Tag Archives: Julie McArdle

Court: McArdle termination legit

District 150 did not violate Julie McArdle’s first-amendment rights when they terminated her contract. Evidence presented in court basically confirmed District 150’s statement to the press on April 29, 2009. Specifically, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois found that McArdle was terminated without cause, pursuant to her employment contract, and that the decision to terminate her employment was made before she reported alleged illegal activities of her supervisor, Mary Davis.

McArdle had argued that her termination was in retaliation for blowing the whistle on Davis. But the court found that the timeline of events simply didn’t comport with McArdle’s assertions:

Plaintiff’s own evidence shows that McArdle did not report Davis’ alleged illegal conduct until after learning that the District intended to terminate her contract. When Broderick, the vice-president of the Board of Education [sic], called McArdle on April 21, 2009, McArdle was given actual notice of her supervisor’s decision to exercise the buy-out provision of her contract. The record before the Court illustrates, therefore, that the decision to terminate McArdle had effectively already been made, and McArdle was notified of this decision before she engaged in allegedly constitutionally protected speech. While some of the Board members saw McArdle’s email regarding Davis’ alleged criminal conduct, the superintendent and vice president of the Board had already decided to terminate McArdle’s employment and had effectively and clearly communicated this decision to her before she ever publicized Davis’ alleged criminal activity. Thus, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the District was motivated by McArdle’s future speech when deciding to exercise the early termination provision of her contract.

Incidentally, the court document erroneously identifies Broderick as the School Board vice president; he was actually the Human Resources administrator.

McArdle also argued that Davis orchestrated her termination by giving her unwarranted bad reviews and giving district administrators a bad report of her performance. However, the court found no evidence for this:

As illustrated in the record before this Court, the District had received numerous complaints from parents and coworkers about McArdle’s actions and statements while principal. McArdle was also informed of these complaints and given an opportunity to correct her actions and attitude before the District chose to terminate her employment. These complaints did not come solely from Davis, and there is no evidence before the Court to establish a genuine issue of material fact that Davis orchestrated these complaints, as argued by Plaintiff. […]

When making its initial determination, [Superintendent Ken] Hinton and [Human Resources Director Tom] Broderick considered numerous complaints made by parents, students, and teachers against McArdle in addition to the performance reviews and personality conflicts reported by Davis. The Board, when finalizing the decision to terminate McArdle, also considered evidence in addition to and not provided by Davis.

In short, McArdle failed to prove there was a conspiracy against her orchestrated by Davis. You can read the full 15-page opinion here:

Summary-Judgment-6-7-2011

McArdle’s Revenge: Mary Davis busted

Via the Journal Star:

Mary C. Davis, principal at Charles Lindbergh Middle School for five years before moving into central administration in 2008 to head up all the district’s principals, was charged Friday with 16 felony counts of official misconduct and theft. … If convicted, she faces up to seven years in prison. Davis was ordered to appear in court on May 19.

She’s not convicted yet, of course, but the State’s Attorney has certainly been taking his time building his case. The prosecutor’s office began investigating her last fall after Lindbergh principal Julie McArdle was fired. McArdle alleged that she was fired out of retaliation for blowing the whistle on Davis. She subsequently sued the district over it. That suit also makes allegations against other district officials; it will be interesting to see what effect the outcome of Davis’s case has on McArdle’s.

District 150 releases audit report, statement on McArdle

District 150 has just released a statement (reprinted below) and a copy of the audit by Clifton Gunderson of the District’s Grade School Activity Funds.

DISTRICT STATEMENT – For Immediate Release – Wednesday, April 29, 2009

  • First, we need to clarify that Julie McArdle was not fired. Her contract was terminated without cause, pursuant to her employment contract.
  • The Board of Education and Administration stand behind their decision to terminate Principal Julie McArdle’s contract without cause. As an employer, we are bound to personnel laws that prohibit us from discussing or outlining reasons behind the decision to terminate her contract.
  • Regarding financial reviews – as part of routine procedures, our district used an outside accounting firm to conduct random, routine financial reviews of school activity funds. These reviews occur on a rotating basis every three-to-four years at all of our schools. We also request a review of these funds each time a new principal is named at a school or a building is closed.
  • On April 24, 2009 – (last Friday) – a police report was filed because 2007-2008 Lindbergh MS financial records are missing. These documents were reviewed in the summer of 2008 by the accounting firm during a routine review of the fund, which found no misuse of the school’s funds.
  • District staff members are diligently working with multiple sources to find documentation, receipts and statements that will assist in the reconstruction of the missing Lindbergh 2007-2008 financial documents. We are also hoping for a rapid conclusion of the Peoria Police Department’s investigation into our two filed reports.
  • Regarding the use of personal credit cards and District issued credit cards:
    • It is routine practice for school or District personnel to use a personal credit card to purchase items for our students, classrooms or other needed supplies, so long as appropriate and detailed documentation is kept.
    • There are currently nine different district-issued credit card accounts. The statements for these accounts are reviewed by the Business Manager and payments are processed by the District.
  • A decision had been made to recommend the termination of Mrs. McArdle’s contract prior to receiving any allegations of misconduct under the Illinois whistleblowers act.

My take: The report from Clifton Gunderson is not exactly a clean bill of health. Notice this statement near the end:

The above procedures were performed at the request of the Controller/Treasurer of the District. We make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures for any purpose. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion of the financial statements of the Student Activity Funds of Lindbergh Middle School. Had we performed additional procedures, matters might have come to our attention that would be reported to the District.

So, if I’m reading this right, they’re not offering an opinion of the financial statements. In fact, given the parameters of what they were asked to do, it’s unlikely that they could have detected any fraud that might have been perpetrated, unless someone had actually written “stolen funds” in the ledger or on the memo line of the check. They pulled 20 disbursements at random and found two that had no supporting documentation. That’s ten percent of a random sampling that were defective. Shouldn’t that have been a tip off to the Controller/Treasurer that the controls in place were deficient?

As for the statement from the District, the last point is the most interesting. According to their statement, the decision had been made to terminate McArdle’s contract “prior to receiving any allegations of misconduct under the Illinois whistleblowers act.” This is pretty shaky. Obviously it’s designed to try to absolve the board of any impropriety; it says, “hey, we didn’t know anything about the charges against Mary Davis before we decided to terminate McArdle, so we should be held harmless.” But they did know about the charges before they voted to terminate the contract. The police reports were made on Friday, and the termination took place on Monday. Once they heard the charges against Davis, they could have held off and investigated the matter first. Instead, they went ahead and terminated the contract for reasons they cannot publicly by law disclose.

Why should they have held off? Because Davis is McArdle’s superior, and it’s most likely that the information on which the board based their termination decision was evaluative information received from Mary Davis and her supporters. If Davis were involved in wrongdoing as alleged, it stands to reason that she would have tried to keep that information from coming to light. One way would be to undermine the potential whistleblower (McArdle) and try to get her discharged. Caution should have been the order of the day.

McArdle sues D150 (UPDATED)

As promised, Lindbergh Middle School Principal Julie McArdle filed suit against District 150 (PDF Link click here to read it) after being fired Monday — and it covers a lot more than just misappropriation of funds. The suit is filed against District 150, Superintendent Ken Hinton, Human Resources Director Tom Broderick, and Academic Officer Mary Davis.

Six incidents are alleged:

  1. “Misappropriation of School Funds for Teacher’s Aide to Pay an Unpaid Student Teacher and Refusal to Spend Funds Authorized for Teacher’s Aid”
    The story here is that teacher’s aides get paid, but student teachers do not. In this case, there was a woman who had worked as a teacher’s aide at Lindbergh who was also taking classes at Eureka College to become a teacher. When it came time to do her student teaching, she wanted to do so at Lindbergh. Mary Davis allegedly instructed McArdle to continue paying her as if she were still a teacher’s aide, even though she was actually student teaching. There were two problems with this: (1) it was an unauthorized expenditure of funds on District 150’s part, and (2) it violated the student teacher’s contract with Eureka College.
  2. Falsification of Student Addresses to Deny Poorer Students Their Right to Opt Into Lindbergh Middle School Under the No Child Left Behind Act
  3. Three children who did not live within Lindbergh School’s boundaries were allowed to attend without getting the proper boundary waivers. Instead, McArdle was instructed by Davis to list a false address for these students. “The result of the falsification of the three out of boundary students addresses in the District 150 records denied three poorer children the right to opt out of their school to attend the non-failing Lindbergh Middle School – which had the wealthiest residence and was the best Middle school in District 150 under the No Child Left Behind Act.”

  4. Weekly Attendance at Lindbergh School by Private Counselor for Fees Paid by the Parents of the Students Contrary to District 150’s Obligation to Provide a Free Education
    Mary Davis was allowing a private counselor to provide services for a fee. Parents of students were expected to pay the counselor directly.
  5. Report to Superintendent and Peoria Police of Theft of District 150 Funds and Authority
    The claim is that Mary Davis got a credit card in the name of Lindbergh Middle School without the knowledge of or approval from the district. Purchases and cash advances were made, and a $4,000+ payment was made on the card from the student activity fund for “miscellaneous items.” The itemized activity fund report for those “miscellaneous items” is missing.
  6. McArdle’s Report of Mary Davis’ Misconduct and Theft of District Funds to Superintendent Hinton and Board Vice President Deb [Wolfmeyer]
    It was reported via e-mail and had specific names and amounts listed. Nevertheless, when Hinton reported the apparent theft to the police, he said the person responsible was “unknown” and that it was for less than $300.
  7. Policy Making Agents of District 150
    This section says that Davis, Hinton, Broderick, and the D150 Board interfered with McArdle’s employment, resulting in her wrongful termination.

The suit alleges violation of McArdle’s rights to free speech, violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and breach of contract. She’s asking for $550,000 in damages, plus attorney’s fees, and reinstatement to her job.

UPDATE: Here are the exhibits that go with the complaint that was filed:

PDF Link Exhibits to Complaint court document
PDF Link Exhibit 1
PDF Link Exhibit 2
PDF Link Exhibit 3
PDF Link Exhibit 4

D150 principal fired (UPDATED)

Lindbergh Middle School principal Julie McArdle was fired tonight at a special meeting of the District 150 Board of Education. The story is on WEEK’s site, and more details are on Billy’s blog.

Since it’s a personnel matter, the District is not talking. However, McArdle’s lawyer, Richard Steagall, is saying the principal is actually a whistleblower who uncovered a number of different improprieties by someone in central administration. A lawsuit will be filed against the District.

This story is bound to get bigger.

UPDATE: The Journal Star’s story is up now. Note:

The action [firing McArdle] occurred about six months after McArdle is said to have first blown the whistle on the previous Lindbergh principal….

Police and other sources confirmed that the investigation centers around McArdle’s allegation that her predecessor as Lindbergh principal, Mary Davis, misused district money in 2007-08….

[McArdle’s attorney, Richard] Steagall said McArdle informed district administrators about the credit card after receiving a phone call from a credit card company on Oct. 26 regarding late payments on the balance due. Previously unaware of a school credit card, McArdle asked for statements to be sent to the school.

According to Steagall, the balance on the card had at one point climbed beyond $9,000. He said McArdle also found documentation that $4,002.05 was paid toward the balance of the credit card from student activities funds on June 30, with that amount received by the credit card company on July 4.

“She found out there was a credit card for Lindbergh School with $9,000 in charges on it,” Steagall said of his client. “There were charges for Peoria Toyota, FedEx/Kinko’s, Amazon.com, Best Buy, an American Girls doll store, cash advances, things like that. One payment for over $4,000 was from the student activity fund. She’s reported all of this.”

After bringing the suspicious financial information to the district’s attention in October, McArdle assumed the district was investigating and didn’t pursue if further, Steagall said.

But recently, McArdle was asked by the district to resign, Steagall said. He believes that was directly in relation to McArdle’s whistle-blowing.

What’s interesting is reading the comments on WEEK’s and the Journal Star’s sites. If each commenter is really a different person, it would seem that there is no small amount of animosity toward McArdle. Yet other sources tell me McArdle is innocent and is being punished for blowing the whistle. Hopefully the police investigation will get to the bottom of the matter.

However it turns out, it’s another black eye for District 150.