Tuesday, April 28, 2009

McArdle Firing

I know exactly as much as everybody else about the McArdle firing, as I'm not privy to private Board info until July 1. Peoria Pundit broke the story and has done a good job reporting it.

My thoughts are:

Proximity of firing to whistleblowing does not prove retaliatory firing; I can imagine a dozen scenarios in which the firing was justified, and a dozen scenarios in which it was retaliatory. The Board has information we do not have. Whether that information justifies firing McArdle independently of the whistleblowing on financial misconduct -- well, I imagine we'll all get to see it all during the lawsuits that are doubtless on the way.

If in fact McArdle WAS wrongfully terminated as retaliation for bringing up financial misconduct, I am absolutely furious and that is absolutely unacceptable. And regardless of whether McArdle's termination was justified, I certainly expect the Board and administration to act with the same speed and alacrity to fire those engaged in financial misconduct, as that misconduct is proved, as they have acted with in firing McArdle.

If, as the Journal Star is reporting, the District was first informed of the financial shenanigans six months ago and has failed to take action until now -- that in itself is appalling.

Journal Star coverage is here.

12 comments:

Diane Vespa said...

Ah, the lovely fresh smell of sanity...

Jenny said...

July 1 will be here in a snap...Good luck Eyebrows!!!

Anonymous said...

I live in your district and voted for you. I know there are a LOT of unhappy Lindbergh folks. The new principal is extremely unpopular. If she was fired for being a whistle blower, I agree it is unconscionable. But it could be she was fired for being a horrible principal, in which case the district should be given a little credit for correcting this mistake.

Eyebrows McGee said...

"But it could be she was fired for being a horrible principal"

Yes. And if that IS the case, then that IS the sort of issue the district should be correcting as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Meanwhile, we have these allegations of financial wrongdoing that have enough substance to them for the police to investigate -- and that's a major issue as well!

Anonymous said...

I agree. I actually suspect the district was not planning on pursuing the credit card issue, but was forced to because the principal's lawyer would have used that as part of the whistle-blower defense (he will anyway but it makes it a little tougher to sell).

Anyway, I hope you don't come to regret what you are about to get into! Good Luck!

mazr said...

Laura, I've never commented on here but I wanted to wish you luck on jumping into the pool with the sharks.

This cesspool needs to be cleaned up and hopefully you'll be the first step in that cleansing.

Anonymous said...

As always it comes down to who knew/did what and when they knew/did it. The timeline and the documentation will determine who gets fired and who gets paid. I have a funny feeling one party was preparing for this battle and lining up ducks well in advance and therefore will easily have the other by the proverbial short hairs when it comes to proving the timeline.

Anonymous said...

if she really does not to work for any school ever again, she could turn into the American civil liberties organization


then she look forward to comments in firewall on the internet, like badworker, workflow,or trouble maker in the events in the firewall. kind of like one way communication meant to annoying

Anonymous said...

Eyebrows, it is the district's past practice that, when confronted with this type of situation, the party/parties were placed on paid administrative leave of absence pending the outcome of an investigation. This was done in part to protect the integrity of the district and to preclude the the possibility of accusations of cronyism, favortism, etc., as well as to protect the district from the effects and consequences of any further wrongdoing (basically limiting their liability).

Wonder why Hinton rushed to recommend the termination of McArdle, and why he failed to recommend Davis be placed on paid Administrative leave of absence?

This flies in the face of the district's past practice and frankly, doesn't make sense.

Eyebrows McGee said...

"Wonder why Hinton rushed to recommend the termination of McArdle, and why he failed to recommend Davis be placed on paid Administrative leave of absence?"

I have also been wondering this, particularly now that there are allegations of financial wrongdoing against Davis. It would seem to make sense to put her on leave to avoid even the appearance of impropriety until her part in this matter is either proven or cleared.

Anonymous said...

The charges concerning the alleged violation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act and the falsification of a timesheet are both enough to justify placing Davis on paid administrative leave.

Anonymous said...

will someone please define "horrible principal" because the definition of treating EVERYONE fairly and equally would not be found under it. Some Lindbergh parents liken their children's school to a "prvate" school paid for with public money. Get real Lindbergh parents--this is a public school that any child can attend, regardless of NAME. McArdle is a professional with many years of experience including a Principal of the Year award and her mantra is that everyone is treated with respect, compassion, and kindness, regardless of WHO you (think) you are.