reserves at a good level and have not had to go out and borrow money to pay current expenses. Wait until the NEA takes over the BOE and see if that continues to be the case. I think they will either borrow money to pay current debt or lay off teachers which will increase classroom sizes. That WILL BE on that current BOE's shift, not past BOE's because if you will look, RESERVES have always been held at a level that allowed past BOE's to operate without borrowing or laying off staff. See if that is true of future BOE members.
Doris Borgelt

San Jose, CA

#2652 Jan 23, 2014
What do you consider to be a good level? Is throwing $300,000 away to pay off a contract renewed not even three months before a good use of taxpayer money? Then have to pay the salary of another superintendent to boot? Do you think the superintendent's salary being more than the Vice President of the United States is out of line? Do you think hiring the board chair's daughter in law away from Mickey D's was a good idea? Do you seriously think the NEA is plotting to take over the district? Do you think taxpayers and parents should pay more attention? What do YOU plan to do to help steer the Fox C-6 Board and the District in the right direction? Do you go to meetings? Have you read any of the data provided on the Fox C-6 Watchdogs site? Have you done any research to back up your claims? If you want to be the prophet of doom you need to garner a little more material.
Mary T

United States

#2653 Jan 24, 2014
Doris Borgelt wrote:
What do you consider to be a good level? Is throwing $300,000 away to pay off a contract renewed not even three months before a good use of taxpayer money? Then have to pay the salary of another superintendent to boot? Do you think the superintendent's salary being more than the Vice President of the United States is out of line? Do you think hiring the board chair's daughter in law away from Mickey D's was a good idea? Do you seriously think the NEA is plotting to take over the district? Do you think taxpayers and parents should pay more attention? What do YOU plan to do to help steer the Fox C-6 Board and the District in the right direction? Do you go to meetings? Have you read any of the data provided on the Fox C-6 Watchdogs site? Have you done any research to back up your claims? If you want to be the prophet of doom you need to garner a little more material.
First off yes I have been to many, many, Boe meetings over the past years and follow very closely. By the way I don't recall seeing you at those meetings...Hmmmmm?

Reserves being at a good level means that the Fox C-6 district has enough money set aside to be able to pay it's monthly obligations without having to borrow money. Many districts which have been taken over by NEA have overspend monies in ways that take the reserves too low and make the districts have to go out each month to borrow money at a high interest rate just to pay the monthly bills. That is what I mean by ENOUGH RESERVES (check it out).

I do not disagree that there has been some spending in our district which was not the best spent tax dollars (and that has happened in every school district in America). But, with that being said the Fox district in the last 10 years has kept its reserves at a good level which gives them an excellent bond rating by the state (look it up).

Not trying to be doom and gloom just trying to wake the voters up to what has happened in other school districts when NEA members put their people on the boards. This has resulted in many districts with having to freeze raises and/or lay off teachers.

Whatever happens in April elections, the NEW BOE will be responsible for what goes forward under THEIR DECISIONS because they are taking over a budget which is in good standing with good reserves.
Red 5

Saint Louis, MO

#2654 Jan 24, 2014
Mary T wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever happens in April elections, the NEW BOE will be responsible for what goes forward under THEIR DECISIONS because they are taking over a budget which is in good standing with good reserves.
I agree with you that the new BOE, however constituted, is responsible for what happens under their stewardship. The bigger question is whether they will actually accept that responsibility.

When was the last time anyone saw the BOE do anything other than what Dianne told them? Hell, when was the last time that anyone say a split vote on anything? That's not taking responsibility. That's cowardice and sycophancy. Taxpayers could have saved thousands of dollars on elections by simply placing behind the table a half dozen wobbly cardboard cut-outs of smiling eunuchs with their right hands raised. It's not like the outcomes of the votes the board has taken would have been any different. Until someone on the BOE has the courage to break ranks with their colleagues I don't think it matters who supported them during the election.
thats right

Saint Louis, MO

#2655 Jan 25, 2014
How does someone get a job with the district when it's an in house post
no name

United States

#2656 Jan 26, 2014
thats right wrote:
How does someone get a job with the district when it's an in house post
In house people have first choice on all openings. Are you going to try to take that away from us too. You people are pathetic. Moves from within have always happened first before going outside.
Doris Borgelt

Columbus, OH

#2657 Jan 26, 2014
Hiring from within is fine as long as there is a candidate qualified to fill the position. Was the Nutrition Director position an in house post? I believe there were persons possessing the required qualifications who applied for that position in house and they were passed over for the board president's daughter-in-law, who was not an employee at the time. If anyone can clarify the circumstances surrounding that posting, it's been a while, I'm not sure of the timeline.
no name

Imperial, MO

#2658 Jan 26, 2014
Doris Borgelt wrote:
Hiring from within is fine as long as there is a candidate qualified to fill the position. Was the Nutrition Director position an in house post? I believe there were persons possessing the required qualifications who applied for that position in house and they were passed over for the board president's daughter-in-law, who was not an employee at the time. If anyone can clarify the circumstances surrounding that posting, it's been a while, I'm not sure of the timeline.
No longer care about that timeline. Only speaking to the generalization. Morning specific. Quit beating a dead horse.

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.

Carondelet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) Thu Eileen 1,472
News Which Fireworks Stand Has the Best Deals/Prices? (Jun '09) Jun 28 Go 4th 23
Mehlville Jun 25 la_verdad_esta_en_mi 1
Water Tower Dental Group Jun 25 No More Wisdom 7
25 people Arrested on Federal Meth Charges (Sep '13) Jun 22 Independent 57
Shangri-La Estates : Welcome to Jefferson Count... Jun 18 VeeBee 4
3 women vandalize stores Jun 18 Back Again 3

Carondelet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Carondelet Mortgages