Report of Investigative Committee

Southern Boone Counfy School Distriet

August L6,2012

Report of Investigative Carnmittee Soathern Eoone County Sehool Distriet August 161 2il12
The Southem Boone County Schooi Dish{ct (Disti'icQ Lras a very strong reputation for providing al excellent, rvell rounded academic and extra curr-icular program for diskict students' The Investigative Conrmittee (Committee) appreeiates the opporArniqy to be of service to the Distr-ict and its pah^ons. It is our hope that our investigation and this report address the allegations that have surfac.ed as a result of Dr. Deffenbaugh's resignation letter ald other concerns voiced by the public.
\Me are extremely gratefirl to those interviewed for their cooperation. We also

eompliment the district for readily providing ali irutnr:.ation requested by the Commiftee. Requested items were provided in a very timely faslr.ion and proved helpful w-ith our investigation.
We believe this report is a fair assessment of the District and hope it assists the District's patrons, its Board of Education, students , faculLy, staff and administi'ation in their efforl to refocus on providing excellent educationai opportunities to the students in the Distu'iet's charge. It is fi:ither hoped the findings will assist with modifying policy, procedures and practices to ensure open, transparent communication and consistent fo'eatment of employees, sfudents and adminish'ators. In so doing, the district will be able to once again earn the trust of the people rvho have supported their public schools.

Committee's Proeess
Aft.er a thorough review of Dr. Deffenbaugh's letler, the Committee reduced her various accusations to these categories of malfeasance:

1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Nepotism; Wasteful staffi.ng; Favoritism of an employee; Staffrng inequities; and by inference, Wasteful spending.

Our investigation focused on those issues. This reporl, however, addresses each ailegation of ma6easance raised by Dr. Deffenbaugh and refers to each paragraph of her letter. The Committee intervierved 23 people beginning on July 9,2.012. Ten (10) separate closed meetings were held, at which ra,e reviewed documents and records of the District, School Board policies and procedures, and conducted the inteniews referred to above (three individuals were interview hvice).

Those interview-ed ineluded:

Carolyn Deffenbaugh, Former Assistant Superintendent Charlotte }v{iller, Superintendent Bob Simpson, Former Middle Sctrool Frincipal Phyllis \tr/eter, Board Secretar5,/District Treasurer Jerurifer Reeder, Superintendent's Secretary Nancy Lenger, Retired Special Education Director Bridgette Caaady, Former Board President Sue Haugen, Primary Principal Amy .Iames, Elementary Principal Dale Van Deven, High School Principal Tony Phillips, Director of Transportation/Director of Altemative SchooUK-8 Admin. Support P at Laey, Athletic Director Brenda Curtis, School Nurse Jim McGinais, Distriet's Auditor Tom Mickes, Dist-ict's Attomey BiffBamer, Former Board Member Bareff Glascock, Board Mernber Seott Sal-raons, Board Member i Jesse Richardson, Board L4ember Ellen Kesterson, Board President Bruce Bauer, Board Member Joe Miiler, Board Member Nancy Ruppert, Middle School Secretary

Allegation of UnderFayment *f the Assistant Superintendent's SalarY:

In paragraphs 1-2, Dr. Deffenbaugh alleges that in comparison to other similarly situated administrators, she is underpaid. She cites'rhe S/right Ciff School District as an example.
Findings:

of Education, based on recommendations made by the superintendent. The amount paid to a particular administ-ator is in some part determined by u'hat'rhe district has paid historieally for the position, year-to-year budgets, job duties assigned to the position and evaluations ofjob performance of the individuai administrator. 2. Tlre superintendent made a recornmendation for aZ percent raise for Dr. Deffenbaugh. The recornmended pay inerease was discussed by the Board and the reeommendation was
Sa1ary determinations are Ieft to the Board

1.

subsequently approved by the Board.

3. Concerns regarding the Assistant Superintendent's performance w-ere discussed with her by the Superintendent on September 7,201,1. Houever, there is disagreement between the Superintendent and Dr. Deffenbaugh as to w-hether a copy of rhose concems rvere actually provided to Dr. Deffenbaugh. Both agree the meeting and discussion took place. 4. An evaluation dated February 8,2A12 was completed for Dr. Deffenbaugh. It rvas signed by the Superintendent. It was never revierved with or signed by Dr. Deffenbaugh. 5. The superintendent rvas negiigent in not reviewing the final el,aluation with Dr. Deffenbaugh.

AI

Ie

gati og-o f

F ra-u-d u I en

t Claim s fo-EState E un ds :

In paragraph 3, Dr. Deffenbaugh makes the statement that she "refused to submit fraudulent claims for. state funds based on enrolhaent and attendance."

Specifically, it u,as intimated that the District u,as inappropriately reporting enroliment and attendance data to the Department of Elernentary and Secondary Education (DESE).
Findi:rgs:
1. This allegation pertains only to the Altemative School a:rd Drivers Education Programs. 2. After itterviews with both Superintendent Miller and Dr. Defflenbaugh, it is the Committee's frnding'rhat no such fraudulent reporling occurred. 3. According to the District's auditor, enrollment and atlenrlance data was submitted correctiy to

DESE. 4. Aecording to both Miller and Deffenbaugh there was a discussion as to how certain aiternative school students and drivers education students should be reported. After consuitation with DESE by the District, these students rvere appropriateiy reported.

Altregations of Nepofism on the part-oi the Superintendent: In paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, Dr. Deffenbaugh alleges that Superintendent Miller engaged in nepotism by hiring Diane Zimmentran, who is Superintendent Miller's niece; Jessica Gallanf w-ho is a fi:iend of Superintendent Miller's stepdaughter; and, Misty Bratl'ner, who t'as Superintendent Miller's stepdaughter. Findings:

1. There

are policies regarding nepotism that pertain to both the Board and District administrators. See Policies GCD and BBFA. The policy that pertains to administrator nepotism (GCD) applies to the triring of administrators' spouses on-ly. It does not prohibit the hiring of spouses, as long as the adminiskator does not directly supen ise his or her spouse.

There is no proh.ibition to the hiring of other relatives.

2. There was no vioiation of District policies by the hiring of the above-mentioned individuals. Further, the Committee finds that neither of the nepotism policies would apply in any w-ay to the hiring of Ms. Zimmerman, Ms. Gallant and Ms. Brawner. 3. The Board was firlly informed, in eaeh case, of the relationship between Superintendent Miller w'ith each individual, and the Board approved of the hrirings-

S p ec

if ! e AHegati ons_R e eaLdirt g ft i aEe-f i m m erga u I

In paragraph 4, Dr. Deffenbaugh aileges that the position of Behaviorist, w-hich was the title given to Diane Zimmerman, was not needed and that she was paid "$45,000 in salary and benefits along with additional costs for specialized t'aining." Dr. Deffenbaugh firither alleges that this hiring was concealed by certain staffchanges at the Eiemen'rary School and that Ms. Zimmerman was placed at the Middle School without regard to the needs of the other buildings.
Findin-ss:

1. At the time of Diane Zimmenrran's hiring the Disto-ict had advertised open positions for special education teachers. 2. Diane Zimmenaan intervieu,ed for one of the open positions and was hired as a Behaviorist in the Middle School. 3. The inten iews were eonducted by Special Education Director Nancy Lenger, Principal Bob Simpson and Elementary School Principal Brandi Faiherly. All three recommended that Diane Zimmerman be hired by the dist'ict. 4. There were five special needs students ra,ho would be moving from the Elementa:y School to the Middle school. These students had serious behavioral problems. 5. Prior to her hi.ing as Behaviorist, Diane Zirnmerman rvas empioyed as a paraprofessional, working in the elementary sehooi. In particular, Ms. Zimmernarl was working with one or more of the aforementioned students. 6. Bob Simpson advocated for the position of Behaviorist (he admitted to giving title to this position) and for additional speciai education support for the Middle School. 7. From separate meetings with Nancy Lenger,Principal Simpson and Superintendent Miller, it was evident that no administrator was placed under or felt undue pressure to hire Ms.

Zimmentran. 8. From our discussion with Dr. Deffenbaugh, it was leamed that Ms. Zimmennan's compensation, in salary and benefits, was in fact $40,000, instead of the $45,000 alleged in the letter. 9. The Committee finds thai neither of the nepotism policies would apply, and, even if they did apply, there rvas no violation of District policies by the hiriag of the abot'e-mentioned

individual,

Sn-e-c-ifi

-e-All-eeaLisas-Regardrlig:JessicaGalla*t:

In paragraph 5, it is aileged that an At Risk teaching position was created for Jessica Gallant, a friend of Superiirtendent Miller's family. Dr. Deffenbaugh believes that there were other qualified candidates and fi.uther states that reimbursement for Ms. Gailant's tuition rvas improperly provided. Findings:
1. Superintendent Miiler stated to the Committee that sh.e did not personally know Ms. Galiant. 2. Tnthe si-rmmer prior to the 2A0812009 school year 'rhe District advertised and irrterv-iewed for a 7-12 ISS/At Risk teacher. Tire interv-iews were conducted by Prinicipal Simpson. He intervies,ed Jessica Gallant by phone. 3. Frincipal Simpson recommended her for hire and presented her with a contract. 4. At Principai Simpson's suggestion, Ms. Gailant pursued a Master's degree in Special Education at Columbia College. Tuition reimbursement in the arnount of $1,710.00 nas provided after Ms. Gallant agreed to sign a loyalty agreement requiring her to serve tivo years in the dish'ict fotlowing the compleiion of her degree. Specificaily, the Dish'ict paid for trvo
classes.

5. The Committee finds that neither of the nepoiism policies would apply, and, even if itrey did apply, there was no violation of District policies by the hiring of the above-mentioned

individual.

Specific Altregations Regarding MisF Brawner: In paragraph 6, Dr. Deffenbaugh alleges that in 2008, nepotism occurred with the hiring of Superintendent Miller's stepdaughter. In particular, she stated that there were other qualified candidates that u,ere passed over for the position. Findings: 1. Superintendent Miller admitfed to encouraging Ms. Brawner to apply with the dish-ict for a position that came open upon the transfer of faculff member Sue Adams to the Gifted Program. 2. HS Principai Dale Van Deven conducted the interviews of candidates for the position and recommended Ms. Braw-ner for employment. 3. In response to questioning by the Conrmittee, N{r. Van Deven stated that he felt no pressure to hire Ms- Brawner. 4. The Cornmittee finds that Ms. Brawner left the district prior to the eompletion of her contract. This breach resulted in Ms. Brawner owing the Disto'ict money. Superintendent Miller took action for breach of conto'act and collected the money owed.

5. The Committee irnds that neither of the nepotism policies w-ould apply, arrd there rvas no violation of Diskict policies by the hiring of tha above-mentioned individuai.

A!tr

gati ons

ertatn in g to th e$-Sddmin istrato-r:

Dr. Deffenbaugh, in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 alleges that Superintendent Miller and Principal Simpson supported the hiring of a:r Assistant Principal for the Middle School and did so deceptively through the creation of the K-8 administrative support position. This position is held by Tony Phillips.

E"dT=
1. The K-8 administrative support position was meated in 201 I after the District decided to hire an outside contractor (PCI) for grounds, custodial and maintenailce services, which rve will address in subsequent paragraphs. 2. Mr. Phillips was, at the time, a 12 month contracted employee responsible for Grounds, flansportation and Director of the Alternative School, as weli as an assistant coach for football and head baseball coach. 3. When the dishict hired PCI for grounds, custodial and mainterance services, I4r. Phiiiips was made the K-8 Administrator. 4. He continued to be the Transportation Director, where he supervised 17 busses and 14 bus routes. 5. There was neve.r a job description created for the K-8 administrative support position; however, he had a multitude of responsibilities related to transporlation and working with the Altemative School. 6. With regard to his responsibilities to ihe Altemative School, Mr. Phillips stated he spent an inordinate amount of time working w-ith a student who required one on one supervision, due to feelings that prevented him from being in the classroom with the the student's other Alternative School studenis. 7. In'rer:ns of the K-8 ad:ninistu'ative support position, he indicated he spent the majorify of his time in the Middle School. He indicated he provided some [mited support to the Elementary School. 8. The creation of an assistant principal position in the Middle School uas discussed by the Board rt a201i Board retreat, however no action w-as taken following that discussion. 9. There is no evidence that I4r. Fhillips was hiled deceptively to be assistant principai at the Middle School. i O.Dr. Deffenbaugh, in her opiaion, believed that the A-lteroative School did not require a separate administu^ator and teacher and that N4r. Philiips should have been assigned to the class

room. 1 1. The Committee has detenrrined that since the creation of th.e Altemative School, it has been staffed by ateacher and an administrator. Initially, the adminish-ator role was filled by Principal Simpson.

i2.The fact ihere lvas no job descripiion for the K-8 adminish'ative support position contributed to coni:sion on the part of faculty, staff and adminisfi'atcrs as to wLrat the K-8 administrative support (i.e. Tony Phillips) roles and responsibilities entailed.

Allegatisn-snegardinf-rinejpalSjmpseB-ardGs-oming

for the Superiufeedent?-csitien:

In Dr. Defflenbaugh's leiler, she makes specific allegations that Principal Simpson was being "groomed" for the superintendent's position w-hen Superintendent Miller retired. In paragraph 9 of the lelte4 she alleges the K-8 administo'ative support position was created to provide support to N4r" Simpson w-hile he ra,as 'being groomed" by Superintendent Miller.
Findinqs:

1. The District already

had

in place

aconh'act rvith lr4r. Phiilips, who was assigned the K-8

admjnistrative support po sition. 2. Principai Simpson admitted to the Commiitee his desire to succeed to the superintendent position. 3. There was support on the Board, among some Board members, for Principal Simpson as superintendent and a general feeling among those board mernbers aird Superintendent Miller that he had the potential to be the next superintendent. 4. Principai Simpson w-as, in fact, performing a superintendent interoship and Superintendent Ldiller had agreed to serve as his mentor. 5. There w-ere Board members who questioned his qualif,rcations to become the next superintendent of schools. 6. From interviews with dist'ici administrators and staff, there was a general feeling of concern 'W.ords such as "intimidatiag" and "builying" for Principal Simpson becoming superintendent. rvere frequentiy used to describe his people-management style. According to disto'ict employees interv'ieu,ed by the Cornmittee, Principal Simpson exhibited an intimidating and aggressive rranner in staffmeetings and w-ith individual district employees. 7. Among the district employees the Commitiee spoke w-ith, there was a general feeling of relief re garding Principal S impson's resignation. 8. At the same time, nearly every person interviewed described Principal Simpson as a person who cared greatly for his students; w-ho advocated for stafflurg and programs to benefit the Middle School; who rvas well liked by his students; w-ho made himself available to supervise student activities; and, rvho presided over strong academic achievement at the Middle School.

Allegetiqn]ha-t Mr. Siinps{}n-and-,Supest ten-denll{ii}er Made-Chapges With+Jrtln$Et

FrssMirislra&us-:

Dr. Deffenbaugh states in paragraphs 23 and 24 that Superintendent Miller and Principal Simpson foreed changes upon faculf and fellow adrninistrators pertaining to the teacher evaluation progmm and the District's seience ctrrriculum. Flndings:

According to administrators this Committee spoke with, it appeared that issues discussed in administrative rneetings had already been decided by Superintendent Miller and Principai Simpson prior to the meetings, 2. Specifically- it was decided between the Superintendent and Principal Simpson that a nerv teacher evaluation system would be put in place at the beginning of the 2012-13 sclrool year. 3. Administrators did not feel they had adequate input into that decision and opposed the new evaluation system/instrument. They were reluctant to voice opposition. 4. In that regard, the principals stated that Dr. Deffenbaugh voiced opposition to this plan when it was discussed in administrative meetings. In general, th"y had a high opinion of Dr. Deffenbaugh. 5. With the resignation of Principal Simpson, the principals approached the Superintendent convincing her not to pursue fl-re evaluation program due to lack of communication with staff regarding the nerv program, lack of training and the cost of training ($1500 per person) for the administrators. 6. Subsequently, the Superintendent made the decision not to pursue fhe evaluation plan. 7. During the 20i0-11 school year, Superintendent Miller atlended a conferenee wherein the Sangari Seienee Program ll,as marketed. 8. The District then began working on a collaborative grant with a consortium of school districts to fund the purchase of the Sangari Science Program. 9. Some principals were against the curriculum ehange; however, there was reluctance to voice opposition, due to fear of opposing Principal Simpson. 10.FIad the grant been secured, the District's current science tert books, which were only tu,o yea"rs old, would have been abandoned. 1 1.In the end, the grant rvas not fimded and the District is no longer pursuing the Sangari Program.
1.

11

A ll e galie n

Tl at-S-irpeEEmlxu deEi&f,itr]

r Rc:eiv es ap E

tr a ]

t}, Stip

en d

Dr. Deffenbaugh alleges in paragrap h 17 thatin addition to her stated salary of $116,700.00 foi 2012-13, Superintendent Miller also receives an u::defined extra duty stipend for $5,600.00. Findings:

1. The Dish'ict's contract

ra,ith Superintendent

Miller originaliy required the District to pay

certain reimbursable expenses for her (e.g. car and telephone expenses). 2. The contract was amended in the 2AD-13 school year ic pay Superintendent Miiler an additional $5,600.00 as salary, the approximate amount of,the aforementioned expenses. The Disirict is no longer responsible for paying those expenses.

l$lcgalLon That SeElerin-tendent Miller lraveled-to an Clut-Of-State Conference: Also in paragraph !7,Dr. Deffenbaugh alleges that Superintendent Miller attended an out-ofsiate conference in the spring of 2012, during "challenging economic times."
Findings:

with Superintendent Mitler allorvs the Superintendent to attend certain professional conferences with fuli reimbursement by the district. 2. Superintendent Miller is a member of the Missouri Association of School Administrators O4ASA) and serves on the association's goveming body (i.e. Executive Committee). 3. She affended the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) national convention in Houston, Texas, in February of 2412. 4. Superintendent Miller had, in prior years, declined to attend out-of-state meetings and conferbnces due to challengiag economic times. 5. It rryas requested by the executive director of \4ASA that she affend the February convention' 6. The superintendent hari an $11,000 expense budget for the 2Afi-12 school year, but only utilized S5000.

1. The District's

conto'act

AilegatioEs-ojstaf fi EgJ

n eq

uifies

Paragraphs 12-14 of Dr. Deffenbaugh's letter suggests there weie staffiag inequities between the High School and [zliddie School, drle to Frincipal Simpson's c]ose relationship with Superintendent Miller.

Findings:

1. The Committee was toid trl]merous tirnes that Principal Simpson, in being

a strong advocate

for the Middle Schooi, failed to see the needs of the Diskict as a w-hole. 2, Tbrough the interviews eonducted by the Conrmittee, it is undeniable that Principal Simpson had a olose, working relationship with Superintendent Miller. 3. Staffing decisions are between the principal of the building and the Superintendent. Such decisions are based on students' needs, special needs, demographics and other exh-insic variables that are present at the time the requests and decisions are made. 4. The board of education is made aware of staffrng needs each year and acts upon the recommendation of the superintendent. 5. A-11 staffassignments were approved by the board of education.

Altregatien That Prineipal Sirnpson Improperly Receivcdanixtr-a DUF Stipend,:

Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the letter assert that Principal Simpson was paid a $1,200 stipend for exh^a duty pay for supervising the A-ltemative School, u,hile no other principal received an exh'a duty stipend for comparable supervision duties.

Findings:
1

It is h'ue that Principal Simpson received

1,200 stipend for A-lternative School Director'

through the 2009-10 schcol year. 2. Other principals did not receive a stipend for extra duties. 3. In 2010-11, tr4r. Phiilips beeame the Altemative School Director; however, the $1,200 a:trual stipend became part of I\&. Simpson's regular salary. 4. When questioned by the Cornmittee regarding this issue, Superintendent I4iller stated that Principal Simpson continued to provide general oversight for the A-ltemative School program after directorship passed to [&. Fhillips.

Ailegation]hat SupeFjnterdent MiitrerendPrinejpel-.Srmps+-ugler-e

Raises":

ReeiXlre-Btq

oljBig

Paragraphs 18 and 19 of Dr. Deffenbaugh's letter discuss the raises reeeived by Superintendent Miller and Principal Simpson and specifically allege a certain inequiq, with regard to those raises.

Findinss:

1, Dr. Deffenbaugh

stated to the Committee the comments contained in these paragraphs are

based on her opinions of equity and appropriateness. 2. The Committee fiiids that ail raises were recommended by the Superintendent to the Board, and were reviern,ed and approved by the Board. 3.

It is presumed by the Committee the Board knew

and understood how adminish'ator and

faculty salaries compared to other districts and teachers' salaries, and, fi.irther, that the Board, in overseeing the District, reviews extra duty contracts.

Allegafion That thelistriet Faited to Reatizesavings Freuthe P-Cj_Contraet:

In paragraphs 20 and21, it is asserted the eonto'act for outside custodial, grounds, and maintenance serv'ices did not result in a cost savings for the District. Findings:

i.

The deeision to retain FCI for outside, contracted custodial, grounds, and maintenance services w-as discussed at tw-o regular Board meetings and at a Board retreat in the summer of
201 1.

2. Offrciais from PCI made a presentation to the Board at this retreat. Both Superintendent IWiller and Dr. Deffenbaugh attended this presentation. No one, including Dr. Deffenbaugh, voiced opposition to the move to PCI. 3. The company, PCI, rnas investigated by the Superintendent through a reference chec.k w-ith a Mid-Missowi S chool District. 4. The Board voted to enter into a one year contract with PCI, in aaticipation the Diskict would realize a eost savings of $45,000.00 and relieve Superintendent Miller of the day-to-day

responsibility of managing custodians and maintenarce. 5. The outsourcing of custodial, grounds and maintenance services to PCI did not result in savings for the Disti-ict.

a cost

10

Recgrrenr disclosure, in violation of Board policy a:ld the larv, creates a chil-ling eft-ect that has hampered the Diskict's ability to conduct its day-to-day affairs'

Possible ethics violations and board member fmancial disclosue involving Word of Mouth

Cxering:
Through the course of the Committee's investigation it ra,as discovered that w-hile Bridgett Canaday served on the Board of Education, during the 201 1 - 12 school year the District trarrsacted business with Word of Mouth Catering, a catering business ow:red by Ms. Canaday. The District issued five separate checks to Word of Mouth Catering during the course of the 11fi-12 school year. Four of the ehecks paid to Word of Mouth Catering exceeded $500, in violation of Board policy and state law. According to Board minutes, Ms. Canaday failed to recuse herself or abstain from vctes pertaining to the issuance of these checks. This failure to recuse herself or abstain w-as an ethical violation and a elear violation of Board Policy BBFA (Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosure). The Committee looked only at Board records from the 2011-12 school year. This Conrmittee has made the Distict's auditor aware of this issue and he will be reporting on this in greater detail at a future Board of Education meeting.
'.

Non-Resident Students

The Commitlee leamed that tw-o non-resident students were aliowed to attend District schools during the past two years without a payment of tuition. If so, this practice violates state law and DESE regulations. The students' parents provided Principal Simpson with a letter add,ressed to the Board that explained the family's residency situation. It appears Prineipal Simpson did not sha:e the information with th.e Board and may have unilaterally decided to a1low them to attend for the hvo school years mentioned. Principal Simpson's conduct in this matter appears to have violated state law, Board Policy and DESE regulation. This has f,rnancial ramifications for the District. The Auditor rvill also report more fully on this issue to the Board of EducatiorL at a future ineeti-r:.g-

Signed

this /6

!f

day of August, 2012

16

Allegation Pertaining Board Presidevrt:

to-th-e

Elee-tisl f*Bli.dgsfi-Can-a-day*tqTqlo

C-$pse-egEive

Tbrms

as-

The final allegation stated by Dr. Deffenbaugh in her letter is that the Board "deviated from its long-standing practice of moving the vice-president into the president's position..." in order to pave the way for Principai Simpson to be the next superintendent.

Findings:

Bridgett Canaday was Board president for the 20ll-12 sclr.ool year. 2. She was re*elected to serve as Board president for the zA2-fi schooi year. 3. It is well known that Ms. Canaday and Principal Simpson are friends. 4. The'Board president serves a one yeff term. It is not rinprecedented for the Board president to be re-elected to that post, especially w-hen there has been a transition between superiltendents or other significant changes, Iike the consh'uction of a new building. 5. The Committee finds that on at least three separate occasions, prior to Ms. Canaday's election to a second terrn, the Board had re-elected a Board president to a second term. 6. Specifically, BiffBarner, Ed Bartel and Joe Miller were all elected to consecutive terms as
1.

Board presideirt.

General Comments About the Resignationlefter and Dr. Deffenbaugh

Dr. Deffenbaugh indicated she had sent the letter to all board members as well as all district staff. 2.Dr. Deffenbaugh indicated she did not intend for the infonriation contained in the letter to have the negative effect it has had on the distu{ct and community. 3. The District has a policy (GBIfl for district employees in order to file grievances with the Board of Education. 4. The Diskict's grievance policy raas not followad by Dr. Deffenbaugh as it relates to sharing of concerns/grievances with the Board of Education during her four years of employment with the district or upon resignation from the districi. 5. As such, the Board of Education did not have the opportrinify to address the concerns expressed by Dr. Deffenbaugh prior to those concerns/grievances being disseminated to the public. 6. In airing her grievances in the manner in w-hich she did, Dr. Deffenbaugh violated the distriot's internet usage policy. In so doing, Superinteirdent Miller was justified in disabling the intemet
1.

systern after the letter tvas sent.

7. In discussions w-ith Dr. Deffenbaugh, she indicated that had she received the average administrative salary increase, she would not have resigned her position. She stated she would have tried to con'ect problems from within the system. 8. Dr. Deffenbaugh rvas w'ell-liked by the principals of the primary, elementary and high schools. 9. She was described as professionai in manner and as having a "strong sense of social justice."
12

In addition to the matters raised in Dr. Deffenbaugh's letter, the Board requested this Committee to investigate the follow-ing, additional issues:

A parfy in which one or more Dish-ict emplo)rees may have provided alcohol to minors.

ln the courso of our investigation, three additional issues were broughit to this
Committee's atlention, which were also investigated:

. ' "

Board member ethics and the dir.ulging of confidential information outside of executive
session.

Ethics violations and board member financial disciosrire. Non-resident students affending the dish'ict.

The Committee found that in May of 2011 texl messaging occured between a male high who was not a District employee at that time. into hr July of 20i 1, employment with the District as a stipend employee Later in Juty, the Ath-letic Director (AD) Pat Lacy was infonned that potential, -^pp*p""t" t.xt messaging had occurred betu,een a male high sehool student AD Lacy contacted Superintendent Miller, w-ho was in the state of Califomia. He f, proviaea her with this infomration. Superintendent Miller asked AD Lacy and Prineipal Simpson to investigate the iricident. The stated rationale for utilizing Principal Simpson *'as ihat High Schooi Principal Dale Van Deven \\Ias oIr vacation'

-entered

anfi

Superintendent Miller, while still in Califomia, contacted then Board Presiderit Canaday and informed her of the incident.
and confronted her regarding the AD Lacy and Principal Simpson met with indicated there rvas no allegations. According to Principai Simpson andAD Lacy, physical contact betrveenfand the student. AD Lacy stated to the Committee that there rvas only one text message. Principai Simpson indicated that there was no determination made
as to horv many text messages were sent or who was sending them. Other interviews indicated the text messaging may have occurred over a six week period.

t,5

During the investigation by Principal Simpson and.{D Lacy, there u,as no request to view the'uexts a:rd no effort made by AD Lacy and Principal Simpson to confrnn their number; ra.ho sent them; or the content.
Both AD Lacy and Principai Simpson told the Commitlee that the student's iather u,as contacted. The father stated he would speak witIl ttre student and report t'ack to the investigators. Later, the father indicated he had spoken with the student and the matter iaas dealt with. The student \ryas never interviewed.
There w-as no determination made as to the age of the studeirt at the time this occurred. This Committee's independent review of student records, revea.led that the student was i 6 years of age at the time.

Upon completion of the investigation, a report w-as provided to Superintendent Miller and placed i, file. The Board president rvas made aw-a.re of the incident and the report by the Superintendent. Neither the incident nor the report rvas shared with the rest

oftheBoard.ItwasstatedtotheCommitteethatareprimandwasplacediotEfit";
however, our review of the Iemployment

-employment

file revealed that no such document exists.

It is clear to this Commiffee that the majority of the Board w-as not informed of this incident until the board meetings that occured in June ZAn. Also, the Diskict's legal counsel
not consulted or i::formed and had no knoq,ledge of this incident until June of 2012. The stated rationale for not firIly and completely sharing this incident w-ith the w-hole board was a concem that confidential information regarding this incident would be "leaked" to the public. As u,e will discuss in a subsequent section, there appears io be a failrne with this Board to abide by the Board's own policy regarding confidentiality.
w-as

Superintendent Miller also did not share the results of the investigation *'ith the Board or take a:ry additional action. By the time the matter rvas disclosed to all Board members,|fA lrad been offered a contract for the 2012-13 sohool year to serv-e in the same capeciLy, rvhich u,as declined-

This Commit[ee finds that all involved inthe investigation, including theffi t]re Simpsons, the Laeys, the Canadays and the sfudent's family, knerv each other socially. The Committee firrther finds it was an apparent conflict of interest for Principal Simpson and AD Pat Lacy to be put in the position of investigating and it was also an apparent conllict of interest for them to be investigating this matter due to their personal relationships with those involved. This investigation rvas rvoefuily inadequate. The District failed in its institutional response by virtue of no consistent procedure for handling such incidents. The investigation itself w-as flaw-ed due to an apparent conflict of interest (as stated above); by not interviewing the student and not placing the welfare of a student hrst; by not piacing the employee on leave
14

pending the outcome of a ihorough investigation; by not involviag proper ouiside-the-disto'ict authoities to handle such an investigation; by not asking to see the text(s); and, regardless of the Board,s ability to keep infonnation oon-fidential, by not infonning the entire Board of Education of the investigation conducted by AD Lacy w Frincipal Simpson prior to offeringlJa
contract renerr,ral.

This Committee \lras asked to investigate whether or not minors were served alcohol at parties sponsored by Distriet employees. With regard to these allegations, the Commitlee focused on detentrining facts from firsthand sources, as opposed to restating the many rumors and i*uend.o. A_fter reviewing information related to several parties, our investigation focused on one party which occurred in May 2A72 atthe residence of

The Committee did con-fim that

graduated seniors were invited. Approximately 3 0 min615 v"s1s stated she collected car keys from those who attended; however, she denied that provided alcohol. She stated. car keys were coilected because she had concerns about the kids

Co*o.%" that4A

attended.Ill

rvere in atlendance.along stated to the

stated that she felt ieaviog late atnight and being involved in an auto accident. I]"tso parents of those young people attending rvere relying on her to provide for their childrens' safety'

consuming alcohol. MiIler,

f,Idenied

alcohol was provided to minors and had no knowledge of minors lf reported the incident. According to Superintendent stated to her that he purposefuily did not cheek on the students.

has confirmed observed the party, but no further action was taken rtthattime. The Committee an active with the Boone Cor.rnty Sheriff's Department that this incident is the subject of investigation.

ABooneCountySheriff,sdeputywascal1edtotIreparty.Hespoketofand

that a Concems w-ere expressed to the Committee driring seveial meetings and irferviews and past certain Board melrber u,as disclosing confidential information to communiS' members "Re&ain from Board members. In particular, Board members are bound by Board Policy to ra'hen required by divr-rlging confid.ential inforuation presented during closed sessions, except

larv."

See Board

Folicy BBF, Paragraph No.

16.

The Commiftee has found that this has indeed happened. This is significant due to the with' highly confidential student and er:rployee information that the Board routinely deals
IA