As promised, Lindbergh Middle School Principal Julie McArdle filed suit against District 150 (
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:
- “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. - Falsification of Student Addresses to Deny Poorer Students Their Right to Opt Into Lindbergh Middle School Under the No Child Left Behind Act
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
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.”
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:
Exhibits to Complaint court document
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Without Malice: Yes, we really are digging up a lot of 150 history. I remember the Roosevelt case with Davis–that was sad. Since I mentioned the Manual band director, I will also say that he took precautions so that there would never be any such problems. He was sure that his records were open to auditors at all times and open to the officer(s) of the Band Parents’ Association. That’s why I found District 150 to be negligent–they should insist that all school clubs, organizations follow rules and methods that will protect district money and employees (sometimes from themselves).
As to the situation at Roosevelt, I think Taunya failed to keep track of which parents had paid money, etc. Somehow the situation got so out of hand that the district had to provide money for the trip–and that should not have been the case. I don’t remember the details, but it was a mess–probably due mostly to carelessness.
MAWB – McArdle should have redacted the names prior to providing to her attorney. As a principal, she has no right to release e-mails to third parties containing confidential information about her students and she should have been aware of this. That being said, it is her attorney and she has an expectation of privacy. I think Steagall, as her attorney, had a greater duty to redact the names, as he is fully aware that once a complaint is filed it becomes public record.
I think this is all very curious that these matters are being played out in the public forum in the degree that they are. I can’t remember ever seeing a complaint on a matter appear in the PJS.
About the Roosevelt field trip mess: These are just the opening paragraphs of a couple of PJS for their archives–I didn’t want to spend $2.50 to get the whole story:
School inflates trip costs – Financial reports show Roosevelt seeking more money than needed from students’ parents
PEORIA – Roosevelt Magnet School is seeking more money from parents than it needs to cover the cost of a May trip to Jamestown, Va. – about $8,600 more, according to financial information from District 150.
On Thursday, the district responded to a Journal Star request for a variety of financial information regarding the trip.
Questions have surfaced about funding for the weeklong trip after several parents said that they were blindsided with additional costs when their kids got
Roosevelt trip money checks out – But District 150 says it will revisit school field trip policies
PEORIA – A financial review of a Roosevelt Magnet School trip shows all money raised and spent is accounted for, but even so, the district plans to revisit its policies regarding field trips.
A report of the money raised and spent for the May trip to Jamestown, Va., was presented at Monday’s District 150 School Board meeting. The meticulous financial review was conducted by the district’s auditor Clifton Gunderson LLP.
The report showed a total of $40,336 was
Themis,
Thank you Sir, I stand corrected! Just the same John Davis played the innocent gamble game under oath during the trial which surprisingly ended in a hung jury by some real nitwits, but in his heart he knew he was a thief or he would not have admitted his guilt and accepted his criminal sentence. Actually I regained respect for the man for his admission.
I am so happy that Borderick may get his. I worked for the district for almost 18 years. I did not have a blemish on my record. I told on someone for doing wrong and Hinton, Hannah, Fischer and Broderick railroaded me out. I just could not take it no more so I finally quit. They made my life and my family’s life a living Hell. I remember being called into Broderick’s office. He screamed at me and told me “everyone HATED ME” I told this to the adminstration on Wisconsin and nothing was done. I was railroaded out the door. I did not have the money to keep fighting them and the stress they were putting me through got to be to much. I do know first hand about intimidation and their coverups.
If this was supposedly a private credit card why did Ms. McArdle get the statement at the school’s address? I thought as of January of this year the account was still open.
I have just read all the comments.
My one major question is why was Mary Davis hastily taken out of Lindbergh school and promoted to an Academic Officer (by the way Hinton eliminated the title when he became a superintendent in name only.. KH created a new administrative position just to acommodate Mary Davis. We were in such awful financial status. Teachers have every reason to be livid over this additional adminstrative post. Were all board members told the truth about this secretive hire. Anyone have any insight…
Did the school board members know all of the information that is in the lawsuit? And if not if I were a board member I would have never voted for a firing until I had all the facts. They had a choice to abstain or vote no!!! This is a time to contact your board members. Interesting that Mary Spangler was a ghost again.
Word is that there is another District 150 administrator who has been asked to leave. And if why have this person or Mary Davis not been fired too!!! Board members are really being hypocritical!!!
Ms. McArcle cites the Illinois Whistleblower Act in her claim of retaliation. Under the Whistleblower Act, Section 15, an employer may not “retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency if the employee has reasonable cause to believe the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule or regulation.”
It is not clear that Ms. McArdle’s actions constitute a claim under the Act. She alleges in her complaint that she “reported” matters to various school district administration and to a board member, but those acts would seem to constitute internal reporting to her employer, and not reporting to a government or law enforcement agency. In her complainant she alleges that Hinton made external reports of the matter by filing police reports. She does not specifically allege that she made any external reports to government or law enforcement agencies herself.
Frustrated: Paragraph 46 of the complaint explains her claim under the Whistleblower Act.
Under paragraph 28, it states, “On the advice of her attorney on April 23, 2009, McArdle concluded these charges were a misuse of School District funds which must be reported to Superintendent Hinton and the Peoria Police.” (emphasis added)
Under paragraph 31, it states, “McArdle’s report of her suspicion of Mary Davis’ theft and official misconduct to the Superintendent and to the Peoria Police is not a part of her ordinary duties as Principal of Lindbergh Middle School as confirmed by District 150’s termination of her contract of employment on April 24, 2009 with full knowledge of McArdle’s report of Mary Davis’ conduct to the Peoria Police.” (emphasis added)
It looks to me like she reported it to the police herself before she was fired. Hence, it would fall under the Whistleblower Act.
C.J. – I see your point, however, reading paragraphs D32-33 and E34-35, in their totality it appears she was pressuring the District to report said matters. Her complaint sets forth pretty specific allegations. No where in the complaint does she particularly allege that she reported the alleged fraud to police and the corresponding date of that contact. This seems like a glaring discrepany to her otherwise very specific allegations.
We have of course not heard the District’s assessment of this alleged financial fraud. There is also a requirement under the Act that the employee must have a “reasonable cause to believe” that the information discloses a violation of the law. Perhaps the District had provided information to McArdle that was cause to reasonably believe there was no fraud and she continued to pursue the matter. I guess only time will tell.
Also, I am kind of losing track of the facts here but the records were “audited,” which I guess is a loose term in this case, in the Summer of 2008. I assume the records remained at LMS. Both Davis and McArdle had access to those records. It is hard to say how they came to “disappear.” If nothing else, it is a lesson to all other administrators and principals of school districts, that they should maintain a duplicate file of records relating to business expenses and personal reimbursements from their school district.
I
Everyone needs to read Diane’s article on Peoria Pundit about the District’s purging of records and get on the phone tomorrow and call these agencies. If we want the truth, we need to make sure these agencies phone lines are busy all day hearing our concerns.
$81 cash back bonus.. who gets that?
If this were a personal cc issued to Davis, what CC company would just send copies of all the statements to another party.
PrairieCelt: Quite some time ago you asked me to consider that there were no deposits mentioned on the Activity Fund Exhibit #2. No, I don’t believe we know the source of income from the Activity Fund, the amount, or its purpose. Under the top category “Description of Deposits,” the items listed look more like expenditures and check numbers seem to be written in the column designated for dates. Furthermore, the check numbers are consecutive throughout the whole document. Once again I believe District 150 needs to get its act together and ask schools, organizations, etc., to follow some bookkeeping plan that is consistent throughout the district. Isn’t there some program already in place that they could be using? In this computer age, shouldn’t these records be stored on computers?
kcdad: Check Lindbergh’s or district’s report card. Academic Excellence was received for three consecutive school years – 05-06, 06-07, 07-08. Years under Davis. Check scores prior to Davis’s leadership. There were previous principals who did not raise the test scores to achieve academic excellence.
Calmwaters – The McCardle firing even calls those stats into question. Was Davis getting those scores because she was black-balling NCLB children? From the evidence contained in the complaint last week, it would appear so.
calmwaters: What do student scores have to do with possible misuse of money? However, considering your argument: Do you really believe that student scores (especially within a specific range even with ups and downs from one year to the next) can be credited to the principal? Lindbergh’s reading scores started out in the high 70s and have ended up in the low 90’s. Because Lindbergh is one of District 150’s highest achieving schools, I would say that the increase came as a result of teachers being asked to teach to the test and getting better at it each year (not necessarily a good educational decision, but good for AYP scores) or some of the scores of individual students could be the result of cherrypicking by Davis as suggested by Anonymous and the e-mails in the exhibits.
Following your thinking, if the scores stay in the 89-93 range this year, does that mean McArdle was a good principal and should have been retained?
I believe Ms. Davis had everything to do with the improvement of scores while she was principal at LMS. Many of my friends’ children attend LMS and they were extremely happy with her leadership. They felt she raised the academic bar and improved discipline, which was lacking before her arrival. I also know of numerous examples of Ms. Davis “wowing” new families to LMS during house hunting trips, who were originally set on attending Dunlap. I have no idea what the real truth is about the matter of the credit card but that does not completely eradicate the possibility that she has done some good for the District over the years.
Many of you seem to want to diminish parents’ assessment of McArdle’s performance at LMS, likening it to having the lady run out of town. If LMS parents are such a nasty and vindictive bunch, why did they not demonstrate those tendencies when Davis was at the helm? I agree that, from what little has been published there are discrepancies relating to some matters, but taken in its totality it appears McArdle had performance issues and parents were not satisfied with her leadership. It seems the District finally listened to parents and acted accordingly and still . . .
How come the Averyville parents weren’t listened to? The district could have acted accordingly and kept over 300 students off of buses and in their home neighborhood. Why are only some parents worthy of having their voices heard?
home=own
There are issues with the leadership of Hinton and other top administrators, but they are still there are they not?
There are issues with the leadership of Hinton and other top administrators
That’s an understatement if I’ve ever heard one.
Frustrated – Your comments are offensive to every family who just witnessed 5 out of 6 school board members vote to close their neighborhood school. Where was the consideration given for their wishes? Are the Lindbergh parents and their ilk the only ones who deserve to have a voice that will be heard? And who gives a hoot how much scores improved or were maintained under Davis’ leadership. Isn’t it a moot point if the woman is a thief – which with every passing day it appears more and more likely that is exactly the case.
Frustrated: You have been relatively quiet lately–I see now that you know some of the parents at LMS who really like Davis. There is nothing wrong with that. Much of this issue with McArdle is about opinion, personal experiences, and perception. It’s hard to argue with any of the criticisms or praises of McArdle–and there certainly seem to be both–because it seems to be mostly about “the eye of the beholder.” I just see inconsistency. Other principals in the district–past and present–have been guilty of far worse behavior than anything I’ve heard so far about McArdle; yet their jobs were not or have not been threatened at all. Frankly, I don’t believe it was the parents who “ran McArdle out of town.” You say the administration finally listened to parents. Things would be easier for me to believe if Davis had held some other administrative position–too many doubts about the fairness of this evaluation process. Of course, I definitely do not believe that parents should have that kind of power–I don’t even think teachers should have that kind of power. If teachers were that unhappy with McArdle, they could easily have taken a vote of “no confidence”–the district probably would have welcomed this usually “unwelcome” action. Also, there seems to be some proof that Davis may have “bent the rules” to keep parents happy and possibly in District 150–I’m not sure that all would believe that the end should justify the means.
In the end, however, the evaluation of McArdle (and the ultimate termination of her contract) and the accusations against Davis should not be and should never have been entwined in any way. Under the circumstances right now, I would much rather be in McArdle’s shoes than in Davis’.
Does anyone else think it is weird that Davis was McArdles supervisor in the first place? Talk about asking for trouble.
And can anyone refresh my memory as to whose place it was that Davis took? I can’t seem to recall…
Diane, she didn’t take anybody’s place–this was an entirely new position. (You know full well that the district needs more administrators). I hadn’t put two and two together until this minute. But last summer Spangler told me how wonderful things would be with Davis in this position because she was an expert with benchmarks. Didn’t the district need an expert in benchmarks for Wacky Wednesdays? 🙂 She might have been OK as McArdle’s supervisor if she (Davis) hadn’t left behind some questionable practices that McArdle seemed to have questioned more innocently than out of a desire to “get” her. Mostly, she probably didn’t want to continue past practices–to risk being blamed for someone else’s mistakes.
Is there any chance that Davis should have been or could have been more helpful in trying to acclimate a stranger to District 150 to her new job? That would be a great role for a person holding this new position of authority over principals, etc.
I am curious as to what effect one thinks a principal can have on test scores? (other than the Roosevelt-Jenkins method of devoting an entire semester to teaching the test.)
I certainly hope you realize that the best thing an administrator can do for the teacher is STAY OUT OF THE WAY.
Kcdad,you know better, the principal can think up numerous ways for the kids to be allowed to cheat.
Why bother allowing the kids to cheat when you can just do it yourself.
Kcdad: I certainly agree with the post just above mine.
I’m probably wrong about Davis’s new position being created to oversee Wacky Wednesdays–that’s a primary thing. I’ll check the website but I think Davis is over middle and high schools.