Any resident or community group shall have the right to present a request, suggestion or complaint concerning district personnel, the program, or the operations of the district.
FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 906
SECTION: COMMUNITY
TITLE: PUBLIC COMPLAINTS
ADOPTED: March 27, 1995
http://fortcherry.schoolwires.net/fortcherry/lib/fortcherry/_shared/District_Policies/900_Community/906-Public_Complaints.1.pdf
The Superintendent may prepare guidelines for the administration of the school district which are not inconsistent with statutes or regulations of the State Board and are dictated by the policies of this Board and which shall be binding on the employees of this district and the students in the schools of this district when issued.
FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 003
SECTION: LOCAL BOARD PROCEDURES
TITLE: FUNCTIONS
ADOPTED: March 27, 1995
“Any candidate's misstatement of fact material to qualifications for employment or the determination of salary shall be considered by this Board to constitute grounds for dismissal.”
FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY No. 302
EMPLOYMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT/
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
ADOPTED: March 27, 1995
http://fortcherry.schoolwires.net/fortcherry/lib/fortcherry/_shared/District_Policies/300_Administrative_Employees/302-Employ_of_Supt-Asst_Supt.1.pdf
FC district policy states that complaints against an employee of the district shall be brought before the board and handled according to Policy 906.
FC district policy states that in the case of a complaint directed toward an administrative staff member, the general procedure specified in Part A of Policy 906, shall be followed. The complaint shall be discussed, initially, with the person toward whom it is directed and if a satisfactory resolution is not achieved at this level, the matter shall be brought, as required, to higher levels in accordance with the organization chart of the school district, terminating with the School Board.
FC district policy states that misstatement of fact during the hiring process constitutes grounds for dismissal.
FC district policy states that the board and employees are bound by policy.
May 2010: As stated in the last post, board members Ray Miller and Brant Miller were personally handed documentation, including documentation from Mattoon, showing Dinnen’s misstatements of fact. The resident was assured by the Millers that they would take care of the matter.
August 2010: Having heard nothing from the Millers or the Board, the resident stood before the school board at the August 16 meeting and informed them of that fact. The resident even offered to meet with Dinnen to discuss the matter.
Here are the resident’s thoughts on Fort Cherry Policy 906 and the information that was personally handed to Ray Miller and Brant Miller:
“As far as policy 906, it merely states that any resident has the right to present a complaint with regard to district personnel and that a fair and impartial manner should be followed by the board (and its solicitor) when seeking the truth (my words).
It continues with the step that the super would be referred the complaint - but what does a resident do when the complaint is about the super?
What does the resident do when the resident offers to meet with the super and neither the board nor the super respond to the resident??
Another policy this current board refuses to follow or abide by! In the end, it is ultimately up to the board for the final decision. But what if the decision is faulty? What if the board wasn't impartial and fair? What if the truth was covered or the attempt was made to keep the truth from being disclosed?!
This is what the FC School Board has done. This is what the FC administration hopes for and what the residents of the FC school district- students, staff, parents and residents have inflicted upon them.”
Was the truth covered, or an attempt made to keep the truth from being disclosed?
How could such a thing happen?
If you look at the legal bills, it appears the Millers contacted the school solicitor who proceeded to “investigate”.
Let’s take a look at those bills.
Mr. Levin was Dinnen’s attorney when he sued the PDE in an effort keep the letter of eligibility and superintendent certificate that were given to him due to a clerical error. (Dinnen filed suit April 1997)
Mr. Levin continued to represent Dinnen when he made his appeal to the PDE’s Certification Appeal Committee. (Dinnen’s appeal hearing was held June 3, 1998 - Dinnen was fighting for his LOE in the midst of applying to FC. Dinnen did not disclose the appeal to the 1998 school board.)
Ms. Fullerton represented the PDE in Dinnen’s lawsuit.
Copies and excerpts of the PDE documents have appeared in previous blog posts.
These are the documents Levin received from Dinnen.
Dinnen expands on his work experience and Levin asks the PDE to “promptly issue a commission.”
Here’s more from the resident who handed the information to Ray Miller and Brant Miller. This is the resident’s thoughts on Dinnen’s letter to Levin:
“If he had the Mattoon background and it was so integral, why wasn't it originally included?! And according to his own testimony he had more than 40 percent of his time there! It wasn't until he applied to FC that Mattoon began to appear on his resume and has always been included in his background since then. A claim he still makes.”
The resident is speaking of this document which Dinnen submitted to the PDE with his original application for his letter of eligibility in 1996.
Dinnen did not mention Mattoon JROTC in conjunction with his tenure at Eastern Illinois University or anywhere else in his list of professional teaching experience.
Returning to the legal bills . . . according to the bills, Brungo:
ü Talked to Levin
ü Talked to Patricia Fullerton of the PDE
ü Reviewed documentation
ü Got a release from Dinnen
ü Reviewed documentation from Levin
ü Reviewed the court documents
ü Reviewed PDE documents
ü Prepared a letter regarding the issue
Cost to taxpayers so far: $1045.00
But wait a minute. . . where’s the charge for contacting Mattoon?
Is it possible it was a billing error?
According to Mattoon, the answer to that would be “NO”.
A Freedom of Information Act request was submitted to Mattoon by a resident of the district. The request asked if anyone had contacted Mattoon about Dinnen (other than private citizens).
Mattoon’s response:
The July 29, 2009 FOIA request and response Mr. Skocy speaks of are shown below.
No . . . it’s not a request from the Fort Cherry School District, Brant Miller, Ray Miller, or the law firm of Maiello, Brungo & Maiello, LLP.
Brungo did not contact Mattoon.
And since there is no mention of “Mattoon” on the bills, Ray Miller and Brant Miller are well aware that he didn’t.
September 2010: Brungo finished up the “investigation” by finalizing a letter to the resident who approached the Millers back in May, bringing the total cost to taxpayers to $1,102.00.
Here’s the letter the resident received.
Unfounded?
Of course the resident’s concerns were not confirmed.
Brungo did his best to make sure they weren’t.
Ray Miller did his best to make sure they weren’t.
Brant Miller did his best to make sure they weren’t.
Cost to taxpayers: $1,102.00
Legally and truthfully certified teachers are gone.
Dinnen remains.
Cost to children attending FC . . . legally and truthfully certified teachers are gone . . . you can’t put a price tag on a good education.
