Dr. Dyb’s Leave Lacking Documentation

Interesting enough, in a recent document (February 13, 2017 Questions Raised) the school board answered questions regarding Dr. Dyb’s leave approval.

The board stated that Dr. Dyb’s leave was approved at the January 3, 2017 special board meeting.

In the minutes from this meeting, when the board convened into open session at the end, there was “no report and no action taken.”

If that is the case, how were they able to put him on leave on December 2, 2016 (one month prior to approval of the leave) and publish his leave in the Waupaca County Post on December 15, 2016?

The boards response to the question, “At what board meeting did the board approve the appointment of the three co-interim administrators?” was at the January 3rd meeting as well.

Looking back over previous minutes, precedents have been set. The May 14, 2012 board minutes contain the approval for the resignation of District Administrator Joe Price. The June 11, 2012 minutes contain the board approval for Tess Lecy-Wojcik as interim administrator. There was no need for a closed session for the 2012 meetings and all votes were in public.

The December 2016 invoice from the school district’s lawyer, Strang, Patteson, Renning, Lewis & Lacy, has an entry for December 2, 2016 that states the following: 12/02/2016, SRL, Travel and attend meeting with administrators and Board members. Follow up regarding same. (see the invoice here)

Here is the problem, there is no announced board meeting on December 2, 2016. This is the day that District Administrator David Dyb was placed on leave. The invoice entry states that the lawyer traveled to meet with administrators (plural) and board members (plural). The other dates on this invoice contain the exact names of the board members the lawyer  interacted with, including many times where both President Kristen Hoyord and Vice President Mike Koles are the only two mentioned.

The “February 13th Questions Raised” document that the school board put out says that the only people present for the December 2nd meeting with the lawyer were Board President Kristen Hoyord and Vice President Mike Koles, along with Dr. Dyb.

The discrepancies are the following:

The invoice says “administrators”, Dr. Dyb is only one administrator and that can be seen throughout the invoice when he is mentioned.

 The invoice says “board members” – every other entry names the board members that the lawyer interacted with, except the December 2nd entry where it is plural. There are numerous entries where the lawyer interacted with only the two people mentioned in the boards response, Kristin and Mike.

Based on the invoice, the districts lawyer spent approximately 2.7 hours meeting with administrators and board members (with the lawyer’s travel time being approximately 5 hours round trip for a total of 7.7 hours).

 Here is my question for the board:

If it is true that the lawyer met with just Hoyord, Koles, and Dyb, why would the lawyer office change their reporting method for just one entry of the invoice?

An open records request was made for the employment contract, leave and sabbatical contracts that the district has with Dr. Dyb. The employment contract was delivered. The response for the other two was:  With regard to Request Nos. 2 and 3, there are records that are responsive to your request that will not be disclosed. The decision to withhold these records is based on the fact that, as of the date of this letter, the public’s interest in the disclosure of these records is outweighed by the public’s interest in the confidentiality of such personnel records and the privacy and reputational interests of specific District employees.

 If I was able to receive Dr. Dyb’s employment contract because the district acquired his permission, shouldn’t the board be able to ask his permission to release the two remaining contracts that were requested? I am requesting the board to acquire Dr. Dyb’s permission for me to view the leave and sabbatical contracts.

I would also like to know why there is a line item on the lawyer invoice which states the following:

12/21/2016 SRL  Review and respond to correspondence from Attorney Piontek regarding resignation agreement. Review and respond to correspondence from Ms. Hoyord and Mr. Koles regarding same.

12/22/2016 SRL Review and respond to correspondence from Attorney Piontek and Ms. Hoyord regarding resignation agreement. Confer Ms. Hoyord and Mr. Koles regarding same. Follow-up regarding same.

On December 23, 2016, the lawyer invoices switch back to administrative leave. If Dr. Dyb handed in his resignation on December 21, why did you not accept it and instead switch him to administrative leave on December 23rd? Based on the information found in the December lawyer’s invoice and the fact that the November invoice to Sarah Thiel (that Dr. Dyb never saw) only references Dr. Dyb’s employment, suggests that Dr. Dyb did not hand in a resignation, but instead was given a resignation to sign.

I would love to believe that I am reading these invoices wrong, so I ask the board to provide any evidence that I am wrong. Just as I asked for the employment contract, leave contract, and sabbatical contract, I am now asking for a copy of the December 21-22, 2016 resignation contract and/or letters that demonstrate that Dr. Dyb asked for a leave of absence and sabbatical or that he resigned in December.

Advertisements

One thought on “Dr. Dyb’s Leave Lacking Documentation”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s