Board member Tonya Kelly defends vote, says LETRS training did not benefit her employer

Tonya Kelly, a member of the Derby Board of Education, used her board report on Aug. 4 to respond to public accusations that a July 7 informal vote on funding had benefited her employer. Kelly said the July vote concerned Title funding and a separate ESSER-funded reading training program, LETRS, and not her employer or any personal financial interest.

Kelly said the board had previously adopted an official resolution to exceed the revenue-neutral tax rate by a 7-0 vote and that the July informal vote was about directing staff on how to cover items that had been cut from Title funding. She told the board and the public that LETRS cohorts were funded through ESSER grants, that Orion (her employer) received no payment from Derby for the Lehi LETRS cohorts, and that she receives a salary from Orion but no commission from curriculum vendors.

Kelly said Kansas had required certain elementary special-education and Title teachers to obtain a science-of-reading certificate, and LETRS had been the recommended route to meet that requirement. She said service centers and districts had shared cohorts statewide and that Derby had enrolled cohorts that used trainers from Orion, but that those cohorts were funded by ESSER and not by the district’s Title money. She further said Derby would have local certified LETRS facilitators going forward and so “there are no future LETRS cohorts led by Orion for Derby,” and therefore the July 7 informal vote “had no benefit to me or the company I work for.”

Board members followed Kelly’s remarks with a discussion of optics and process. One board member suggested recusal in future votes where a member’s employment could create a perceived conflict. Kelly acknowledged she had not explicitly stated her employment relationship during the earlier conversation and apologized for not doing so. Another board member urged clearer public explanations of technical funding sources so residents unfamiliar with state and federal grant streams could better understand the distinction among ESSER, Title, and other funds.

The board did not take any formal action on Kelly’s remarks at the meeting; the discussion remained part of the board member reports.

Kelly concluded by reiterating the district’s focus on student outcomes and saying she would answer questions outside the meeting.

Ending: The board’s discussion clarified that the July 7 informal vote related to district budgeting questions about Title-funded items and separately to ESSER-funded LETRS training; no board action was taken on the matter at the Aug. 4 meeting.