Comments
1,481 - 1,500 of 2,790 Comments Last updated Thursday Aug 14
Trooper

Saint Louis, MO

#1504 Apr 4, 2013
Sam Ferry wrote:
<quoted text>
There is still that little issue of qualified workers who were passed over for family members, and anyone who thinks that has now magically gone away is mistaken! I know that I will not bend on this issue and will continue to "scream" about it until this board that allowed it is removed!
I encourage everyone to email the board members and request that the assistant food service director be given the directors position and Kelly Nash is moved to another position before contracts begin on July 1st. They can still do the right thing here if they want. But it will not happen if we do not write them!
I recently had a board member tell me they did not want to "go on record" on topix because it is such a horrible place. I say they have all "gone on record" when they voted unanimously for the unqualified Nash relative! Write them....they may not answer you but they will not be able to deny the fact that the community has spoken!
Agreed.

Also, here is the link to the a story by Elliott Davis on the election results

http://fox2now.com/2013/04/03/you-paid-for-it...
Trooper

Saint Louis, MO

#1505 Apr 4, 2013
Walt Kowalski wrote:
Then my apologies, I am sorry for the previous comments.
Thank you.
Aware

Stockton, MO

#1506 Apr 4, 2013
Let us not forget to check to make sure another Nash doesn't slip through the cracks, on future employment opportunities.
Happy

Saint Louis, MO

#1507 Apr 4, 2013
Congrats to the new Fox Board members and good riddens to the two old. I hope can we can remove Nichols and Woolridge off the Fire Board next. Thanks voters!
Happy

Saint Louis, MO

#1508 Apr 4, 2013
Aware wrote:
Let us not forget to check to make sure another Nash doesn't slip through the cracks, on future employment opportunities.
Amen! She still needs to be removed regardless.
Ssdd

Imperial, MO

#1509 Apr 4, 2013
Who are the next three board members that will be up for re-election?
Sam Ferry

Saint Louis, MO

#1510 Apr 5, 2013
Ssdd wrote:
Who are the next three board members that will be up for re-election?
Linda Nash, Dan Smith, John Laughlin.
Happy

Saint Louis, MO

#1511 Apr 5, 2013
Sam Ferry wrote:
<quoted text>
Linda Nash, Dan Smith, John Laughlin.
Great... Then they are the next to go.
Sam Ferry

Saint Louis, MO

#1512 Apr 5, 2013
Happy wrote:
<quoted text>
Great... Then they are the next to go.
That is also my choice for the "in order" way they should go in case there are not three new opponets next april.
embarassed taxpayer

Saint Louis, MO

#1513 Apr 5, 2013
Sam Ferry wrote:
<quoted text>
That is also my choice for the "in order" way they should go in case there are not three new opponets next april.
How long will it take to get rid of SUPER/CRITCHLOW. Also, If we have to wait until HER contract is up in "2015", I hope the new board members watch to make sure the present board does not extend her existing contract. She(CRITCLOW) can continue to do a lot of damage in 2 years left on her contract. FOR EXAMPLE: THE DESOTO HIRE,we don't need anymore BULLIES in the FOX DISTRICT.
Sam Ferry

Saint Louis, MO

#1514 Apr 5, 2013
embarassed taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>How long will it take to get rid of SUPER/CRITCHLOW. Also, If we have to wait until HER contract is up in "2015", I hope the new board members watch to make sure the present board does not extend her existing contract. She(CRITCLOW) can continue to do a lot of damage in 2 years left on her contract. FOR EXAMPLE: THE DESOTO HIRE,we don't need anymore BULLIES in the FOX DISTRICT.
Agree, and all I can say is.......working on it!
Ssdd

United States

#1515 Apr 5, 2013
There won't be a shortage of candidates. Can the new board review the non tenure people's contacts. Many jobs given out to the supers friends are unqualified. Positions were dumbed down. If there is a way that should be done at once. Take out the trash. Start with super, douche Dan, enthusiastic Todd.
sooo what can be dne

Arnold, MO

#1516 Apr 5, 2013
Drrd wrote:
<quoted text>how did the résumé of an unqualified applicant make it to the committee to even interview? A committee would assume the applicant was qualified if a screening process was in place and the application was forwarded for consideration. I agree with this being nepotism. There can be no other explanation! Why would an asst mgr from McD's even presume to think she was qualified without being given encouragement from inside sources! How did she even know the position was open?
Agreed! There were 2 food service employees on this panel of judges (so to speak) and I have a hard time believing that they would pass this person on to the next step. Just my opinion....
sooo what can be done

Arnold, MO

#1517 Apr 5, 2013
hippity hoppity wrote:
<quoted text>
She wasn't very well liked. I hadn't heard a good word said about her until the other hire was made.
Well which Kitchen Manger is your friend? Have you spoken to all 17 of them, or the other 80 food service employees, because I am willing to bet you have only spoken to 1 or 2 and I can probably tell you the names of those you are talking about.

The Assistant Director has more kuth (?) than anyone posting negative against her. You can not say she was not liked by hearsay or assumption.
sooo what can be done

Arnold, MO

#1518 Apr 5, 2013
Sam Ferry wrote:
<quoted text>
There is still that little issue of qualified workers who were passed over for family members, and anyone who thinks that has now magically gone away is mistaken! I know that I will not bend on this issue and will continue to "scream" about it until this board that allowed it is removed!
I encourage everyone to email the board members and request that the assistant food service director be given the directors position and Kelly Nash is moved to another position before contracts begin on July 1st. They can still do the right thing here if they want. But it will not happen if we do not write them!
I recently had a board member tell me they did not want to "go on record" on topix because it is such a horrible place. I say they have all "gone on record" when they voted unanimously for the unqualified Nash relative! Write them....they may not answer you but they will not be able to deny the fact that the community has spoken!
Is it possible that they could actually do this? Since the district does intent to hires, and not contracts, does that only apply to classified staff? Does K. Nash fall in to administration and not Food Service? Did her contract or intent to hire not begin in December when hired? How awesome would it be.....but I am willing to bet the Assistant would tell them what cliff to jump from if they even approached her with this. Nor would I blame her.
sooo what can be done

Arnold, MO

#1519 Apr 5, 2013
Happy wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen! She still needs to be removed regardless.
AGREED!!!
Apu

High Ridge, MO

#1520 Apr 6, 2013
I would assume she has a contract as of now for at least one year. Not much anyone can do. I say let her have it and reevaluate then. I am not a fan of the hire, but what if she does an awesome job? I, for one, would rather eat crow and have our kids properly nourished than the other way around.

It would interesting to hear, first hand, from the committee members, especially those on the food service. If they did agree she was the best candidate, I would like to know why that opinion was formed.
Apu

High Ridge, MO

#1521 Apr 6, 2013
sooo what can be done wrote:
<quoted text>
Well which Kitchen Manger is your friend? Have you spoken to all 17 of them, or the other 80 food service employees, because I am willing to bet you have only spoken to 1 or 2 and I can probably tell you the names of those you are talking about.
The Assistant Director has more kuth (?) than anyone posting negative against her. You can not say she was not liked by hearsay or assumption.
"Couth"
(Only because you asked)
:) We all need to get off here today and enjoy this weather! Sunshine and warmth for all!
Sam Ferry

Saint Louis, MO

#1522 Apr 6, 2013
Apu wrote:
I would assume she has a contract as of now for at least one year. Not much anyone can do. I say let her have it and reevaluate then. I am not a fan of the hire, but what if she does an awesome job? I, for one, would rather eat crow and have our kids properly nourished than the other way around.
It would interesting to hear, first hand, from the committee members, especially those on the food service. If they did agree she was the best candidate, I would like to know why that opinion was formed.
This point seems to keep escaping people, she CAN NOT fail at the job. First it will NEVER be told if she did, secondly she is surrounded by people who will cover for her and is in a well established system. In a year every single person in the district will be saying 'she seems to be doing a great job' or 'everybody really likes her'.

The school board ignored its own ethical oath to approve the hiring, and everyone does not seem to have a problem with that. They bent the rules to hire her, so now they will want to claim that they can not undo what has been done. I say if you can bend the rules to do the wrong thing then why can't you bend them to do the right thing? There is only one reason they will not fix this....they lack the courage!

The committe, like everyone in this district, does not have the courage to challenge the administration, and for good reason. They fear for their very jobs. My guess is the committe agreed on the INTERVIEW process. I would find it hard to believe they all agreed she was the best qualified according to the actual applications. If they did then they are all corrupt and the committe process should be done away with.

Anybody and everybody can do what is easy, failure is the easiest thing to do. This is really hard stuff to fix, but not impossible, no matter how long it takes!
Red 5

Saint Louis, MO

#1523 Apr 6, 2013
As I see it Dianne now has two choices. First, she and Todd can keep huffing and puffing and trying to blow smoke up our, uh, chimneys. They can keep trying to convince us all that Kelly Nash’s enthusiasm is enough to overcome her lack of credentials, degree and experience. The downside to this strategy, of course, is that a) it isn’t true, and b) from Dianne’s standpoint it’s deleterious to her prospects for long-term job security. No one has ever accused Dianne of being stupid. After seeing what happened to the two BOE members unfortunate enough to be caught up in the political backlash to Linda Nash’s personal jobs program she must know that if she hopes to keep her job after the next election in 2014 she needs to create a different message than the one her administration is putting out now.

Here’s the second option – tell the truth. Admit at least in private that Kelly isn’t ready to run the department. Ask the assistant to put off her retirement a year or so to train her. The advantages to this strategy are a) that it’s true, and b) it serves Dianne, it serves Kelly, and most importantly, it serves the children.

So why haven’t Dianne and Todd already leaped to take what’s behind Door No. 2? That’s easy: saving face. Despite the fact that by now they must taste awful, Dianne thinks she’ll look bad if she does anything other than continue mouthing the words Todd put in her mouth. But the taxpayers in Arnold made it pretty clear they don’t believe Todd. Ask the two incumbents booted from office if they think the election might have turned out differently if it hadn’t been for the Kelly Nash hire.

But let’s be honest. We all feel embarrassed to admit we were wrong. So let Dianne spin this situation in such a way that gives Kelly the best chance of success and her mother-in-law and the rest of the BOE the best chance of keeping their jobs after April 2014. Let Kelly remain director but convince the retiring assistant director to return as co-director. If Dianne can’t publicly acknowledge that Kelly isn’t qualified let her put it in terms of how the assistant is a long-time, loyal Fox employee and her knowledge and institutional memory is simply too valuable to let slip away. I don’t think it will hurt Kelly’s credibility to admit that it would be to her benefit to be trained by an expert. If nothing else having an experienced co-director on site will give her more time to get her degree and will flatten the learning curve she’s got to be struggling with now.

The best way to save face is not to compound one mistake with another. The best way is to fix what went wrong in such a way that everyone gains something. Take advantage of Option No. 2 and Kelly becomes worthy of the title and the respect of her peers, the food service program is ultimately left in better shape (for which Kelly and Dianne can both take credit), and the children benefit from having an already outstanding program get even better.

Doesn’t that sound better and easier than repeating on television and at every school board meeting for the next 12 months that Kelly’s hiring was “far and away” the best she and Todd could do?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Eureka Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MO Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) 43 min Believer 96,463
MO Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 58 min Meme 2,023
County Councilman Boyer 1 hr Doris Borgelt 51
MO Powerful Photos Blast The Media's Portrayal Of ... 1 hr neveratfault 250
MO Missouri Proposition B: The Puppy Mill Bill (Oct '10) 7 hr Pop Clutch 6,932
SunSwept Strong Arms Residents (Sep '10) 15 hr ckak55 12
Beware of people who 16 hr seriously where i... 3
•••
•••

Eureka Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Eureka People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Eureka News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Eureka
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••