FCPS budget director tells investigator about her claims against superintendent

In a Tuesday letter to an independent investigator, the attorney for Fayette County Budget Director Ann Sampson-Grimes claims the superintendent altered her budget presentation script prior to a May school board meeting.

Before the May 8 school board meeting, Fayette Superintendent Demetrus Liggins “altered the wording of Ms. Grimes’ script, substituting ‘difference’ for ‘deficit,’ effectively obfuscating Ms. Grimes’ message to the Board that the current budget proposal was in a deficit and weakening her ability to address and advise on the situation,” attorney Brandon Voelker said in a letter to Ashland attorney Leigh Latherow.

Deputy Superintendent Houston Barber “also stringently signaled not to describe the budget as in a deficit, demonstrating a clear pattern of intentionally concealing the financial situation of the district from the Board and the general public,” said the letter.

Voelker shared the letter with the Herald-Leader late Tuesday afternoon. He also sent it to several lawmakers, including Republicans Senate President Robert Stivers and Speaker of the House David Osborne, Kentucky Education Commissioner Robbie Fletcher and Kentucky Auditor Allison Ball, who is conducting a special examination of FCPS.

Lawmakers recently summoned Liggins to Frankfort to explain the budget problems.

Liggins has said the $826.2 million budget the board passed earlier in September is balanced. But all summer long, the district has dealt with a budget crisis. That includes a prior $16 million deficit and a severely declining carry-forward balance, from about $43 million to $26.3 million, which Liggins has said is the true contingency.

School board members hired Latherow to investigate Grimes’ claims that Liggins discriminated and retaliated against her. Sampson-Grimes filed a lawsuit against Liggins and the school district on Sept. 10, saying he retaliated against her after she repeatedly tried to make the district’s declining financial situation known.

Sampson-Grimes was placed on administrative leave from Aug. 15 until Sept. 25.

Although Grimes has been allowed to return to work, Voelker said she “has been stripped of her .. job duties” and of her access to some financial documents.

“Ms. Grimes did what every employee, and every public servant, should do: she told the truth. She upheld the law,” Voelker said in the letter to the investigator.

On Tuesday night, district spokesperson Miranda Scully said, “As this is a pending legal matter, we are unable to comment at this time.”

Liggins has said that he did not delve deeply enough into the district’s budget problems but is doing so now. Liggins’ supporters point to the district’s academic achievements and insist Liggins has been accountable and has led with integrity.

Latherow is asking to meet with Sampson-Grimes, who wants to answer Latherow’s questions in public with the school board present. Neither has taken place.

What the letter said

Voelker made several claims in the letter to Latherow, including that on May 8, Sampson-Grimes shared a copy with Liggins of her proposed script for the FY26 Tentative Budget to present to the school board.

In her proposed presentation, Grimes detailed the district’s financial position, citing a $16 million deficit between expenditures and revenues. A deficit is not permitted to be recommended or voted on, according to school board policy, Voelker said in the letter.

Voelker’s letter said that Sampson-Grimes “was targeted, stripped of oversight, passed over for promotion and unlawfully placed on administrative leave “ after she tried to make sure that financial mismanagement did not occur.

The letter said on July 29, 2025, at a Budget Solutions Work Group meeting, Grimes informed Barber that her projections for the fiscal year 2025 ending fund balance were not $42 million as originally predicted by finance director Rodney Jackson, but approximately $15 million.

The substantial difference indicates that a portion of the contingency was spent without prior Board notice or approval, violating board policy, Grimes said.

The letter to Latherow said on May 2, Grimes advised Barber the district could not afford to provide a 1% raise to its staff. She said it would be irresponsible to advise the board it could do so, given the district’s deficit situation.

In response, the letter said, “Barber discouraged Ms. Grimes from sharing her advice.”

The letter said Liggins stated that he did not probe deeply enough into the causes of the $16 million shortfall. But Voelker said he was informed several times by Grimes that the district would lack sufficient funds without extreme measures being taken.

On April 17, after being asked to provide Liggins with suggested reductions, Grimes did so, “only to be met with perplexity and then have each of her suggestions rejected,” the letter said.

It said on April 22, Grimes sent Liggins a spreadsheet of reductions and other detailed budget documentation. On May 2, Ms. Grimes alerted Liggins the district required an additional $18 million to balance the budget and cover projected shortfalls and that a 1% raise was not feasible.

On May 8, Liggins represented to Grimes that he had reviewed the financial documents Grimes furnished him and even made his own calculations regarding the budget, according to the letter.

Grimes said she met with Liggins Aug. 29, 2024, to tell him that $20 million in budget cuts were necessary for the 2025 budget season and difficult financial decisions were impending.

She said she also met with him again Oct. 22, 2024, to inform Liggins cuts needed to be made during the fiscal year 2024 Working Budget season.

“She never once stated that the district was in a solid financial position,” Voelker said in the letter.

This story was originally published October 1, 2025 at 4:03 AM.