COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OLDHAM COUNTY

CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE HEARING

ANNE COORSSEN PETITIONER

v. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER

OLDHAM COUNTY SCHOOLS RESPONDENT

******
This matter is governed by KRS 161.011 and was submitted by the parties to a

hearing in accordance with principles of due process and the administrative regulations of

the Board of Education of Oldham County (the “Board”). The parties retained retired Judge

Tom McDonald (the “Hearing Officer”) to serve as an independent hearing officer. The

hearing was held over the course of two days between January 9 and 10, 2023. The

attorneys for both parties were present during both days of the hearing. During the

hearing, the Hearing Officer heard testimony from 11 witnesses and admitted 20 exhibits

into evidence. Now that the hearing has concluded, the matter is ripe for a decision.

I. Summary of the Facts

Anne Coorssen has served as the general counsel and director of administrative and

legal services at Oldham County Schools (the “Board”) for approximately the past 18 years.

The responsibilities of Ms. Coorssen’s position include serving as a legal advisor to the

Board, the superintendent of Oldham County Schools, and all district and central office

staff, providing training to staff concerning statutory, regulatory, and other compliance

issues, and reviewing, drafting, revising, and preparing the Board’s policies, administrative

regulations, and forms used in the school district. See Hr’g Exs. 2, 3, & 20.

Page 1 of 19
 On July 2, 2021, Jason Radford was appointed by the Board to serve as the

superintendent of Oldham County Schools. As the superintendent, Dr. Radford operates as

the executive agent of the Board. See KRS 160.370(1). Dr. Radford also is responsible for all

personnel actions, including suspensions and terminations. See id.

On September 16, 2022, Dr. Radford sent a letter to Ms. Coorssen terminating her

employment on the general grounds of inefficiency, neglect of duty, and “other legal

cause.”1 See Hr’g Ex. 1 at 1. Dr. Radford’s letter sets forth the factual basis for his charges

against Ms. Coorssen, which, for purposes of analysis, can easily be divided into four

separate issues. See id. at 1-2. The first issue pertains to Ms. Coorssen’s response to an

organizational health survey initiated by Dr. Radford in the spring of 2022 (the “Survey

Issue”), the second to Ms. Coorssen’s role in drafting a letter that provided advice to

employees residing outside of Oldham County concerning the possible tax consequences of

an enhanced tuition discount approved by the Board (the “Tuition Issue”), the third to Ms.

Coorssen’s failure to consult with the Board concerning a change in her job description and

salary in the 2018-2019 school year (the “Salary Issue”), and the fourth to Ms. Coorssen’s

interpretation of the Board’s attendance policies related to excused absences (the

“Attendance Issue). See id.

1 Ms. Coorssen’s termination did not go into effect immediately because of her right to a hearing before an
independent hearing officer as to whether her termination was warranted. See Hr’g Ex. 1 at 2-3. Ms. Coorssen,
however, was suspended by Mr. Radford immediately without pay pending the hearing. See id. at 3.
Page 2 of 19
 A. The Survey Issue

With respect to the Survey Issue, Dr. Radford’s letter to Ms. Coorssen states as

follows:

More specifically, in the Spring of 2022, a district services (organizational

health) survey was completed. Before I even began to discuss the results, you
stated words to the effect that nothing in the survey results would change
your behavior, and that the survey was “junk” and “trash” and should not be
relied on. While you later apologized to me for your comments, you have not
taken any steps or communicated with me in any way to establish a plan for
improvement based on the feedback from the survey. This initial response
and lack of subsequent action exemplifies inefficiency and neglect of duty
and disrupts and undermines the ongoing work of the school district.

Hr’g Ex. 1 at 1.

During the hearing, Dr. Radford testified that he initiated the survey for employees

to obtain feedback concerning their job performance. Similar to the allegations in his letter,

he stated that he met with Ms. Coorssen on June 3, 2022 to the discuss the results of the

survey and that he was “shocked” by Ms. Coorssen’s behavior during the meeting, including

her comments that the survey was “junk” and not going to change her behavior. He

acknowledged that, two days after the meeting, Ms. Coorssen sent an email to him to

apologize for her behavior and that he accepted her apology. See Hr’g Ex. 15. He also

acknowledged having another meeting with Ms. Coorssen on July 5, 2022 during which he

gave her a positive performance evaluation and did not bring up the incident that occurred

at their meeting only a month earlier. See also Hr’g Ex. 16.

Ms. Coorssen testified that there was widespread sentiment among the

administrative staff at Oldham County Schools that the timing of the survey initiated by Dr.

Radford was inappropriate. She stated that she had many concerns about the survey,

Page 3 of 19
including that it had only five questions, did not contain any definitions or other

parameters, and failed to provide guidance as to who should be evaluated or by whom. She

said that she expressed her concerns about the survey to Dr. Radford immediately after it

was completed and reiterated them again during their meeting on June 3, 2022. She

acknowledged that she felt badly about how she behaved during the meeting and said that

she sent the email to Mr. Radford on June 5, 2022 to apologize for her behavior.

Stephanie Anderson is the former chief financial officer of Oldham County Schools.

She testified that Dr. Radford was a proponent of the survey that was conducted in the

spring of 2022 and viewed it as a way to create a “strategic vision” for the school district

and to show the areas where the performance of employees needed to improve. Similar to

Ms. Coorssen’s testimony, she stated that she and many other employees had concerns and

expressed displeasure about the survey before it was conducted because they believed that

it would prove to be divisive and did not come with adequate qualitative guidelines. She

testified that she pressed her concerns about the survey in a meeting with Dr. Radford and

a representative from the firm that designed the survey and that, despite her concerns, Dr.

Radford insisted on proceeding with the survey.

Jane Easton is Mr. Radford’s administrative assistant. She testified that she

scheduled a meeting of the members of Dr. Radford’s executive team, including Ms.

Coorssen, to discuss the results of the survey. She recounted that, during the meeting, Ms.

Coorssen and several other members of the executive team stated that they did not like the

survey and expressed other negative comments about it. Ms. Easton also stated that, on

Page 4 of 19
several occasions, other administrative personnel besides Ms. Coorssen came to her with

complaints about the survey.

The only other witness to testify concerning the Survey Issue was Leslie McKinney,

the former director of academic support at Oldham County Schools. She stated that she and

another employee complained to Dr. Radford about the survey. She recalled how

devastated a co-worker, Melissa Abernathy, was when she found out about the results of

the survey. Ms. McKinney stated that, shortly thereafter, she met with Dr. Radford to

express her concerns about the survey. She testified that she became very upset during the

meeting and told Dr. Radford that she thought the survey was “worthless.” Unlike Ms.

Coorssen, Ms. McKinney did not suffer any adverse employment actions as a result of the

comments that she made to Dr. Radford about the survey.

B. The Tuition Issue

With respect to the Tuition Issue, Dr. Radford’s letter to Ms. Coorssen states as
follows:

Earlier this summer (i.e. the summer of 2022), I recommended to the Board
of Education to provide a greater tuition discount for children of Oldham
County School District employees who live outside the county. While I
appreciate and accept that there can be differences of opinion about the
wisdom of such a decision, your actions following that Board vote
significantly eroded my trust and confidence in you as part of my executive
team. Specifically, without consulting with me in any way, you took it upon
yourself to prepare a letter for distribution to the effected (sic.) employees to
inform them of possible tax consequences of the increased tuition discount.
The tax information you provided in that August 4, 2022, letter was
inaccurate, as recently confirmed by the District’s independent auditor. More
significantly, you caused or allowed the letter to be distributed with my
signature even though you knew I had never seen the letter, you knew or
should have known I was unaware of the specific contents of the letter, and
you knew or should have known I disagreed with the information being
distributed in the letter. When questioned about this, you expressed the
belief that the matter was urgent and the belief that I was too busy to take
Page 5 of 19
 care of the task of notifying our employees of this matter. It remains unclear
to me how you determined I was too busy to address this matter when you
never spoke to me about it before the letter was distributed. This act, in
addition to exemplifying inefficiency and neglect of duty, constitutes a
significant act of dishonesty and an ethical breach by causing those affected
employees to believe that they had received a letter from me when you knew
or should have known that to be false.

Hr’g Ex. 1 at 1. See also Hr’g Ex. 11.

During the hearing, Dr. Radford testified that he first learned about the August 4,

2022 letter on August 9, 2022. 2 He stated that Ms. Coorssen did not show the letter to him

before it was sent out to employees. He also recounted how, after the letter was sent out, he

eventually received an email from an internal auditor informing him that the enhanced

tuition discount approved by the Board was not a taxable event.

Ms. Coorssen testified that she first learned about the enhanced tuition discount on

July 21 or 22, 2022. She explained that, at some point between July 21 and August 4, 2022,

Ms. Anderson, then the chief financial officer of Oldham County Schools, was advised by an

IRS agent that the enhanced tuition discount could give rise to adverse tax consequences

for employees. Ms. Coorssen recalled that, around the same time, she was contacted by

Sheila Stewart, the administrative assistant to the director of pupil personnel, about

helping her draft a letter to employees to inform them about the enhanced tuition discount

and advise them about its possible tax consequences. Ms. Coorssen stated that Ms. Stewart

was the one who sent the August 4, 2022 letter to employees and that Ms. Stewart did so

without showing her a copy of the letter first. Ms. Coorssen testified that she was unaware

that Ms. Stewart had sent out the August 4, 2022 letter until August 9 or 10, 2022.
2 On the same day, Dr. Radford sent a handwritten note to Ms. Coorssen commending her on her service
without mentioning anything about the August 4, 2022 letter. See Hr’g Ex. 18. Mr. Radford testified that he did
not know about the August 4, 2022 letter at the time that he sent the note to Ms. Coorssen.
Page 6 of 19
 Ms. Stewart testified that one of her job duties involves helping to coordinate the

tuition discount program and that she usually sends out a letter every spring under the

superintendent’s name to inform employees who reside outside of Oldham County what

their discount will be for the upcoming year. She recounted how the Board approved an

enhanced tuition discount on July 25, 2022 that required her to make changes to her usual

letter. She stated that she asked Ms. Coorssen for assistance in drafting the letter. Ms.

Stewart recalled that Ms. Coorssen sent an email to her on August 1, 2022 suggesting

language that she later incorporated into the second paragraph of the August 4, 2022 letter.

See also Hr’g Ex. 12. In the email, Ms. Coorssen stated that she was waiting for more

information from Ms. Anderson concerning the possible tax consequences of the enhanced

tuition discount. See id. Similar to Ms. Coorssen’s testimony, Ms. Stewart stated that she

was the one who completed the final draft of the August 4, 2022 letter and that she did not

send a copy of it to Ms. Coorssen before she sent it out to employees. Ms. Stewart testified

that she later learned that Dr. Radford, like Ms. Coorssen, had not seen the August 4, 2022

letter before she sent it out to employees. Ms. Stewart also recounted how she had

discussions with Dr. Radford on August 17, 2022 and again on October 4, 2022 during

which she informed him that she had drafted and sent out the August 4, 2022 letter.

Ms. Anderson was the only other witness to testify concerning the Tuition Issue. She

stated that Dr. Radford’s executive team discussed increasing tuition discounts for

employees who resided outside of Oldham County and that the Board’s approval of the

enhanced tuition discount moved too fast to permit much research into the possible tax

consequences. She testified that an IRS agent initially told her that the enhanced tuition

Page 7 of 19
discount constituted a taxable fringe benefit. She also stated Dr. Radford was at first

uncertain about whether the enhanced tuition discount would have tax consequences for

employees but that an internal auditor later determined that it would not.

C. The Salary Issue

With respect to the salary issue, Dr. Radford’s letter to Ms. Coorssen states as
follows:

I have been provided information that since the 2018-19 school year, you
have received a higher salary than the amount specified for your position in
the Board-approved salary schedule. Your contract specifically provides that
you are to be compensated according to the salary schedule approved by the
Board. When the Board modified your job description in 2018 to provide
additional days, no modified salary schedule was presented to the Board for
approval at that time. You knew or should have known of this fact at the time.
Since your job duties include serving as legal advisor to the Board and to
district and central office staff and providing guidance regarding contract
matters, you should have brought this discrepancy to the attention of the
Board and others at the time. When you were questioned about this, you
expressed that this was the Board’s responsibility, not yours. This response
displays a complete disregard for the responsibilities listed in your job
description. Your failure to promptly bring this discrepancy to the attention
of the Board at the time it arose constitutes neglect of duty and appears to be
in violation of specific ethical duties owed to the Board of Education as your
client as it concerns a matter in which you personally financially benefited to
the detriment of the Board.

Hr’g Ex. 1 at 2. See also Hr’g Exs. 6, 7, & 14.

During the hearing, Dr. Radford testified that he first discovered the change in Ms.

Coorssen’s job description and salary in July 2022. Though acknowledging that, prior to

2018, Ms. Coorssen’s salary had been calculated by referencing the salary schedule for a

certified employee rather than for a classified employee, he expressed concerns about the

increase in Ms. Coorssen’s salary being based in part on her having 20 years of teaching

experience, which she does not possess. He stated that he spoke with Ms. Coorssen about

Page 8 of 19
the issue and, in doing so, told her that she had a responsibility to advise the Board

regarding the legality and appropriateness of the increase in her salary. He also opined that

making salary increases retroactive, as Ms. Coorssen’s was, was not good policy.

Ms. Coorssen testified that when she started at Oldham County Schools in June 2004,

it was with the understanding that she would receive a salary at the level of a principal, a

doctoral stipend, and credit for 13 years of experience. She stated that, in her 18 years at

Oldham County Schools, she has served under six different superintendents and never

received a poor performance evaluation. She recalled that, prior to 2016, the Board had not

approved a salary schedule for legal counsel. For that reason, she explained that, as her

salary has increased over the past 18 years in line with her performance, it has, except for

one year, been according to the salary schedule for a certified employee in a comparable

position. She stated that she was not notified in advance of the Board’s decision to move

her to the salary schedule for the Director I position in October 2018. She also was able to

list several other classified positions that have received salaries based on the salary

schedules for certified positions.

William G. Schultz is the former superintendent of Oldham County Schools and Dr.

Radford’s immediate predecessor in that position. He testified that he had a very positive

working relationship with Ms. Coorssen and always gave her stellar performance

evaluations. He recalled that, in October 2018, he felt that Ms. Coorssen deserved an

increase in her salary and asked the Board to do so. See also Hr’g Ex. 7. He stated that, at the

time, at least two other classified employees received salaries based on the salary

schedules for certified employees and that this practice was a longstanding tradition at

Page 9 of 19
Oldham County Schools. He testified that he did not ask Ms. Coorssen to review her new

salary schedule before the Board decided to approve it. He could not recall ever being

informed of any problems with Ms. Coorssen’s salary or any policy prohibiting retroactive

salary increases like Ms. Coorssen’s. He explained that Ms. Coorssen received a credit for 20

years of experience to take into account her time in private practice before joining Oldham

County Schools and that the increase in her salary was to ensure that her compensation

remained competitive.

Richard Graviss is the director of personnel at Oldham County Schools and has

responsibility for ensuring that employees receive compensation based on the correct

salary schedule. He testified concerning the differences between certified and classified

employees and explained how each class of employee usually receives compensation based

on separate salary schedules. He recounted how the Board changed Ms. Coorssen’s salary

schedule to Director I in October 2018, leading to an increase in her salary that the Board

expressly made retroactive to July 1, 2018. He stated that the change required crediting Ms.

Coorssen for having 20 years of teaching experience. See also Hr’g Ex. 5. He testified that he

did not express any concerns to the former superintendent about the increase in Ms.

Coorssen’s salary, that the process for increasing employee compensation at Oldham

County Schools has been fairly loose, and that many other classified employees like Ms.

Coorssen have received salaries based on the salary schedules for certified employees. He,

however, stated that retroactive salary increases like Ms. Coorssen’s were somewhat

unusual.

Page 10 of 19
 Julie Fowler is the payroll officer at Oldham County Schools. Like Mr. Graviss, she

recounted how the Board moved Ms. Coorssen to the salary schedule for a Director I

position in October 2018. Ms. Fowler stated that the change required her to re-calculate Ms.

Coorssen’s salary because no specific salary schedule existed for her position, see also Hr’g

Exs. 9 & 10, and that similar changes had been made by the Board in the past. Ms. Fowler

could not recall having any discussions about why the salary schedule for the general

counsel position was not utilized by the Board, which, she explained, would have obviated

the need to create an entirely new salary schedule for Ms. Coorssen. Similar to Mr. Graviss’

testimony, Ms. Fowler testified that it was not unusual for the Board to base the salaries of

classified employees on the salary schedules for certified employees.

Ms. Anderson was the only other witness to testify concerning the Salary Issue. She

stated that, as the chief financial officer of Oldham County Schools, she was informed of the

Board’s decision to increase Ms. Coorssen’s salary, see also Hr’g Ex. 8, and that it was not

unusual. Unlike Mr. Graviss’ testimony, she testified that retroactive salary increases like

Ms. Coorssen’s were not abnormal. She also stated that Ms. Coorssen never prepared a

salary schedule for herself and did not think that Ms. Coorssen had access to the

information that she would have needed to do so.

D. The Attendance Issue

With respect to the Attendance Issue, Dr. Radford’s letter to Ms. Coorssen states as
follows:

Lastly, as we were preparing for the 2022-23 school term, I requested you to
provide a legal update to school personnel. Despite the fact there was
nothing on the agenda for that training relating to student attendance or
regarding doctor notes or parent notes, it is my understanding a question
was raised regarding that topic. Rather than respond that you would need to
Page 11 of 19
 discuss the issue with the Director of Student Services or with me prior to
providing guidance, I have been informed that you told the school personnel
attending that training that the district would adopt a stricter interpretation
of our absence/truancy policy, specifically relating to students missing
school for therapy appointments. I have confirmed with the Director of
Student Services that you did not discuss this with him before that training,
and you certainly did not discuss it with me. Your job description requires
you to serve as an advisor to me and to other district staff, and to advise us
on interpretation of laws and regulations affecting the school district. Before
instructing school personnel regarding this change in interpretation or
application of the attendance policy, even if you believed this was mandated
by any change in law or due to a lack of compliance with existing law, this
should have been discussed by you with the executive team before any
change was announced to school personnel. Instead, you undertook a
decision-making role rather than an advisory role. This action also had the
effect of potentially interfering with the statutory role of the director of pupil
personnel relating to truancy. This action constituted inefficiency and neglect
of duty and interfered with the administration of the school district.

Hr’g Ex. 1 at 2. See also Hr’g Ex. 13.

During the hearing, Dr. Radford testified that he did not approve of Ms. Coorssen’s

interpretation of the school district’s attendance policies so as to make mental health

appointments unexcused absences in the absence of a doctor’s note. He stated that Ms.

Coorssen unilaterally made the decision to tighten the Board’s attendance policies and that

he later was successful in pushing for the adoption of a less stringent approach. He,

however, admitted that Ms. Coorssen’s stance was consistent with the school district’s

policies up until at least August 2022.

Ms. Coorssen testified that Ms. Radford’s allegations with respect to the Attendance

Issue reference a meeting on March 23, 2022 and that she did not prepare any of the

materials concerning the school district’s attendance policies that were on display for

administrative staff during the meeting. She stated that a slide presented by Eric Daviss, the

director of student services at Oldham County Schools with responsibility over issues
Page 12 of 19
relating to student attendance, expresses the same view that mental health appointments

constitute unexcused absences without a doctor’s note. See also Hr’g Ex. 17. She also

recalled Mr. Davis having expressed the same view during another staff meeting on June

10, 2022 before she did so in response to a question from one of the attendees. 3

Mr. Davis explained that, in the spring of 2022, an issue was raised by the

administrative staff at Oldham County Schools concerning a large number of students

missing instructions to attend mental health appointments and that the issue was

discussed again at the end of the school year. He recalled Ms. Coorssen being present at the

meeting on June 10, 2022 where it was reiterated that a doctor’s note was necessary for a

mental health appointment to constitute an excused absence. He stated that Dr. Radford

was present for these discussions and later persuaded the Board to adopt a more lenient

approach.

The only other witness to testify concerning the Attendance Issue was Jill Canuel, a

mental health consultant for Oldham County Schools. She stated that she was present at the

meeting in June 2022 and that Ms. Coorssen’s comments about the necessity of a

physician’s note to excuse a student’s absence to attend a mental health appointment was

not part of a formal presentation but rather made by her in response to a question from a

member of the audience. She testified that the school district’s policy concerning mental

health appointments remained the same through at least August 2022.

3 In addition, Ms. Coorssen testified that, during the meeting, she explained to attendees what forms parents
needed to use to request additional excused absences for mental health appointments. See Hr’g Ex. 19.
Page 13 of 19
II. Legal Analysis

The parties agree that, as the general counsel and director of administrative and

legal services for Oldham County Schools, Ms. Coorssen meets the definition of a “classified

employee” under KRS 161.011(1). That statute defines a “classified employee” as “an

employee of a local district who is not required to have certification for [her] position as

provided in KRS 161.020[.]” KRS 161.011(5) requires local school districts to enter into

written contracts with classified employees and to renew annually the contracts of

employees like Ms. Coorssen who have four continuous years of service. Nothing in KRS

161.011 prevents a superintendent of a school district from “terminating a classified

employee for incompetency, neglect of duty, insubordination, inefficiency, misconduct,

immorality, or other reasonable grounds which are specifically contained in board policy.”

KRS 161.011(7).

By virtue of KRS 161.011, classified employees with four continuous years of service

have a protected property interest in continued employment that may not be deprived in

the absence of constitutionally adequate procedures. See OAG 05-006 & Hr’g Ex. 4. See also

Mitchell v. Fankhauser, 375 F.3d 477, 478-79(6th Cir. 2004). At a minimum, due process

requires that a classified employee who has been dismissed by a superintendent for cause

be permitted to attend and participate in a hearing before an independent decision-maker.

See Mitchell, 375 F.3d at 480-81 (quoting Carter v. W. Reserve Psychiatric Habilitation Ctr.,

767 F.2d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1985)). At the hearing, the employee may, with the assistance of

counsel, call witnesses and produce evidence in her own behalf and challenge the evidence

against her, as Ms. Coorssen did in this case. See id. The role of the independent decision-

Page 14 of 19
maker is to make a determination, based on the evidence from the hearing, as to whether

the employee’s termination was warranted under KRS 161.01(7). See OAG 05-006 at 6-7.

Having reviewed the evidence from the hearing, the Hearing Officer cannot sustain

any of the grounds set forth by Dr. Radford in his letter to Ms. Coorssen on September 16,

2022 to justify his decision to terminate her employment. With respect to the Survey Issue,

the record shows that Ms. Coorssen’s concerns about the survey initiated by Dr. Radford in

the spring of 2022 were widespread among other members of the administrative staff at

Oldham County Schools. The record further shows that several other members of the

administrative staff voiced their concerns about the survey directly to Dr. Radford in a

manner that was not dissimilar to Ms. Coorssen’s conduct without being subject to any

adverse employment action. The credibility of Dr. Radford’s complaints about the

comments that Ms. Coorssen made during the meeting on June 3, 2022 is further

undermined by the positive performance evaluation that he gave to her on July 5, 2022

without mentioning anything about her earlier comments. See Hr’g Ex. 16. Nor is there any

evidence in the record indicating that Dr. Radford ever instructed Ms. Coorssen to establish

a plan to improve her performance based on the feedback that she received from the

survey, as he seems to represent in his letter. For all of these reasons, the evidence does not

support Dr. Radford’s decision to terminate Ms. Coorssen’s employment based, either in

part or at all, on the Survey Issue.

The evidence in the record also does not support Dr. Radford’s decision to take

adverse employment action against Ms. Coorssen because of the Tuition Issue. The record

shows that Ms. Coorssen did not complete, affix Dr. Radford’s signature to, or publish the

Page 15 of 19
final draft of the August 4, 2022 letter, as Dr. Radford suggests in his letter terminating her

employment. All Ms. Coorssen did was suggest language that Ms. Stewart later decided to

incorporate into the August 4, 2022 letter without showing it to Ms. Coorssen first, even

though Ms. Coorssen’s email to Ms. Stewart on August 1, 2022 plainly indicates that she did

not intend for her advice to be published immediately because she needed additional

information from Ms. Anderson. See Hr’g Ex. 12. Though an internal auditor later

determined that the enhanced tuition discount would not give rise to adverse tax

consequences, the Hearing Officer cannot find fault in Ms. Coorssen’s advice based on the

information that Ms. Anderson had earlier received from an IRS agent. More importantly,

the record shows that Ms. Coorssen did not authorize or even know the precise contents of

the August 4, 2022 letter until after Ms. Stewart sent it out to employees, which makes Dr.

Radford’s later decision to punish Ms. Coorssen for the contents of the letter entirely

arbitrary and unjustifiable based on the facts. For all of these reasons, the evidence in the

record wholly refutes Dr. Radford’s allegations concerning the Tuition Issue.

With respect to the Salary Issue, the record shows that, for almost her entire career

at Oldham County Schools, Ms. Coorssen has been compensated by the Board based on the

salary schedules for certified employees without any problems until Dr. Radford

discovered the most recent change in her job description and salary in July 2022. 4 The

record further shows that, for understandable reasons, Ms. Coorssen was not involved in

any way in the Board’s decision to change her job description and increase her salary in

4 Though Ms. Coorssen does not raise the issue, the Hearing Officer questions whether the Board’s history of
compensating Ms. Coorssen according to the salary schedules of certified employees equitably estops it from
raising the issue as a justification for her termination. See Spalding v. Marion County Bd. of Educ., 452 S.W.3d
611, 616-17(Ky. App. 2014).
Page 16 of 19
October 2018, so any suggestion that Ms. Coorssen obtained her most recent raise on

account of any ethical breach or overreaching on her part is not supported by the evidence.

Equally as important, none of the witnesses called by the Board during the hearing were

able to identify in what way the change to Ms. Coorssen’s job description and salary

violated the law.5 No other witness besides Dr. Radford thought the change was unusual or

expressed any problem with it. Only Dr. Radford and Mr. Graviss expressed concerns about

retroactive salary increases as a matter of policy but were unable to identify any rule that

prohibited them. In short, neither the facts nor the law justify Dr. Radford’s concerns about

the legality or appropriateness of the change in Ms. Coorssen’s job description and salary

or support his decision to terminate her employment because of her failure to consult with

the Board concerning those issues.

Though the evidence shows that none of the issues raised by Dr. Radford justify his

decision to terminate Ms. Coorssen’s employment, the Attendance Issue is the one with

perhaps the least merit. After reviewing the slide that Mr. Davis prepared and presented to

administrative staff at the meeting on March 23, 2022, Dr. Radford effectively conceded

that, among the members of his administrative staff, the prevailing view of the Boards’

attendance policies, which continued up until at least August 2022, had been that absences

5 KRS 161.020(1)(a) does state that no person shall be eligible to “hold the position of superintendent,
principal, teacher, supervisor, director of pupil personnel, or other public school position for which
certificates may be issued” or “receive salary for services rendered in the position,” unless she “holds a
certificate of legal qualifications for the position, issued by the Education Professional Standards Board.”
Though the Board does not argue that Ms. Coorssen’s salary arrangement violates KRS 161.020(1)(a), such an
argument would, in any event, be unavailing because Ms. Coorssen does not hold and has not received a
salary for services that she has rendered in a certified position. Rather, as the general counsel and director of
administrative and legal services for Oldham County Schools, Ms. Coorssen holds and has been receiving a
salary for services that she has rendered in a classified position. The statute also says nothing about
compensating a classified employee based on the salary schedule for a certified position, which is all that the
Board has done in Ms. Coorssen’s case.
Page 17 of 19
for mental health appointments were unexcused without a doctor’s note. See Hr’g Ex. 17.

Rather than unilaterally making policy as alleged by Dr. Radford, Ms. Coorssen’s comments

at the meetings on March 23 and July 10, 2022 accurately reflected prevailing policy. See id.

For that reason, the evidence does not support Dr. Radford’s decision to terminate Ms.

Coorssen’s employment based, either in part or at all, on the Attendance Issue.

For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Officer determines that Dr. Radford’s

decision to terminate Ms. Coorssen’s employment was not warranted under KRS

161.011(7). The evidence does not support Dr. Radford’s allegations of inefficiency, neglect

of duty, and other misconduct on Ms. Coorssen’s part. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming

in showing that Ms. Coorssen committed no acts of misconduct whatsoever. Dr. Radford’s

unwarranted decision to terminate Ms. Coorssen’s employment constitutes a violation of

her rights under KRS 161.011 that must be rectified by the Board reinstating Ms. Coorssen

to her position with full backpay.

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Dr. Radford’s decision to terminate

Ms. Coorssen’s employment be REVERSED as an unlawful violation of her rights under KRS

161.011. Ms. Coorssen is entitled to immediate reinstatement to her position as general

counsel and director of administrative and legal services at Oldham County Schools and to

full backpay from September 16, 2022 until the present date. This is a final and appealable

Order.

___________________________________
TOM MCDONALD
HEARING OFFICER

Page 18 of 19
cc: Jeffrey S. Walther
Grant R. Chenoweth

Page 19 of 19