Fox C-6 looks for new leader

Fox C-6 looks for new leader

There are 16 comments on the KSDK-TV Saint Louis story from Jun 11, 2014, titled Fox C-6 looks for new leader. In it, KSDK-TV Saint Louis reports that:

The Fox C-6 School District will begin a search for a new superintendent. Tuesday night, the Board of Education approved the official search.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KSDK-TV Saint Louis.

happy happy happy

Saint Louis, MO

#1 Jun 11, 2014
Let the search begin!! To bad it costs $20,000.
Quis custodiet ipsos cust

Saint Louis, MO

#2 Jun 12, 2014
The first thing the board should do is to make sure the Fox HR department is not involved in vetting of the candidates. First, they've been a willing accomplice in the whole pattern of poor hires. Their track record of hiring unqualified cronies/lovers/spouses is pitiful and shameless.As just one example they're the ones who in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary chose the BQ. Second, the perception that they cannot or will not be unbiased will be enough to taint any candidate that they do recommend. It would be a disservice to the successful candidate to have them start off with that sort of suspicion dogging them.

Since: Feb 13

Jefferson County

#3 Jun 12, 2014
The new supt also should have absolutely no association with the current administration. It is entirely tainted from top to bottom.
happy happy happy

Saint Louis, MO

#4 Jun 12, 2014
JCPenknife wrote:
The new supt also should have absolutely no association with the current administration. It is entirely tainted from top to bottom.
Couldn't agree more. I feel stupid as a tax payer for not paying better attention to the overinflated pay increases all the administrators have received. Good wake up call for us all to watch the BOE and what the new Super will do. Still waiting to find out what happens to the other 3.
Sara

Waterloo, IL

#5 Jun 12, 2014
We have to remember that there are still two old board members on the board... The new ones are trying IMO. However, their hands are tied right now. The district can't afford to go through a lawsuit by firing her when there is no proof that "she" actually typed the poss!
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

#6 Jun 12, 2014
Sara wrote:
We have to remember that there are still two old board members on the board... The new ones are trying IMO. However, their hands are tied right now. The district can't afford to go through a lawsuit by firing her when there is no proof that "she" actually typed the poss!
Her contract leaves it wide open for reasons to fire her. If nothing else, complaints were raised last year about this conduct and she did nothing, no investigation, nothing. There is dereliction of duty there. So, we cannot afford a lawsuit, but we can afford to pay her to stay away? In this case, I would much rather fire her, reduce her pension as a result, and use the money in legal fees. You have to look to the long term pension costs, and in the long run, the boards approach costs us more, and no amount of soft selling will change that. In fact, she should be retroactively terminated, as well as her husband to the date the conduct began, and sued by the district as the conduct constituted a breach of his employment contract.

Steve Holloway is the only one I will ever consider voting for from here on out. The only one who can do the right thing. They set an excellent example of accountability for my kids. Libel and defame parents and tax payers, get early retirement, a payout, and extra long vacation......why not do it, since there is no downside?
Sara

Waterloo, IL

#7 Jun 12, 2014
I agree she should be fired... It is not in the best interest of the district. It would cost more than 260,000.00 if the district were to lose!
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

#8 Jun 12, 2014
Sara wrote:
I agree she should be fired... It is not in the best interest of the district. It would cost more than 260,000.00 if the district were to lose!
Yes, it is. Now my kids think it is okay to libel and slander others without repercussion so long as you let someone else take the fall. No accountability. The increased pension costs as a result of not firing her at 49 will in short order be made up for in any possible successful litigation, however, there are multiple reasons under her agreement where it could be terminated, not the least of which is the physical health provision.(or the morals clause, adultery is an immoral act)
Ssdd

Oxford, MS

#9 Jun 12, 2014
Matt Hay wrote:
<quoted text>
Her contract leaves it wide open for reasons to fire her. If nothing else, complaints were raised last year about this conduct and she did nothing, no investigation, nothing. There is dereliction of duty there. So, we cannot afford a lawsuit, but we can afford to pay her to stay away? In this case, I would much rather fire her, reduce her pension as a result, and use the money in legal fees. You have to look to the long term pension costs, and in the long run, the boards approach costs us more, and no amount of soft selling will change that. In fact, she should be retroactively terminated, as well as her husband to the date the conduct began, and sued by the district as the conduct constituted a breach of his employment contract.
Steve Holloway is the only one I will ever consider voting for from here on out. The only one who can do the right thing. They set an excellent example of accountability for my kids. Libel and defame parents and tax payers, get early retirement, a payout, and extra long vacation......why not do it, since there is no downside?
I couldn't agree more about Critchlows slap on the hand. She should be fired let her sue. Tie her finances up and drag it out. They gave her an day out for her ignorant behavior. I like the idea of retroactively getting rid of her as well.

In the search for a new super I hope the board doesn't let Todd anywhere near it. I do hope the new super replaces all of CO. They all need to go!

What about the Bakers? Why haven't they been fired yet?

Since: Feb 13

Jefferson County

#10 Jun 12, 2014
Sara wrote:
We have to remember that there are still two old board members on the board... The new ones are trying IMO. However, their hands are tied right now. The district can't afford to go through a lawsuit by firing her when there is no proof that "she" actually typed the poss!
The new members of the board comprise a majority. If they wanted to change anything, they could, but only Holloway is interested in change. The rest are just rubber stampers like the board members they replaced.
Confused

Arnold, MO

#11 Jun 12, 2014
Matt, the district does not pay her pension. PSRS does.
Matt Hay

Fenton, MO

#12 Jun 12, 2014
Confused wrote:
Matt, the district does not pay her pension. PSRS does.
And the district does not pay into the pension pool on her behalf? How does the money magically comes into existence to pay her pension? That argument is about as genuine as the fact that the City of Arnold says that all these settlements "do not cost taxpayer dollars" as if they believe the municipal insurance pool magically funds itself. It is logic like this that creates an annual 7 million dollar deficit..
smart

Saint Louis, MO

#13 Jun 12, 2014
Matt Hay wrote:
<quoted text>And the district does not pay into the pension pool on her behalf? How does the money magically comes into existence to pay her pension? That argument is about as genuine as the fact that the City of Arnold says that all these settlements "do not cost taxpayer dollars" as if they believe the municipal insurance pool magically funds itself. It is logic like this that creates an annual 7 million dollar deficit..
The district will pay a matching percent until she retires. Once she retires, her pension is paid by the PSRS. Fox C-6 will still be paying in, but only for the matching percent of the other 1000 employees of the district. Once she retires, she won't receive another cent from the Fox C6 district.
Sara

Waterloo, IL

#14 Jun 13, 2014
The rest reAlize that the district is broke!
Matt Hay

United States

#15 Jun 13, 2014
Sara wrote:
The rest reAlize that the district is broke!
How can we be so broke, didn't we just get tricked into a "no tax increase" Bond Issue, which increased our debt obligation and an offering that generated some 24 million, but was only represented to the taxpayers as $18 mil and that the remainder we a "bonus" due to market conditions being so good?(which means fixed income returns are so low, that when we offered the ridiculously high coupon rate we did, the notes went at like 25 points over par.) Where did all of those funds go?

How about Diane's recent accident in a district owned vehicle? Not enough there to fire her either?
Arnold Granny

Arnold, MO

#16 Jun 13, 2014
In post #8 Matt Hay suggested that Diane Critchlow could be terminated under the morals clause in her contract because adultery is an immoral act . Haven't we learned anything from these law suits about slandering people ?.Matt, you had better hope Mr. Pleban isn't following Topix.We could be seeing your name in the paper next.

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.

Pacific Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Michelle Roesche 6 hr Stloius64 7
Saddle Tramps M.C. prez Feb 21 A great biker song 7
TensorFlow serving vs TensorFlow service Feb 20 Steve 4
Looking for brandi schroeder (Oct '09) Feb 19 Brenda 37
Average Utilities Feb 11 Newbieowner21 1
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) Feb 8 Ladiesmanchrisham... 1,491
What happened to Kimmswick? (Jan '06) Feb 8 guest 818

Pacific Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pacific Mortgages