Investigation finds FCPS superintendent failed to fully inform board on finances, report says

LEXINGTON, Ky. (ABC36 NEWS NOW) — An independent investigation into financial management issues at Fayette County Public Schools concludes that Superintendent Demetrius Liggins failed to fully meet his obligations to keep the school board informed about emerging financial risks — while also resolving and largely rejecting allegations raised by former district budget official Ann Sampson Grimes.

The findings are detailed in a 13-page report delivered Monday to the Fayette County Board of Education by attorney Leigh Gross Latherow of VanAntwerp Attorneys, LLP, who was retained by the board to conduct an independent review

Findings on superintendent oversight

According to the report, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Liggins did not fully comply with board policies governing his role as superintendent — specifically those related to financial oversight, budget planning, and keeping the board appropriately informed.

The investigator found that as early as spring 2025, warning signs existed related to a projected $16 million shortfall in the district’s tentative budget. While finance staff repeatedly said final fund balance numbers could not be confirmed until later in the year, the report states board policy still required Liggins to take a more proactive role.

That included demanding clearer financial information, ensuring the finance and budget departments were communicating effectively, and making sure accurate and timely data reached board members. The report concludes those steps did not happen early enough.

However, the investigation did not find evidence that Liggins intentionally withheld information from the board or knowingly violated the district’s 6% contingency policy.

Resolution of Ann Sampson Grimes’ allegations

The investigation also addressed a series of allegations raised by former district budget director Ann Sampson Grimes, including claims of financial misconduct, retaliation, and sex and age discrimination.

The report found:

• No evidence that Grimes was silenced or prevented from sharing financial concerns with the board. Investigators concluded board members were informed of the projected budget shortfall, regardless of whether it was labeled a “deficit,” “gap,” or “difference.”

• No substantiation that Liggins violated board policy by canceling meetings or refusing to engage with Grimes on budget matters.

• No evidence supporting Grimes’ claims of sex or age discrimination related to organizational changes, role assignments, or leadership restructuring.

• No substantiation that Grimes was placed on administrative leave as retaliation or because of her gender or age. The report says the leave was tied to questions surrounding whether key financial projections had been shared with leadership and the board.

The investigator also noted that Grimes declined repeated requests to be interviewed during the investigation, which limited the ability to further evaluate some of her claims. While written materials were reviewed, the report states her refusal to participate impeded parts of the fact-finding process.

Overall, the report concludes that Grimes’ allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and intentional concealment of financial information were not supported by the evidence.

Acknowledgment and next steps

In testimony before lawmakers last fall, Liggins acknowledged flaws in the budgeting process, saying some criticism was warranted and admitting he did not dig deeply enough into the causes of the shortfall. According to the report, he told legislators he wished he had done more and recognized that responsibility ultimately rested with him.

The report notes that since those events, Liggins has taken steps to improve communication between the finance and budget departments, strengthen forecasting, and enhance the quality of financial information provided to the board.

The investigator emphasized that the review was not a forensic audit and did not assess specific spending decisions. Instead, it focused on whether board policies were followed and whether the superintendent fulfilled his oversight responsibilities.

No disciplinary action was recommended. Any further action now rests with the Fayette County Board of Education.