Skip to content

Jan 29: Initial Letter

Findlay City Schools Board of Education

January 29, 2024

Mr. Chris Aldrich, President Dr. Karthy Siebenaler Wilson, Vice President Mrs. Susan Russel, Member Ms. Laura Eier, Member Mr. Matt Cooper, Member

Re: FFE Investigation and Administrative Leave of Kevin Manley (CKM): Seeking Clarification and Transparency

Dear Distinguished Members of the Board,

We, a concerned community member and alumnus of Findlay High School, write to you today with some questions regarding the recent Findlay First Edition investigation and the subsequent administrative leave imposed upon Kevin Manley. We are seeking more information and a deeper understanding of the situation.

We appreciate the hard work you all do to keep our schools running smoothly and provide the best possible education for the children in our community. We also believe in fairness and transparency, which is why we have a few questions about the process and some details that haven't quite clicked for us.

We appreciate you taking the time to consider our questions and look forward to your answers.

Thank you for your dedication to our schools and community.

Sincerely,

Rick Eakin John R. Eakin

Attachments

Attached Questions Regarding the Findlay City Schools FFE Investigation and Administrative Leave of Mr. Kevin Manley

1. Definitions

  • FCS: Findlay City Schools.
  • STRS: State Teachers Retirement System.
  • NLRB: National Labor Relations Board.
  • NLRA: National Labor Relations Act.
  • FEA: Findlay Education Association.
  • ORC: Ohio Revised Code.
  • FFE: Findlay First Edition.
  • CKM: Kevin Manley, Director of FFE.
  • ESCCA: Educational Service Center of Central Ohio.

2. Foundational Questions

  • Are students able to schedule “supplemental contract” student activities?
  • What legal, ethical, or FCS policy guidelines, if any, govern the extent to which parents/guardians must comply with activity rules during home gatherings on non-school time?
  • If a coach or advisor under a supplemental contract “discourages” his/her student members of the activity from breaking school rules, municipal laws, and so on, and the member does so, is that coach or advisor to be held responsible for that student’s behavior off-campus, whether alone or with another?
  • If a certified classroom teacher under contract by FCS “discourages” his/her students from breaking school rules, municipal laws, and so on, and the student does so, is that certified classroom teacher to be held responsible for that student’s behavior, whether alone or with another?
  • In light of Section 7 of the 1NLRA and 2ORC Chapter 4117, both of which prohibit interference with employees' right to communicate with union representatives and members about working conditions, how can a blanket directive against "staff" contact during an investigation—potentially encompassing FEA representatives—be justified and avoid constituting an unfair labor practice?

3. On the Investigation into FFE

  • The investigative report emphasizes that CKM was instructed to "discourage" "FFE parties." However, the term "FFE party" is not clearly defined. To ensure proper understanding, could you please provide a specific definition of what constitutes an "FFE party" and what activities or gatherings would not be considered an "FFE party"?
  • What constitutes a “FFE event?”
  • Are “FFE events” scheduled or created exclusively by CKM?

4. On placing CKM on administrative leave

  • CKM's initial administrative leave stemmed from his unauthorized communication regarding the supplemental contract organization investigation. However, the leave was later expanded to include removal from his classroom teaching duties. Given the investigation's focus on the organization, could you please explain the reason behind this broader scope of CKM's administrative leave?
  • Exhibit 7 of the investigative report contains two text messages from CKM to an unidentified recipient. The first message expresses a desire to speak soon, while the second inquires about potential contact from administration. Notably, the report provides no evidence indicating these messages solely pertain to CKM's supplemental contract responsibilities and excludes them from his teaching duties.
    • The investigator fails to establish a foundation linking these messages to FFE specifically. Instead, crucial context is conspicuously absent, leaving interpretations inappropriately skewed towards CKM's supplemental contract responsibilities. What vital details were deliberately excluded that could offer a more complete and balanced picture?
    • Due to the omitted information about the message recipient, can you assure that the individual was not a FEA representative or another member of the FEA?
  • In the context of potential NLRA violations arising from the directive issued to CKM, what burden of proof rests upon FCS to establish that the directive was both narrowly tailored to a legitimate business necessity and minimally intrusive upon CKM's exercise of protected rights, specifically focusing on the right to FEA representation?
  • Did CKM continue to accrue sick leave, personal leave, STRS service days, and other certified teacher contractual benefits during the administrative leave?
  • Following the demands placed on CKM regarding his supplemental contract student organization, might similar standards be implemented for all other employees and organizations operating under supplemental contracts across Findlay City Schools?

5. On Educational Service Center of Ohio’s Investigation Report

  • Who within the FCS school board and FCS administration reviewed and approved the report and its findings prior to its public release?
  • Who is Janice Collette, and how was she chosen to be the investigator?
    • A search of the Educational Service Center of Central Ohio's 3staff directory reveals no record of Janice Collette as an employee or external consultant. (ESCCA - Consultant Search [PDF], 5)
    • Furthermore, Ms. Collette's contact information was absent from both the cover page and her signature at the report's end.
    • The report lacks Ms. Collette's curriculum vitae (CV), a crucial document to establish her competence in conducting the investigation. This is a standard requirement for all experts who intend to present evidence or provide expert testimony under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 26(B)(4) and (5) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(A)(2).
      • The precedent of requiring a CV is important even in non-legal or court case investigations for several reasons:
        • A CV provides a clear picture of an expert's background, education, and experience. It also helps to establish that the expert is not just some random person off the street but has a solid background in the relevant field.
        • By requiring a CV, the investigation is more likely to be thorough and well-researched, as the expert's qualifications have been properly vetted.
      • The investigator explicitly established the preponderance of evidence standard in the report, consistently applying this civil procedure 4rule to substantiate the allegations within; So too, must the procedural rules be applied when assessing the factual accuracy of the report and the credibility of the investigator, agreed?
  • Would an expert investigator typically use proper and professional language, including correct anatomical descriptions or objects imitating those parts, in an investigative report, and could the use of 5slang terms or incorrect terminology undermine the credibility of the report and the investigator?
  • Why did Ms. Collette commence her investigation into FFE and CKM prior to ESCCA being contacted?
    • In Ms. Collette’s report, she stated she “interviewed twenty-seven witnesses between November 27, 2023 and December 6, 2023.”
      However, in an article published in 6The Courier on December 8, 2023, Joseph Weitz, the spokesperson for the ESCCA, stated they were contacted on November 28, 2023 — a day after Ms. Collette claimed to have started investigating FFE and CKM.
  • How was Ms. Collette able to be prepared enough to interview witnesses for an alleged ESCCA investigation on December 6 when ESCCA claims no knowledge of the reason for the investigation to The Courier on December 8?
    • In Ms. Collette’s report, she stated she “interviewed twenty-seven witnesses between November 27, 2023 and December 6, 2023.”
      According to the article published in The Courier on December 8, 2023, Joseph Weitz, spokesperson for the ESCCA, stated they had no documents indicating the reason for the investigation into FFE or CKM. This article was written two days after Ms. Collette claimed she completed 27 witness interviews.

  • Could you clarify why the investigative report should not be disregarded, considering the lack of transparency, the inability to establish the investigator's credibility, and the discrepancies in the timeline that cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the entire report?

    • An argument can be made that the investigative report should be discarded due to the following reasons:
      • The absence of any record of Janice Collette as an employee or external consultant at the Educational Service Center of Central Ohio raises questions about her qualifications and credibility as an investigator.
      • The absence of a curriculum vitae for Ms. Colette, in conjunction with the failure to establish her competence in conducting the investigation, contravenes the standard requirement in both legal and non-legal investigations to ensure objectivity and credibility.
      • The report's assertion that Ms. Collette commenced her investigation on November 27, 2023, and continued interviewing witnesses until December 6, 2023, stands in stark contrast to the ESCCA’s claim of being contacted on November 28, 2023, and remaining uninformed of the investigation's purpose on December 8, 2023. This glaring discrepancy casts substantial doubt upon the legitimacy of the investigative process and the credibility of the report itself.
      • The absence of Ms. Collette's contact information, coupled with the lack of transparency surrounding her selection as an investigator, serve to further undermine the credibility of the report.

  • Why would FCS school board adopt a report containing verifiable errors as an acceptable report when it would not tolerate such errors from an FCS student?

  • What would be the consequences for releasing a flawed investigative report to the public, considering the potential damage to reputation, legal action, financial impact, and the need for policy changes and community response?
  • Who would be held responsible and face consequences for not only accepting the findings of a flawed report, but also approving its public release, and what types of consequences might they face?

Reply we received from Chris Aldrich, FCS Board President

"I fully support the decisions and actions of our Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and our Building Principal, and I am proud of the actions that they took to ensure the integrity of FFE."

Note

None of the questions raised in our letter have been answered to this day.

  1. National Labor Relations Board, "Interfering with Employee Rights: Section 7 & 8(a)(1)," https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/interfering-with-employee-rights-section-7-8a1 (accessed January 27, 2024). ↩

  2. Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 4117, Public Employees' Collective Bargaining, https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/chapter-4117 (accessed January 27, 2024). ↩

  3. ESC of Central Ohio, Staff Directory, (2024), https://www.escco.org/StaffDirectory.aspx. ↩

  4. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301 (2024), https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_301. ↩

  5. "Findlay City School District Investigation Report, First Edition Show Choir, Page 7: Sexual overtones." ↩

  6. "Choir investigation costs district." The Courier, 8 Dec. 2023, https://thecourier.com/news/494278/choir-investigation-costs-district/. ↩