My formal ethics complaint against the charter-backed Jefferson superintendent Eydie Tricquet

Education Commissioner/former Academica employee Manny Diaz has complete political responsibility for how Big Charter's super is sabotaging Jefferson's school and community progress. What will he do?

The Jefferson County School District is essentially one school — a single K-12 campus with fewer than 800 students. So the principal who runs that school has far more direct impact on the performance/evaluation of the “district” than a superintendent does. It’s just a fact of size.

That’s why this recent glowing article in the Tallahassee Democrat about Jefferson’s post-charter rebirth and progress focused largely on K-12 Principal Jackie Pons, the former elected Leon County superintendent, and the teachers and staff at the school. As you can see in the headline and subhead above, the performance of Jefferson “schools” actually depends entirely the what happens at the Jefferson “school.”

It’s really quite the feel-good story: Pons comes out of retirement, in a job he’s vastly overqualified for, and helps create a better post-charter-scam foundation for the future in Jefferson County.

The problem is: the charter scam isn’t entirely done.

The political forces that imposed the charter grift era on Jefferson County, which include current Florida Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz, left behind their handpicked superintendent: Eydie Tricquet.

I documented Big Charter’s pivotal political support for Tricquet in her 2020 election in this article. In that same article, I documented her nearly $200,000 wasteful spending in the last year on companies tied to a “professional friend” and — in some cases — hidden from the elected School Board.

When you understand that the Jefferson schools is really just one school (now competently led at the principal level), you begin to understand how damaging it is for Big Charter’s elected superintendent to waste almost $200,000 on a “professional friend.” Jefferson cannot afford that kind of crony-based waste.

That’s one reason I’m filing a formal ethics complaint based on my earlier reporting. I’m also doing this to put Florida’s state government and Education Commissioner Manny Diaz publicly on the hook for the mess they created in Jefferson County, which is otherwise improving itself.

Manny Diaz has responsibility for cleaning his own mess and freeing Jefferson fully

Diaz is perhaps more responsible than anyone else for the charter grift of Jefferson County. As a legislator, he helped engineer the charter takeover of Jefferson. And the lucrative contract for operating the school went to a charter company owned by Diaz’s longtime employer, Academica. Full documentation of all that here.

Sen. Manny Diaz blames *the people of Jefferson County* for failing his employer's charter school. Let's audit that.

To be clear, I don’t see evidence that Big Charter and/or Diaz is directing Tricquet’s wasteful spending today. I think Big Charter has washed its hands of its epic failure/disaster/grift in Jefferson. They want to pretend like they never heard of Jefferson County or the DoE/Jefferson scandal. But Tricquet is their legacy; and they made possible everything she is doing.

The community, teachers, principal, and elected School Board that have fought so hard remake Jefferson schools shouldn’t be punished for the sabotaging superintendent Big Charter left behind.

I also want the Ethics Commission to clarify the circumstances under which any superintendent can can execute and pay contracts under $25,000 on their own authority, without notifying the elected School Board or seeking approval. I think it’s an important issue that is somewhat vague in statute/policy and begs for common sense interpretation.

The Ethics Commission, of course, cannot confirm the existence of this complaint until the Commission decides if there is probable cause that a violation occurred. As the complainant, I’m not bound by that confidentiality requirement. And I think it’s important for the people of Jefferson County to see it.

The complaint itself is a condensed version of reporting I’ve already published, compared to Jefferson County’s own school purchasing policies.

Find the text of my complaint below the line.

---

This complaint focuses on Jefferson County Superintendent of Schools Eydie Tricquet. It alleges, with documentation, the following ethical violations: misuse of public position, abuse of public position, and conflicting employment or contractual relationship.

It begins with Jefferson County School Board policy 6320, which aligns with Florida Law. The policy states the following. Note the part in bold:

“6320 - PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING FOR COMMODITIES AND CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

Any School Board employee who has purchasing authority shall consider first the interests of the Board in all purchases and seek to obtain the maximum value for each dollar expended; not solicit or accept any gifts or gratuities from present or potential suppliers which might influence or appear to influence purchasing decisions; and refrain from any private business or professional activity that might present a conflict of interest in making purchasing decisions on behalf of the Board.”

The fact record of this complaint shows that Tricquet repeatedly engaged in “private business or professional activity” that presented a conflict of interest in making purchasing decisions on behalf of the board. She has been in obvious violation of School District policy.

Key facts:

The Amplio, Lexonik, Steve Ruder conflict

Since November 17, 2022, elected Jefferson County Superintendent Eydie Tricquet has steered expenditure of at least $193,588.67 in scarce Jefferson County school funding to two companies associated with her “professional friend” Steve Ruder (Lexonik and Amplio) – and also to Ruder himself for “strategic planning” services. Tricquet described Ruder as a “professional friend” during an interview with your complainant. The interview occurred on January 14, 2024.

Here is a list of payments and dates, which can be verified by the Jefferson School District.

Only the spending with Amplio was brought to the School Board for approval. And that “pilot” project was stopped after a few months because of runaway expense.

Tricquet told me on Jan. 14 that Ruder was the driving force for all three lines of business with Jefferson, although he left Amplio just before the contract was finalized.

In the case of two of the companies, Lexonik (Summer 2023) and Amplio (October 2019), Tricquet has also starred in promotional videos for the Ruder-connected companies while Ruder was affiliated with them. She did so in her official capacity as both former director of FDLRs for Leon County and later as Jefferson County superintendent.

The Amplio video was made several years before the Lexonik video. The promotional videos are hosted by the companies themselves on their own social media or website material. See the following screenshots:

The Lexonik screenshot below was taken on March 3, 2024.

For the benefit of investigators, I have attached an excerpt of an article I published on Feb. 11, 2024 that provides extensive context and a timeline of Tricquet’s promotion of Amplio and Lexonik, both before and after she became Jefferson superintendent.

In addition to the promotional videos, on July 20, 2023, Ruder and Tricquet gave a promotional presentation together at the Panhandle Area Education Educational Consortium (PAEC) conference titled: “Literacy Intervention Programs, Lexonik.”

Tricquet’s promotional activity on behalf of these private companies creates a particular conflict because of her authority to act as a district purchasing agent. This promotional relationship with companies tied to her “professional friend” is an obvious misuse of her public position even if Jefferson County was not paying Ruder or the companies connected to him. But Jefferson has paid them almost $200,000 collectively in the last year alone.

This promotional and personal relationship with Ruder and his companies also created an ongoing, recurring conflict throughout the last year. At no point did Tricquet disclose her “professional friendship” with Ruder to the public or the Jefferson School Board until questioned about it by this complainant. Moreover, the board was not informed or consulted on Tricquet’s spending with Ruder or Lexonik until long after she already executed contracts and/or paid him.

She had an obvious, hidden “conflict of interest in making purchasing decisions on behalf of the Board.”

Misuse or abuse of position in executing the Lexonik contract

On May 22, 2023, Jefferson County Schools Superintendent Eydie Tricquet signed and executed a $20,000 contract with Lexonik for vaguely defined reading instruction/professional development services. Steve Ruder is head of U.S. sales for Lexonik. This was about the same time she did the promotional video for Lexonik.

Tricquet entered into the Lexonik contract “on behalf” of the elected Jefferson County School Board. She did not consult or notify the Jefferson School Board of her contractual action. Tricquet paid Lexonik with a “wire transfer” that she never brought to the School Board for approval. She did not include the wire transfer on the regular check report the School Board receives at each regular meeting.

Here is an image from the contract:

Tricquet claims she had authority to execute this contract without knowledge or consent of the elected School Board. I think she is incorrect for two reasons; and the Ethics Commission should clarify for the sake of this complaint -- and also for the sake of future superintendents and school board members.

Reason 1: Tricquet’s behavior is an obvious violation of the letter and spirit of the introduction to Jefferson policy 6320, which itself aligns to Florida law. The Jefferson County School Board never knew that the elected superintendent was doing business on the board’s behalf with companies and a “professional friend” she actively promoted using her official position. Again, that is an obvious, undisclosed “conflict of interest in making purchasing decisions on behalf of the Board.”

Reason 2: Jefferson school policies and Florida law allow a superintendent to execute a contract up to $25,000 under certain circumstances. Here is the precise wording in Jefferson policy 6320. Note the part in bold:

The Superintendent is authorized to approve and execute contracts on behalf of the District involving expenditure of public funds in an amount no greater than $25,000.00, so long as the obligation created does not exceed the applicable appropriation within the District budget and the contract is otherwise in compliance with applicable District procedures, policies, and law. For purposes of this policy, any group of contracts purchase orders to the same provider which are connected in terms of time, location and services such that a reasonable person would view them as a single contract shall be deemed to be a single contract. The Superintendent shall not divide the procurement of commodities or contractual services so as to avoid the monetary cap imposed by this policy.

Tricquet’s undisclosed promotional and personal relationship with Ruder and his companies violates the “otherwise in compliance” language of the authority granted to Tricquet by the School Board.

Moreover, this complainant is unaware of any “applicable appropriation within the District budget” for the services Lexonik provides. To my knowledge, Tricquet has never identified the appropriation that the Lexonik contract addressed.

On the contrary, she executed and paid the contract without consulting or notifying the School Board. This clearly exceeds her authority, as written, to act as a good faith agent on behalf of the School Board on contracts/expenditures of $25,000 or less.

The Ethics Commission should clarify that there are meaningful rules and expectations for how a superintendent exercises spending and contracting authority beyond the simple $25,000 threshold. “Under $25,000” shouldn’t be an ethical blank check for bad superintendent behavior.

If Tricquet exercised authority she did not have to execute the Lexonik contract on behalf of the School Board, it is a very serious misuse and/or abuse of her official public position. And I think the Ruder conflict itself is also a misuse and/abuse of public position.

Here is the applicable language from the Ethics Commission handbook for abuse and misuse of position:

Misuse of Public Position   

“Public officers and employees, and local government attorneys are prohibited from corruptly using or attempting to use their official positions or the resources thereof to obtain a special privilege for themselves or others. [Sec. 112.313(6), Fla. Stat.]”  

Abuse of Public Position   

“Public officers and employees, and local government attorneys are prohibited from abusing their public positions in order to obtain a disproportionate benefit for themselves or certain others. [Article II, Section 8(h), Florida Constitution.]