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.
I hope they sue the pants off of district 150. Hinton, Broderick and Hannah have a tendency to go after the ones that try and right the wrongs.
A commenter to the PJStar article said they should wipe the slate clean. I agree. Wipe the District Board slate clean. Get rid of them all and start over and publish every single scrap of negotiations that goes on, no matter how small. Have a real transparency in their actions with our tax dollars.
Hannah is now a superintendent in Iowa, so I hear. Looks like the slate is getting closer to clean! This new lawsuit should bring a bit more transparency to the district–hopefully, sooner rather than later. I hope you all have checked out Peoria Pundit–C.J. gave you the link. This is about more than money–but the money angle is certainly important to a district that can’t make payroll without a loan.
Great if Hannah is gone, your right that is a start. Hope they can put up with him, they are really getting a jewel.
Yes there is animosity towards McCardle – from parents and teachers who she refused to allow a ride on the D150 gravy train! She saw deap seated corruption and exposed it. Yeah, that will make you some enemies.
Is it possible Hinton was part of all of this spending that is being investigated so he is trying to cover for himself by firing McCardle? More fear and intimidation. Its the way the district rolls under this administration.
Let me get this straight, the principal at Trewyn supposedly in trouble for not reporting an employee has a gun at school is transferred to another school but a principal at LMS is fired and a reason is not given. Hmmm, wonder if she allowed an employee to have 2 guns at school? (I’d add a sarcastic emotion if I knew how.)
Anonymous – Your strong comments show a bias against LMS, rather than knowledge of exactly what was happening at LMS. Ever since she arrived, Mrs. McArdle has had problems interacting with parents and students. According to other posts on week.com and pjstar.com, apparently she is behaving exactly as she did in past districts who were happy to see her go.
Parents have tried to have conversations with her about various issues, but she is defensive and unwilling to talk … as another poster said, “It’s her way of the highway.” Often times she has been observed throwing her hands up in the air and saying (to parents and unruly children, I might add), “I just can’t deal with this right now” as she walks away. Her ineffective people skills have led to a long litany of reasons why she had to go. Her “threat” to “blow the whistle” on Miss Davis was hardly the only reason. Do you really think District attorneys would advise our Board to terminate her contract for that reason alone. No. They have a lengthy list of infractions that have caused them to let her go. They are legitimate concerns.
My biggest concern at this point is why they are letting her return to the school. Middle school kids were keenly aware that the staff didn’t like her, they knew the parents were unhappy, and they, too, disliked her screaming in the lunchroom, the invention of a new “rule” each time there was a small problem, etc. The school went from being a place of trust to a suspicious feeling that every kid was bound to screw up so there must be countless rules put in place to prevent that. In which environment would you flourish best?
Mrs. McArdle has lost the respect of all students, parents and most of the staff. How effective can she be for the next 6 weeks? I think there is most likely another location in the district in which she can be of service for the next 6 weeks. Request the services of a retired principal to come in and close out the year. It’s time for her to go.
By the way – For the record, Miss Davis was promoted due to her outstanding service and commitment to the district for many years. She has been sorely missed. Those of you criticizing her should check with those of us in the trenches. Miss Davis was a fantastic administrator who loved the kids, the school and her job. She never complained about having to stay late for a game, an academic contest – anything. She never threatened to not show up to a PTO meeting, she never yelled at kids or parents. She was respectful at every turn. Mrs. McArdle’s actions are a cheap trick – a way to turn the attention away from her actions.
🙁 Good point, Serenity. Have other first-year principals been evaluated this harshly–are the standards equal? I certainly would like to know what reasons the board was given for this dismissal–and I wonder if the allegations will hold up in court against the other probable cause for her dismissal–whistleblowing.
I have questions. Does the district have to give principals a 30-day (or any other deadline) notification of termination? Could she have been dismissed at the end of the school year? I’m wondering–since she will remain on the job until June 30. What kind of authority could she possibly have for the next month? They have certainly set her and Lindbergh up for a rather miserable month.
Don’t principals evaluate teachers–or has that time period already passed? Will she now have the authority to evaluate teachers? Of course, I’m also curious to know who the “out of area” students and the student teacher were–to whom are they related, etc?
Lindbergh Mom — Assuming what you’re saying is true, how are her actions any worse than the reported action of Taunya Jenkins? She was disliked by the staff to the point that they passed a no-confidence vote; furthermore, there were questions over how she spent field trip money. Yet she wasn’t fired. She was just moved to another school. It certainly appears that there’s some sort of double-standard going on here.
I am just drooling with anticipation of this battle…
Paying student teachers…
Unrelated students using the librarian’s address…
Hinton protecting Mary Davis…
Whistle blowing…
I love this!
Any advice for Julie, Terry?
If what the LMS is true, then the director of SPED should have been let go by now. She yells, pulls her hair, and goes on rants. Just have to add this, again some sort of double standard going on.
oops LMS “mom”
There is no double standard.. it is simple and straightforward… “you are either with us or you are with them”.
Apparently Julie didn’t catch on to who the “us” was in her short tenure here.
C.J.–Thank you for the reference to Taunya–the behaviors over the last ten years–especially, the “I can’t deal with this right now”- (and the screaming) were common practice at Manual for my last ten years–and from all I hear there are still leadership problems at the “new” Manual.
Public: do not let this credit card thing go by the boards without a full explanation, regardless of where it may lead.
I can tell you where it ends up, wacko… buried in the BS per diem budget afforded all staff.
Lindbergh Mom – A new principal coming in with proposed new changes and the old guard that benefitted from a loose if not illegal interpretation of the rules resists. How surprising. McCardle was undermined at every turn and my guess is you are one that contributed. We’ve heard all the speculation, now we’ll see the facts. The proof is in the pudding. Why is Davis not on administrative leave after such serious allegations? What does she have on Hinton. This will be interesting. Is someone FOIA’ing district credit cards? I hope so.
Wacko, District 150’s Watergate? I student taught at District 150. Do you think I can get back pay? Maybe a class action lawsuit with all student teachers who ever worked there and didnt get paid? I have only heard good things about Mary Davis, until now. The monetary amounts mentioned in pjstar are no small potatoes. Something was fishy and it would be just like Hinton to shove it under the rug to protect his own.
McArdle came from Eureka for God’s sake. Are there even minority families there? They eliminated a principal last year with almost 20 yrs experience with working with teachers and families in the district saying they couldn’t find a position for them but the haul in a newbie with no experience working with minorities from a cow pasture school. She was set up to fail and finding the accounting disaster was the icing on the cake. She was doomed from the start. The principal that was eliminated wouldn’t play their dirty politics either.
I agree with Elaine Hopkin’s comment on pjstar, Hinton needs to resign ASAP. This is another one of his fiascos and he needs to go. He has known about this credit card business since the get go and did nothing to help McArdle. Something is so wrong on Wisconsin.
And another thing (I’m not done with my rant) When did the board have knowledge of the credit card fiasco? Did they know about it before Hinton was forced by McArdle’s attorney to file a complaint or have they also known since October? If Hinton kept this secret from them why aren’t they having an emergency meeting to put him on leave so this whole thing can be investigated? If they knew about it and did nothing, they should each resign now. I am sick to death of this board kissing Hinton’s ass and voting for everything that man wants without investigating the consequences.
This lawsuit against the district will cost taxpayers plenty! But it won’t cost Hinton one red cent because he doesn’t even live in Peoria!
“I can say that we were notified on Friday,” Hinton said. “That’s when I first received documentation. Then, we did what we normally do.”
Look at how Hinton twists the words, as if he just found out last Friday. According to pjstar he has knows since October:
“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.”
And, correct me if I am wrong, but did I not read somewhere there is “another” administrator being investigated… yet no word on who that administrator is.
A little bird told me that the credit card in question is a personal credit card, not a district credit card.
CJ, but were payments to that credit card not made out of the Activity Fund account from Lindbergh?
Did the little bird say why the credit card company would be contacting the school about a personal credit card payment?
MAWB: Allegedly, only school-related expenses were reimbursed out of the Activity Fund.
Kohlrabi: Allegedly, the credit card company called the school looking for Davis because of a past due amount. I don’t understand how all the pieces fit together; I’m just saying that I’m hearing two sides to the story. I think, as Sharon has said, there’s a third side somewhere that’s the truth. There are a lot of things that don’t add up on both sides.
Hello??? Taking money out of a school activity fund to re-imburse school related expenses? Isn’t the correct word for that co-mingling? Would anyone with a grain of common sense in their head touch that with a 10 foot pole? And where are the conveniantly missing activity records to back that up? This stinks to high Heaven – even if the truth is somewhere in the middle.
And I agree with Middle aged woman – why the Hell do they use a former District 150 board member who has well known ties of support of Ken Hinton to be the spokesperson for allleagtions made of impropriety against the district. STOP THE INSANITY!
I hit send prematurely. Why would the PPD use Vince Weiland to be the spokesperson on this case with his well known ties to Hinton and the Board of Education? Settingsgaard – wake up. Its time to smell the coffee.
Also meant to say this: Taking money out of a school activity fund to re-imburse school expenses on a PERSONAL CREDIT CARD.
It ain’t coffee you smell
Someone raised the point that they were surprised Vince Wieland is involved with the police investigation into the allegations against Mary Davis. That was curious to me, too, since he was a member and President of the BOE and a strong supporter of Hinton’s. It seems that this represents a less than “arms length” relationship. Too bad, because it would protect the image and reputation of the Peoria Police Department, the integrity of the investigation, and the public’s interest if Wieland had stepped aside and allowed another officer to work this investigation.
PrairieCelt is right — someone with no ties to D150 and Hinton should be investigating this. The state police? Lyons’ office? Someone who can prosecute for obstruction of justice if necessary! (And offer incentives for other information of wrong doing!)
Lindb. Mom’s comments are troubling: Is it possible that this is just a play by the principal to keep from being fired for poor performance? And that the credit card was a personal card with Davis’ workplace address, and when she left it somehow slipped through the cracks? If so, it should never have been paid with any school funds, however, as some have alleged.
What a mess. And of course apparently totally mishandled by Hinton and Co. That’s a huge reason for him to resign or be fired.
We need an independent investigation to find out the truth.
Do you think Cahill is reading all of this and sitting back laughing?
MAWB – either that or hoping the district doesn’t scapegoat him for any of this.
OK, I’m ready to speculate a bit more in light of the new discussion about personal credit cards and school activity funds.
Assuming, as has been stated, McArdle received the charge card bill in October and reported her suspicions or questions to Hinton at that time (I hope she has dated material when she first presented the issue to Hinton):
If everything was on the up and up–if the charges in question were school-related and if it was OK to pay for the credit card charges from the activity fund,
WHY wouldn’t Hinton have immediately made the whole situation clear to McArdle, a newcomer who might not understand the financial procedures of District 150? He knew McArdle was suspicious, so why couldn’t he put all the suspicions to rest immediately?
Since Hinton didn’t do any of the above, he must have preferred to ignore all of McArdle’s allegations with no explanation to her. Isn’t he smart enough to know that he needed to do damage control immediately–instead of waiting until he was ready to fire McArdle?
WHY then would Hinton wait until last Friday to make a police report of possible misapropriation of money–did he just suddenly decide the case had merit (after ignoring it for months)?
WHY would Hinton wait until now to do an “in-house” investigation–didn’t I read somewhere that he is just now beginning that investigation?
A bigger question, of course, is what happened to the lost records–when should they have been turned into the district? Were they turned in and by whom? When were they “lost” and by whom?
If I’m interpreting all this correctly, are we to assume that Mary Davis was paying for school-related expenses on her own credit card (for how many years had she been doing do?) Is this common practice among 150 employees–I doubt it? Why would the district allow an employee to charge school-related items on a personal charge card and then be reimbursed for the cost? In the “old days,” I believe, school-related purchases required permission ahead of time (with exact amount of the purchase, etc. on a purchase order); then when the purchase was made, the receipt had to be turned in.
Charge-card statements do not give any information as to what was purchased–just the cost and place from which something was purchased. Shouldn’t Davis have been expected (past tense–at time of purchase, not today) to provide the receipts to prove what she bought and shouldn’t the non-consumable items still be around as proof that they were purchased by Davis for school use? If she states the items were consumable (paper, supplies, etc.), the proof would be hard to come by at this point.
Was the American Girl Doll that allegedly was given as a gift to a Mandarin teacher for her daughter a gift from Davis or given in the name of Lindbergh or the district–who signed the card?
With regard to this information mentioned above somewhere “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.”
WHY would a credit card company send a copy of Davis’ personal credit card statement to McArdle? If I were Davis, I would certainly be writing a letter of complaint to the credit card company.
the suit will never go to trial. In fact, I doubt it will go very far. Remember how an ex-superintendent droped a suit before her deposition? If the principal is guilty, she will drop it, too. On the other hand, if any part of her allegations are true, and she can prove it, the District will fall all over itself to settle, for fear of the astronimical judgment and potential personal liability that might result.
Mouse: What do you mean by “If the principal is guilty, she will drop it, too.” She really hasn’t been charged with anything to be guilty of. Honestly, I believe all the reasons for terminating her contract are subjective–and the district doesn’t really have to have a reason to fire an administrator. She is not making any effort to respond to any of those charges–just maintaining an ulterior motive: whistleblowing. That brings up another question: Does a whistleblower have to prove that his/her allegations are true or can the “whistleblowing” charges be made due to retaliation for just attempting to call attention to possible wrongdoing.
Although it may be true that most lawsuits are settled before trial, I hope, for the public interest, this one is not. In fact, McArdle’s attorney would be wise in seeking to make this a public interest issue and a class action joined against the District administration.
Perhaps, enlisting the Justice Department or at the very least The American Civil Liberties Union would be a powerful move on McArdle’s part.
I know of several complaints against the former principals at Lindbergh, Roosevelt, Loucks and Northmoor schools that could be presented by interested parents in support of a class action case. The District 150 administrators have been “untouchable” for far too long and need to be brought back to the reality of their existence. (I presume the School Board membership is immune from prosecution by State law… too bad)
MOUSE, I know Royster dropped the suit before the deposition but you bet she got paid. We just were not told how much.
lindburgh mom: You apparently don’t know how difficult being a principal is especially when the parents don’t like you because you replaced a favorite one. You do understand, don’t you, that Mrs. McArdle had nothing to do with Mary Davis leaving the school. It looks like you and others tried very hard to make things difficult for her instead of trying to work with her. I think you should examine your own motives. All this is beside the point. This is not or was not a personality contest. It appears that Mrs. McArdle did the right thing and somehow she is now being accused of wrong doing. Most intelligent parents will take a strict, honest principal with integrity over a “charming” one any day.
Is anyone else reading the comments on pjstar? One says McArdle had been under investigation for months, which I find interesting, since isn’t Davis in charge of the Middle School principals? So, the investigator is the same person who misused school funds?
Also, someone said members of the PTO were at the meeting. Why would they have parents there but not allow McArdle and her attorney to be there so they can hear both sides of the story?
I realize that at this point, it is all hearsay, so just wondering if anyone can back up the above info.
Update: Channel 31 has credit card statements and docs supporting claims by McCardle.
I have a question about the meeting Monday night? When was the agenda for the meeting first announced? Was the website–that was conveniently down–the only mention of the agenda? I’m wondering if 150 manipulated this in any way. Frankly, I think many of us would have gone to the meeting if we had known about it. Maybe our focus on school closings kept us from being aware of what was going on. For me, this meeting just popped up with little notification.
Very interesting: Davis investigating middle school principals. Wow! I truly do believe that this first-year principal was given far more scrutiny than were the new principals at Whittier, Manual, etc. Did I read something about a parent questionnaire at Lindbergh–were the parents at all schools asked to evaluate principals?
Follow the money trail…….. Any lawyers out there? How much can this possibly cost taxpayers if/when McArdle wins?
Can she only get her salary or more… much more?
Ask Terry Knapp how much he received from 150 for having his rights violated. District 150 doesn’t seem to learn its lesson about breaking laws that protect employees at the state and federal level.
All these comments and not one hard fact regarding the credit card incident. The mob action and speculation even include a retired “journalist” calling for someone’s job without any supporting facts. Unbelievable.
Nontimendum, go read the latest at Central Illinois Proud. Apparently McArdle’s attorney, Steagle, has proof. Hinton must have proof of wrong doing also or he wouldn’t have filed a complaint.
Federal charges filed in court today against District 150
Sharon: It’s my understanding that McArdle and her lawyer asked for a meeting with the board/Hinton at some point before the BOE meeting and they were either denied or ignored. They decided to not attend the Board meeting because the Board didn’t want to meet with them prior to the vote to fire. I don’t remember where I read that–somewhere on the internet. I can’t even tell you if it was part of a story or someone’s comment.
The PTO is Mary Davis’ posse…..nuff said……
Teachingrocks: I did read that–but I thought that the board had to vote (not discuss) on personnel matters at a public meeting. I expected the actual vote to come at the public meeting on May 5. I thought that agendas for public meetings had to be made public before the meeting. Board meeting agendas are supposed to be posted on the website on the Friday before the Monday meeting. I think someone has stated that this agenda was mentioned on the website, but then the website was shutdown (conveniently or otherwise) on Friday so that the appropriate notice didn’t seem to be available.
Nontimendum: Many of us who post do have strong ties to 150 and to sources of information. Many of us had already heard many of the details about the charge card, etc.,–enough so that we do feel comfortable forming opinions. My personal opinion–because I know how 150 operates–that the blogs have provided a wonderful opportunity to help make the district transparent. Just think how easily all this could have been kept from the public and swept under the rug if these avenues of communication hadn’t opened up. We even communicate with each other better because of e-mail, etc.
FYI Lindbergh Mom:The ONLY people glad to see Mrs McArdle leave the last district were people who would not accept the FACT that their children were not perfect. You know how it is,,,,,not my kid. someone else’s fault. Mrs. Mcardle gave students consequences and those are the people that don’t like her. I think Mrs Mcardle wanted these children to accept responsibility for their actions, not shirk it, like their parents wanted. Get a clue, Lindbergh has many problems, most created by MD……..