Who's Watching Over the Office for Civil Rights?

I've learned a lot over the past 7+ years dealing with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR).

One thing I discovered was the fact that there is a pattern of practice of complaints remaining open for years in the Kansas City ED OCR Regional Office from across the multi-state region. I have had many parents and advocates contact me over the years about complaints they've filed with ED OCR that have remained open for years.

It's even more troubling to know that ED OCR allows school districts like Fox C-6 to spend nearly 7 years trying to meet the terms of the Resolution Agreement that the district signed in May 2009 to become compliant with federal law.

How do students expect to be protected when there's no enforcement of the law or enforcement of Resolution Agreements?

From a FOIA request, I recently learned that the Kansas City ED OCR office has only completed 7 out of 17 school district wide compliance review investigations that have been assigned to them over the past 10 years.

I voiced my concerns to the Washington D.C. ED OCR office back in 2010 when I found out that the Kansas City ED OCR office was going to be conducting the district wide compliance review of Fox C-6 instead of the Washington D.C. office. My concerns have definitely been validated over the years.

Completing only 7 out of 17 compliance reviews over the past decade is a very disturbing statistic and one that should raise the eyebrows of the public as well as our U.S. Senators and Congressman. Taxpayers are paying a lot of people six figure salaries for what would be considered a failing grade if scoring their work like a test, 7 out of 17 is 41%. That's an F in anybody's grade book!

What are the directors and enforcement directors who oversee the Kansas City ED OCR office doing?

It doesn't seem as if they are ensuring that investigations are getting done in a timely manner.

The information regarding the 7 out of 17 compliance reviews was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in Washington D.C..

Kansas City Open Compliance Review Investigations
There is one open compliance review that was opened in 2007 investigating the Wichita Unified School District #259 in Kansas.

There are two open compliance reviews that were opened in 2009; one investigating the Bayless School District in Missouri and the other investigating the Jenks Public School District in Oklahoma.

There are two open compliance reviews that were opened in 2010; one investigating the Fox C-6 School District in Arnold, MO and the other investigating the Rapid City Area School District #51-4 in South Dakota.

It's difficult to even imagine that the Kansas City ED OCR office has only been able to complete 7 out of 17 compliance reviews assigned to them over the past decade. Why can't they complete these investigations?

It should have been very easy for the Kansas City ED OCR office to determine that Fox C-6 was non-compliant with federal law when the district wide compliance review was initiated in March 2010. The district had already agreed to sign a Resolution Agreement in May 2009 which stipulated what the district was required to do in order to become compliant with federal law.

Students Previously Denied 504 Plans Are Provided 504 Plans
In August 2014, after Fox switched law firms and the district demoted Fox's Section 504 Coordinator and assigned the assistant superintendent of secondary education to the position, several students that had been previously denied Section 504 Plans for years at Fox were finally appropriately provided Section 504 Plans. This happened after ED OCR helped with an Early Complaint Resolution after Fox changed law firms.

There are people working in the Kansas City ED OCR office that know why compliance reviews and other complaints aren't getting completed. They should use the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 to speak out about what's been going on in the Kansas City ED OCR Office. They owe it to the students who have been denied proper protection under the law for years. It's truly sad and disgraceful to think of the pain that that the KC ED OCR office has caused for families covered by their regional office over the years.

As it stands now, it’s very easy to see how school districts have been able to get around federal law for years. There's no accountability of the school districts nor ED OCR itself.

It's time for attorneys and staff in the Kansas City ED OCR Office to stand up and report what's been going on for years in that office that's been allowing compliance reviews to remain open for years and complaints to remain in limbo for years as well.

KC ED OCR staff and attorneys probably have the same fear of reprisal in their office just like it was for teachers and administrators in our school district. Everyone was too afraid to speak up about what was going on in our school district.

I wrote to the former director of enforcement for the Office for Civil Rights over the Kansas City office in September 2015. His name is Randolph Wills. Mr. Wills did not respond to my first email inquiry regarding Fox's open District Wide Compliance review that's been open for nearly 6 years. After 10 days of not receiving a response from Mr. Wills, I emailed him again. He responded to my second email. He informed me that he was no longer the Enforcement Director over the Kansas City ED OCR office. He informed me that Debbie Osgood was the current director of enforcement over the KC Office and that he had forwarded my email to Debbie Osgood.

Debbie Osgood responded with the following email on October 1, 2015:

Mr. Simpson: 

I am pleased to respond to your email, which Randolph Wills forwarded to me as the Enforcement Director for OCR’s Kansas City enforcement office. Your email outlines your concerns regarding the Fox C-6 compliance review being investigated by OCR Kansas City. I share your concern about the time that the Fox C-6 School District compliance review has been open. The resolution of this outstanding review (as well as others) is a priority for OCR. Although I cannot give you a specific date by which the review will be completed, I want to reassure you that the Kansas City office is devoting substantial resources and attention to the resolution of this review and other pending reviews. 

You also asked about a Fox C-6 complaint being monitored. My understanding is that a number of the items in that agreement have been completed and Kansas City staff have worked with the district to resolve the remaining items. 

Debbie Osgood
OCR Enforcement Director

Ms. Osgood copied Bill Dittmeier, the current Director of the Kansas City Office for Civil Rights in her response to me. I laughed when I read Debbie Osgood’s response. Many others laughed as well when I told them about the response I received from ED OCR.

How would anyone believe Ms. Osgood’s statement that “the Kansas City office is devoting substantial resources and attention to the resolution of this review and other pending reviews” when the Kansas City office has only completed 7 out of 17 compliance reviews assigned to them over the past decade?

Three weeks ago I wrote back to Debbie Osgood, Bill Dittmeier and Randolph Wills asking why the Kansas City ED OCR office has only been able to complete 7 out of 17 district wide compliance reviews in the past 10 years. None of them responded to my email. Although I did receive Read Receipts from all three of them.

On Monday of this week, I sent my question about the Kansas City ED OCR office to Sandra Battle. Sandra Battle is is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement at ED OCR in Washington D.C. I copied Debbie Osgood, Bill Dittmeier and Randolph Wills when I emailed Ms. Battle as well as the Department of Justice. No one has responded yet to my concerns regarding this issue.

Perhaps no one wants to be held accountable.

It certainly seems that the patterns of practice in the Kansas City ED OCR office would be a concern for anyone dealing with this OCR Office. As an added tidbit of information, it took nearly 60 days for ED OCR to send a response to my FOIA request. It would appear that ED OCR is not as familiar with federal law regarding FOIA request response requirements like the USDA Office for Civil Rights is. Federal law dictates that all FOIA requests must be responded to within 20 days.

A recent USDA Office for Civil Rights FOIA response letter referenced the law in their response (5 U.S.C. § 552).

You can read about FOIA law requirements in the article below located on the U.S. Department of Justice's website:

FOIA UPDATE: THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. SECT. 552, AS AMENDED BY PUBLIC LAW NO. 104-231, 110 STAT. 3048

I find it truly amazing that the Enforcement Directors for the Office for Civil Rights don’t seem to do what their job titles state that they do

You would think that the Enforcement Directors at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights would be holding people accountable and making sure that the regional offices that they oversee are doing their job.

Perhaps it’s time that our U.S. Senators and Congressman take an in depth look into what’s going on in the Kansas City ED OCR office.

ED OCR’s Enforcement Directors don’t seem to want to answer questions as to why these compliance reviews have been open for so many years. Perhaps the Enforcement Directors will be willing to answer these questions for Congress. I have offered to testify in congressional hearings about our dealings with ED OCR. It's about time that someone starts looking into what's going on in the Kansas City ED OCR office since taxpayers are paying a lot of six figure salaries for such abysmal completion results.

You may wish to contact the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights as well to see if you can get any answers. Perhaps there are some investigative reporters that may be interested in following up on this story as well. It certainly seems to be a huge expenditure of money for very little results.

Here is the contact page:

Key OCR Staff: U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights 

Don't Forget to Vote on April 7 for Two "New" Fox C-6 School Board Members!

On Tuesday April 7, 2015, the Fox C-6 community must vote for two NEW board members to serve on the Fox C-6 school board for the next 3 years.


There are 6 candidates running for the Fox C-6 school board. Two of them are graduates of Fox High School. Another candidate is married to a Fox High graduate.

The Fox C-6 School Board Candidates are:

• Mark Jones (1985 Fox High Graduate)
• Dr. Robin Hanson (attended high school in Kansas)
• Drew Kriese (1997 Crystal City Grad, married to 1994 Fox High Grad, Endorsed by MSTA)
• Chris Hastings (Endorsed by NEA)
• Sherry "Chellew" Poppen (1961 Fox High Graduate)
• David Palmer - (Incumbent 4 term board member)

Also check out Jefferson County Penknife's endorsement article of Fox C-6 school board candidates using the link below in which he lists his reasons as to why is voting for or not voting for each of the individual school board candidates:

Jefferson County Penknife's Fox C-6 Board Endorsements Article

You may also want to read my previous article discussing the Hodge Elementary PTO meeting with the Fox C-6 board candidates using the link below after reading this article:

Hodge PTO Hosts Fox C-6 Board of Education Candidate Meeting

You can also read more about the candidates in the Voter's Guide from the March 26, 2015 Arnold Imperial Leader using the link below. There was incorrect information in the original Arnold-Imperial Leader Fox C-6 Board Candidate Guide regarding Dr. Hanson which was corrected in the April 2, 2015 Arnold-Imperial Leader.

Fox C-6 School Board Candidates Guide
March 26, 2015 Arnold-Imperial Leader

Fox C-6 Board Candidate Information

Mark Jones
Mark Jones is a 1985 graduate of Fox Senior High School. He does not have any family members or relatives working for the school district.

Mark has a son that graduated from Fox High School in 2013. Mark also has a son who currently attends George Guffey Elementary school.

Mark Jones is a senior consultant for Intervolve Inc., a software company that services beer distributors and energy companies across the country. Mark is also the owner of Jones Creative. Mark served in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Mark Jones ran for the school board in 2013 and 2014 and wasn't well known back then. Since then, Mark has spoken to the board several times during the 3 minute Public Comments time regarding various issues in the district. I believe there have been fewer than 5 people who have spoken more than once during Public Comments in the past 5 years at Fox C-6 board meetings.

Mark Jones is also an advocate for transparency and has reviewed board meeting packets and Bill Payments Reports.

Mark Jones voiced his concerns about the changes to the Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan (VSIP) at the November 18, 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting. You can listen to his Public Comments and others by clicking on the link below which links directly Fox's Board Meeting Audio on YouTube at the time Mark asked the board to make changes to the Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan.

Listen to Mark Jones's Public Comments

about the Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan

at the November 18, 2014 Fox C-6 Board Meeting

Mark has also taken the time to personally speak with several of our current board members to discuss issues after board meetings. He has met with bus drivers and other staff to listen to their concerns in order to gain a better understanding of the district as a whole. Mark is very well spoken and would be an asset to our school board.

https://www.facebook.com/MissouriForJones
http://www.missouriforjones.org/
http://patch.com/missouri/arnold/meet-fox-school-board-candidate-mark-jones


Dr. Robin Hanson
Dr. Robin Hanson does not have any family members or relatives working for the school district. Dr. Hanson teaches American history, American government, cultural anthropology and sociology part-time at Jefferson College and St. Louis University.

Dr. Hanson stated at the Hodge Elementary PTO meeting that she personally ordered 4 new lab books online to send in with her daughter since her daughter's lab book was in such disrepair. She also spoke about teaching students at Jefferson College and St. Louis University and seeing the number of students that need to take remedial classes in college. She would like to see that change.

Dr. Hanson discussed the need for transparency at the Hodge PTO meeting which is necessary for accountability.


https://www.facebook.com/DrRobinAHanson


Drew Kriese
Drew Kriese has 4 children attending schools in the Fox school district. He is a 1997 graduate of Crystal City High School. His wife Christy is a 1994 graduate of Fox High School.

Drew is an area director for Taco Bell Missouri. His wife Christy was on the selection committee for the Seckman Elementary School principal position.

Drew Kriese was not able to attend the Hodge Elementary PTO meeting for the candidates because he was out of town. So I did not get a chance to meet him in person.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Drew-Kriese-For-Fox-C-6-School-Board/865497216793678


Chris Hastings
I've spoken to Chris Hastings a few times via email and in person since he first decided to run for school board in 2014. Chris has two young children who will be attending school in the district in the future. He is employed by ICS Construction Services.

ICS Construction Services did some of the 2013 bond issue work for the Fox district. Chris responded to questions presented to him from JC Penknife regarding his relationship with ICS and whether or not he expected ICS to bid on future work at Fox.

JC Penknife shared Chris's response with me regarding ICS after I independently pointed out possible concerns to JC Penknife after review board meeting packets.

Chris Hastings stated in his response to JC Penknife that he is only an employ of ICS and does not own the company or have any shares as an owner in the company. He is just an employee. Chris stated that ICS bid the work on the open market in the public sector and that ICS was the low bidder.

Chris requested to oversee the project since it was in his school district and so close to home. Chris wanted to work on the project because he had a vested interest since he lives here and it's his school district. Chris stated that if any work comes up in the near future, and he is voted onto the board, he will request that ICS does not bid on the work so there will be no issues or conflicts of interest.

According to Bill Payments Reports obtained from school board meeting packets, Fox C-6 paid ICS Construction Services LTD $3,018,829.18 for the bond issue work they performed in 2013. I have posted the pages from the bill payments reports from the board meeting packets online.

It's important that the community knows what Chris's relationship is with ICS Construction Services and that he responded to the concerns presented to him.

https://www.facebook.com/hastings4foxc6

The Rockwood School District saw board member Steve Smith resign days after the release of their state audit that concluded that Mr. Smith should not have voted on projects that helped the construction company where he was employed.


Sherry "Chellew" Poppen
Sherry "Chellew" Poppen graduated from Fox High School in 1961. She has a son who teaches at Seckman Middle School and a daughter who is a secretary at Seckman Middle. Mrs. Poppen didn't mention that she had a son and a daughter working for the district when she spoke to the Lone Dell parents club. I knew she had a daughter who was a secretary at Seckman Middle School but did not know that her son was a teacher as well. Sherry "Chellew" Poppen is the sister of former Fox C-6 superintendent Jim Chellew.

At Monday's meet the board candidates at Hodge Elementary School, Sherry Poppen said she would like to see more information made available besides just the agenda for board meetings like they used to have.

Updated: 6:05PM 04/05/2015
I received a phone message from Sherry Poppen at 3:24PM about my comments regarding the board meeting agendas additional information that she talked about in the meeting after her son had read this blog post.

I called Sherry back around 4:45PM and talked to her about the additional information besides the agenda. The additional information is the board packets that get supplied to the board members each month prior to the meetings. She remembered her brother taking them around to board members each month. She also remembered getting emailed copies of the board meeting minutes each month. I told her that when her brother was superintendent that you could sign up to get notified about the board meeting minutes.

Sherry wanted to let me know that she knew about the board meeting packets being available online. Sherry told me that she knew I had been instrumental in getting the board packets posted online and that's how she knew they were available online.

It took nearly 3 years of my asking the board to post the board packets online before the district finally began posting them. That delay was mainly due to our former superintendent providing different excuses as to why it couldn't be done.

Anyway, Sherry said that what she mentioned at Hodge Elementary was that she would like to have printed copies of the board meeting packets available at board meetings for people who don't use or have computers.

My apologies for the confusion about knowing about the board packets being available online.

I told Sherry that I checked some of the board packets before writing this article to see how many pages they contained because I knew she had talked about having printed copies available. One of the board packets I checked contained 354 pages. Sherry didn't realize that the board packets had that many pages in them.

I did more checking since I spoke to Sherry. The board packets for the 2014-2015 school year vary in size between 168 pages to 324 pages. Several of the board packets contain more than 300 pages.

Dan Kroupa pointed out to Mrs. Poppen that the district recently purchased BoardDocs for posting board meeting information like the board packets online. Many school districts have been using BoardDocs for years. Many of the school districts break up their documents into smaller sections using BoardDocs making it easier to download specific sections of the board packets each month. Not everyone may want to read all of the bids for a project. They might just want to download the Bill Payments Report.

Having BoardDocs should also make it much easier to search payments rather than the currently scanned Bill Payments Report as long as the documents are printed to PDF rather than being scanned. I've asked several times to have the Bill Payments Reports printed to PDF rather than scanned so the payments would include searchable text rather than an image of the text. This would make it easier to find checks for specific vendors.

I explained to Sherry that the district started charging me for copies of the board packets because Sunshine Law allows them to. However, the board should have made sure that the board packets were available to the public for free. John Laughlin made sure that I wasn't charged for the board packets after he found out I was getting charged for them. John Laughlin and Steve Holloway made sure that the board packets were posted online. So thank you for their help in improving transparency.

Sherry "Chellew" Poppen is a very nice lady. She wants to restore our district's image. I believe that restoring the district's image is important. However, I'm concerned that issues may get overlooked or swept under the rug as they have been in the past. The community needs to know what's gone on to keep from repeating them in the future.

We need board members who are going to hold people accountable for their actions as well as ensure that the superintendent and other administrators are following district policies, regulations and state and federal laws.


David Palmer
Incumbent David Palmer's wife Gee Palmer has been the Director of Nursing for Fox C-6 since she was promoted to that position in 2006 and given a 75% pay increase rather than a stipend. Mr. Palmer was school board president when his wife was promoted.

Mr. Palmer has a son and a niece who teach in the district as well.

Mr. Palmer has been willfully blind to the issues going on in our school district for years. He never replied to a single email that I sent the board.

Mr. Palmer did not even respond to Hodge Elementary PTO's invitation to attend the meet and greet with parents.

I brought it to the boards attention in 2012 that the district didn't have enough books for all students to take books home to study. Kristen Pelster pointed this out in an email regarding stating that teachers don't hand out books because the don't have enough. In Mr. Palmer's response to the Arnold-Imperial Leader, he said, "We must give kids the supplies, books and technology they need to be successful." Mr. Palmer didn't do resolve the book shortage for nearly two years and now he says we must give kids books. Interesting!

Hopefully, the community has become better educated over the past couple of years about what's been going on in our school district while Mr. Palmer served on the school board. He served on the board while former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow's salary skyrocketed to being the second highest superintendent salary in the state before she took "early retirement".

Mr. Palmer also wasn't interested in having open discussions with the public as he pointed out at the November 5, 2013 board workshop. I wrote about this issue in November 2013.

I certainly hope everyone remembers what happened to our school district during David Palmer's 12 years as a school board member when you cast your vote on Tuesday April 7th, 2015!


Who you elect for to the Fox C-6 school board can either help or hinder moving our school district in a positive direction when you vote on Tuesday April 7, 2015.


Honesty and integrity are very important character traits for those serving on our school board.

School board members are elected to represent the community.

From the Missouri School Board Association's Principles of Effective Governance guide:

The school board is supposed to engage in ongoing two-way conversation with the entire community. The purpose of the conversation is to enable the board to hear and understand the community’s educational aspirations and desires, to serve effectively as an advocate for district improvement and to inform the community of the district’s performance.

Effective community engagement is essential to creating trust and support among community, board, superintendent and staff.

Principles of Effective Governance Guide

from the Missouri School Board Association

It's also the school board's job to do proper oversight of how your tax dollars are being spent and ensure that the community is kept well informed. For years our school board members did not review credit card statements. I also doubt that they have reviewed the legal bills from the district's former law firm.

Open Government and Transparency
In order to serve the best interest of the community and the taxpayers who elect them, our school board members must believe in open government.

Open government is the governing doctrine which holds that citizens have the right to access the documents and proceedings of the government (ie. our school district) to allow for effective public oversight. In its broadest construction it opposes reason of state and other considerations, which have tended to legitimize secrecy.

Former Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich tweeted the following on February 18, 2015 after publicly releasing the St. Joseph School District audit, "If we want accountability in or schools, we must demand transparency."

Transparency has been an issue in the Fox C-6 School District for nearly a decade. Transparency has improved but not to the level that it needs to in order for the community to fully trust the decisions of our school board and administration.

Full disclosure by school board candidates is also very important in maintaining a healthy level of trust. Withholding information from the public should be cause for concern as to why it may have been withheld.

As a community, we want our school district to do a great job at educating our children. We want a school district that our children and students can be proud of when they are asked the question everyone in the St. Louis area always asks:

"Where did you go to high school?"

Our school board members need to make good decisions that represent the concerns of the community in order to restore the integrity and reputation of the Fox C-6 School District.

The recent unanimous decisions of (6-0) by our school board to hire assistant superintendents Dan Baker and Todd Scott as principals in the school district has certainly cast doubt in the community that our district is headed in the right direction.

The screening of candidates for the positions for the positions at Seckman Elementary and Seckman High were biased despite what our board members told the media.

How many of the 59 candidates for the Seckman Elementary School (SES) principal position were linked to online derogatory comments made against parents in their school district?

How many of the 59 candidates for SES principal are currently named in a libel suit for making derogatory comments against parents and patrons in their school district?

How many of the 59 candidates for SES principal played golf using taxpayer dollars while they should have been attending the educational conference they traveled to Orlando, Florida to attend?

How many of the 59 candidates for SES principal had their school district supplied credit card taken away from them due to misuse?

How many of the 45 candidates for the Seckman High School (SHS) principal position had their school district supplied credit card taken away from them due to misuse?

How many of the 45 candidates for the SHS principal position had appeared on the news for hiring an someone who didn't possess the credentials for the job but was very enthusiastic?

Those are valid questions that should have been asked and considered when candidates were being screened for those positions.


School Board Member Ethics
It's worth taking the time to read the Missouri School Board Association's Sample Policy on School Board Member Ethics. It will give you an understanding of what should be expected of our school board members.

Here are a few of the more important points listed in the School Board Member Ethics Policy:

• Remember that the first and greatest concern must be the educational welfare of all students attending the public schools.
• Render all decisions based on the available facts and independent judgment rather than succumbing to the influence of individuals or special interest groups.
• Encourage ongoing communications between Board members and stakeholders.
• Obey the laws of Missouri and the United States.
• Become informed concerning the issues to be considered at each meeting.
• Refrain from using their Board position for the benefit of family members, business associates or themselves.

Sample School Board Member Ethics Policy

from the Missouri School Board Association

One of the items listed in the Ethics Policy states that school board members are to follow the laws of Missouri and the United States.

Does that imply that school board members are to ensure that our school district follows federal Civil Rights laws such as Section 504, the ADA and ADA AA as well?

If so, then how do we educate our school board members on these laws so they aren't willfully blind to the Non-Compliance notices that the district has received over the years?

It was the Non-Compliance issues that led to the discovery of all of the wrong doing going on in our school district that has been uncovered and made public in recent years.

It's too bad that it took so many years to expose the problems going on in our district to the public because past school board members sat silent as questions and concerns were brought to their attention for years.

Hopefully you have done your research and you've had the opportunity to meet our school board candidates so you can make an informed decision when you cast your vote for Fox C-6 school board members on Tuesday April 7, 2015.

Another Extremely Bad Decision at Fox C-6!

Parents at Seckman Elementary in the Fox C-6 School District were informed in a letter on December 17, 2014 from acting superintendent Tim Crutchley that an interim principal was being assigned to their school mid-year.

Below is the text from that letter:

Wednesday, December 17, 2014 

Dear Parents,

Earlier this month, it was announced that Ms. Simokaitis would be transferring from her role as principal of Seckman Elementary to an assistant principal role at another elementary school within the district. Again, I wish to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Simokaitis for her work with students and staff during her tenure at Seckman Elementary.

Creating a change in leadership can be difficult in the middle of a school year. Originally, the district planned to select an interim principal from current assistant principals in the district. Upon closer examination of the situation and needs of our students, we decided to explore another option that will prevent disruption and stress to the other elementary buildings.

Effective January 5th, 2015, Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker will be appointed as interim principal of Seckman Elementary for the second semester of the 2014-2015 school year.

Mr. Baker has extensive experience and dedication as an educator and as an elementary principal. His eagerness to take on the responsibilities of interim principal, along with his proven track record of achieving high student success as an elementary school principal, demonstrate he is the best option for Seckman Elementary students and families.

A permanent successor for the 2015-2016 school year will be hired through an extensive interview process during Spring 2015. Although his start date as superintendent with the district is not scheduled to begin until July 2015, Dr. Wipke plans to be engaged and involved in the process of selecting and hiring an ideal candidate as the next principal of Seckman Elementary.

As always, student learning is our top priority and expectation. I, along with Mr. Baker, and our talented teachers and staff members, will continue to work hard to ensure this transition is as smooth as possible.

Thank you for your time and understanding.


Sincerely, 

Tim Crutchley
Acting Superintendent

Many people may not know who Dan Baker is. Dan Baker is one of the administrators from the Fox C-6 School District that had online defamatory posts traced back to his home. He and his wife Angela Burns Baker were both put on paid administrative leave by the Fox C-6 school board shortly after it was publicly announced that comments had been linked to their home.

Defamatory Post From the Baker Household

Below is one of the online post that was "associated" with the Baker household on TOPIX.COM. The post below was made just a couple of hours after I spoke at the January 15, 2013 Fox C-6 school board meeting during the Public Comments session.

What's even more impressive about the post below is the fact that I stated during my public comment that night to the Fox C-6 school board and the administrators sitting at the table (which included Dan Baker) that I hoped that no one would post any online defamatory comments after myself and others spoke at the meeting that night.

It's obvious that the Baker "household" didn't respect my request.

01/15/2013 – 9:30PM (local time)
It is amazing how people believe complete nut jobs! Can't believe people would listen to that one crazy guy with the weird eye. I know him from Boy Scouts and he says some really strange things that do not sound right. I am pretty sure he has a closet where he hangs up newspaper clippings of board members and wears clown makeup while cutting up teddy bears. That guy is crazy!

Perhaps educators who are being called out for not properly doing their job and spend numerous hours and legal fees trying to get around Section 504 Law find it therapeutic to post online comments about parents who are calling them out. However, I don't condone posting things online that aren't true and defamatory because they can be traced. 

By the way, Mr. Baker doesn't know me from scouts. He knows me because he was Fox's Section 504 Coordinator. I've never seen him at any scouting events. Although Mr. Baker did make a payment using his school district VISA credit card to a STL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA on April 7, 2011 for $100. Perhaps it was a donation.

Anyway, I would have to say that claiming to know me from scouts is not an honest statement. What does that say about integrity?

It's certainly NOT the type of behavior that I would expect from a dedicated educator.

I'm a parent who has learned a lot about Section 504 Law over the past 6+ years. I've learned what educators are supposed to do and not do with respect to that law. You expect people to do the right thing and follow the law but that doesn't always happen.

I've spent thousands of hours emailing and speaking with parents in our district, school board members, school employees, retired school employees, attorneys, attorneys at ED OCR, attorneys at USDA OCR, attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice, Senators, Congressman, state representatives, state senators and parents across the country on the subject. So, I've gained quite a bit of knowledge on the subject over the years. It took 6 years for the district to properly recognize students that qualify for Section 504.

I've documented and written quite a bit about my experiences on this subject. All of my research led me to discover even more problems occurring in our school district which has been nationally publicized. This is definitely not what I was planning on doing for the past 6+ years. But, it has certainly helped reshape our school district over the last several months. Some of our remaining administrators are simply having a tough time dealing with it all and are twisting things however they can to keep from losing their jobs.

So, I'm sure there are probably many parents in our school district that still aren't aware of all of the problems that have transpired over the last several years in the Fox C-6 School District. They may think that having an assistant superintendent step in as an "interim" principal may seem like a good thing especially with all of the experience that was touted by Mr. Crutchley about Mr. Baker in his letter to Seckman Elementary parents. However, you have to weigh Mr. Baker's experience against the facts of what Mr. Baker's "household" posted online during off hours.

Never mind the fact that Fox C-6 is a National District of Character and there all of those "Character Traits" that our school district employees and school board members have agreed to uphold like Honesty, Integrity and Respect as they set the example for our students and our community.

Baker Did Not Apologize!

I want to point out the fact that Mr. Baker pretended to apologize to the public for being linked to comments made online at the August 4, 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting.

Mr. Baker and his wife didn't really apologize for posting the online defamatory statements. Mr. Baker apologized for the fact that his household was associated with the statements.

Dan Baker more or less said he was sorry for getting caught!

He also sounded nervous for having to read his statement to the public.

Listen to Dan Baker's Public Statement

Below is a transcript of what Mr. Baker read aloud at the August 4 board meeting.

To the Fox school board and the school community

On behalf of my wife and myself, I would like to this opportunity to publicly express my sincere regret that the Baker household was associated with the recent unrest caused by posts to an internet forum. Even a cursory connection to such events is unacceptable to both of us and is outside of our personal and professional standards. 

We appreciate the Board’s willingness to weigh our combined 34 years of service to the Fox school district as they adjudicate this matter. Most regrettable is the time and energy diverted from the business of educating students in order to deal with the issue. We are grateful for this opportunity to continuing serving this community and look forward to focusing our attention on meeting the needs of our students and their families.


Thank you.

I've had the personal experience of having to deal with Mr. Baker in his professional duties as the former Fox C-6 Section 504 Coordinator for the school district for 6+ years. Knowing Mr. Baker and having to interact with him, I certainly don't believe that Mr. Baker should be appointed as the interim principal at Seckman Elementary. That's just my opinion based upon my own experience of dealing with Mr. Baker.

Most people believe that the Bakers should have been fired and so do I. 

I can tell you that Section 504 law states that it is a violation of the law to retaliate against parents for advocating for their children and others. Perhaps ED OCR or USDA OCR don't consider making defamatory comments in online forums about parents is retaliatory in nature because it's considered "freedom of speech". USDA OCR didn't have anything substantial to act on until we were able to send them court documents such as our defamation lawsuit once names were named.

However, if everyone knew everything that's gone on behind the scenes at Fox over the last 6 and a half years as we dealt with the both the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights and the USDA's Office for Civil Rights in our efforts to get the Fox C-6 School District to properly follow the law to which Mr. Baker was expected to uphold, you may have a better understanding of things.

Needless to say, I believe the community needs to step up and take action by emailing your current school board members and acting superintendent Tim Crutchley about this recent decision. You need to let them know that this decision is unacceptable.

Mr. Baker should not have even been considered for this position.

Dedication and Perseverance are really good character traits to follow when dealing with these types of issues!

Below is the list of character traits from Guffey Elementary's webpage. 

Perhaps Mr. Baker should have had a framed copy of them hanging in his office or at his house to remind him of what he was expected to follow.

Mr. Baker failed miserably in upholding the Character Education traits that our district has touted for so long. Impressionable students and the community are being taught the wrong thing with all of the incredibly poor decisions in the recent months.

Character Education Words

Cooperation	To work together as a team and allow others to voice their opinion
Responsibility	Being accountable for your own actions
Respect	Demonstrating good manners toward self, others, authority, and property
Peace	Working calmly and cooperatively with others
Caring	Showing kindness, courtesy, and compassion towards others
Dedication	Always working hard to achieve your goals
Integrity	Doing the right thing, even when no one is looking
Honesty	To tell the truth no matter what the outcome may be
Positive Attitude	Always looking for the bright side of any situation
Trustworthy	Taking responsibility for ones choices and commitments
Perseverance	Remaining dedicated to an idea or task and never giving up
Loyalty	To be a reliable and dependable friend

What Are the Job Responsibilities of a School District's Section 504 Coordinator?

I was asked the other day to explain what the job responsibilities are for a school district's Section 504 Coordinator. The person was trying to better understand what Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker's responsibilities were in the Fox C-6 School District for the last 6 years as the Section 504 Coordinator. I gave them a very brief description of what a Section 504 Coordinator does. This person was also trying to understand how the Fox C-6 school board allowed the Bakers to keep their jobs after being implicated in the recent Internet scandal in the Fox C-6 School District.

In order to get a more detailed description of what a Section 504 Coordinator does, I ran a quick search on Google. In seconds I found the following information from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction in the state of Washington. Since Section 504 is a federal law, the job description remains the same for school districts across the country.

Perhaps some of the Fox C-6 school board members will read the job description posted below so they can get a better understanding of what Mr. Baker's job responsibilities were for the Fox C-6 School District.

Dan Bakers Unique Position Not Covered by News Media

Someone also asked my why the news media hadn't picked up on the fact that Mr. Baker's job position in the district put him in a very unique position. It would certainly be an issue if anyone in the Fox C-6 School District were to make defamatory comments in online forums that were directed at persons who had filed Section 504 complaints with the school district. To make the posts anonymously and have them traced back to your home would seem even more deceptive. Since Mr. Baker was the Section 504 Coordinator for the Fox C-6 School District for the past 6 years, having defamatory comments traced back to his home that were made against a person who had filed Section 504 complaints against the district seems as if that would have been a problem.

So, it's a really good question as to why the news media hasn't looked into and reported on that issue yet.

A SECTION 504/ADA COORDINATOR JOB DESCRIPTION

Background
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, each school district that receives federal financial assistance must designate at least one employee to coordinate the district’s compliance with its responsibilities under Section 504. If a district has 50 or more employees, it must also designate at least one employee to coordinate the district’s compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Most school districts designate one employee to serve both of these roles. This employee is often known as the Section 504/ADA Coordinator.

The district’s Section 504/ADA Coordinator may also serve as the district’s Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator.

While school districts may determine additional job requirements, the Section 504/ADA
Coordinator is, at a minimum, responsible for:

1. Coordinating and monitoring the district’s compliance with Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, as well as state civil rights requirements regarding discrimination and harassment based on disability;
2. Overseeing prevention efforts to avoid Section 504 and ADA violations from occurring;
3. Implementing the district’s discrimination complaint procedures with respect to allegations of Section 504/ADA violations, discrimination based on disability, and disability harassment; and
4. Investigating complaints alleging violations of Section 504/ADA, discrimination based on disability, and disability harassment.

Choosing a Section 504/ADA Coordinator
The Section 504/ADA Coordinator should be sufficiently knowledgeable about the requirements under state and federal disability discrimination laws, regulations, and guidance (including Section 504 and Title II of the ADA) to advise the district about its policies, procedures, and practices and to investigate complaints alleging violations of Section 504/ADA, discrimination based on disability, and disability harassment.

The school district should ensure that the Section 504/ADA Coordinator receives appropriate and on going training. The district should clearly communicate the responsibilities and expectations of the position with the Section 504/ADA Coordinator, and should provide them with the time and resources needed to effectively perform these duties.Section 504/ADA Coordinator

Sample Section 504/ADA Coordinator Job Description
Note: If the Section 504/ADA Coordinator also serves as the district’s Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator and/or Title IX Officer, please see the sample job descriptions for these roles for additional responsibilities.

In coordination with the Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator, the Section 504/ADA Coordinator is responsible for monitoring and implementing the district’s compliance with state and federal laws prohibiting disability discrimination, including Section 504 and Title II of the ADA.

The major responsibilities are (1) to prevent discrimination against students, employees, and others on the basis of disability; and (2) to ensure compliance with all procedures and procedural safeguards required under Section 504/ADA. Particularly when indicated below, the Section 504/ADA Coordinator should coordinate closely with the district’s Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator.

The Section 504/ADA Coordinator’s duties include the following:

Knowledge of Section 504/ADA Requirements

• Develop a working knowledge of current laws, regulations, and guidelines related to disability discrimination in public schools, including Section 504, Title II of the ADA as well as rules and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
• Become familiar with resources and information available from OCR and request technical assistance when needed
• Attend trainings on Section 504/ADA and share information with district administrators and staff
• Serve as the district’s liaison to OCR for issues regarding Section 504/ADA and disability discrimination generally
• Update Section 504/ADA Coordinator contact information with OCR as needed

District Policies and Procedures

• Facilitate the implementation of the district’s policies and procedures related to Section 504/ADA, and ensure that they are applied consistently across the district and at each school building
• Coordinate revisions to district policies and procedures related to Section 504/ADA, as necessary, to ensure that they are up-to-date and consistent with current requirements under these laws

Nondiscrimination Notices
In coordination with the district’s Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator:

• Regularly review district and building publications to ensure that they include a consistent nondiscrimination statement with all of the necessary protected classes and the name (or title), Section 504/ADA Coordinator phone number, and address of the district’s Section 504 Coordinator, Title IX Officer, and Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator
• Ensure that the district uses effective methods to annually inform all students, parents, and employees about the district’s discrimination complaint procedure, such as in staff and student handbooks
• Ensure that copies of the complaint procedure and any related forms are available in each school building to provide to students, parents, staff, and others who allege discrimination or discriminatory harassment

Section 504 Procedures and Procedural Safeguards
Develop a systematic process for monitoring both district and building level compliance with Section 504 requirements, including but not limited to:

• Child find responsibilities
• Parental consent before all initial evaluations and initial placements
• Written notice to parents, including notice of procedural safeguards, before any actions are taken regarding identification, evaluation, or placement under Section 504
• Team-based decision-making regarding evaluation and placement of students under Section 504
• Dissemination of Section 504 plans to appropriate staff 
• Periodic re-evaluations of all students who are eligible under Section 504, at least every three years
• Manifestation determination requirements for disciplinary changes in placement under Section 504
• Participate on Section 504 teams as needed 
• Coordinate training for building-level Section 504 designees, and ensure that they are informed about their job responsibilities (listed below)
• Collect and maintain all Section 504 data, such as Section 504 plans, evaluation reports and related records, lists of eligible students, discipline records, etc.
• Coordinate due process hearings when requested

Accessibility and Requests for Accommodations

• Continually monitor the reduction of architectural barriers for individuals with disabilities
• Receive and process requests for reasonable accommodations at school and district events Coordinate with the district’s human resources office to facilitate the provision of reasonable accommodations for district employees with disabilities

Training and Consultation
In coordination with the district’s Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator:

• Provide ongoing support and training to administrators and district- and building-level staff about requirements under Section 504/ADA, staff responsibilities, complaint procedures, and related district policies and procedures 
• Disseminate information and coordinate training for students and/or parents about their rights under Section 504/ADA, and the district’s complaint procedures
• Advise the superintendent and school board regarding the status of the district’s compliance with Section 504/ADA
• Receive and respond to inquiries from students, parents, staff, administrators, and others regarding Section 504/ADA, disability discrimination, and harassment based on disability
• Serve as a resource for administrators, district- and building-level staff, and Section 504 teams about Section 504/ADA and disability discrimination

Complaints and Investigation
In coordination with the district’s Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator:

• Respond to students, parents, staff, administrators, and others who report suspicion of Section 504/ADA violations, disability discrimination, or harassment based on disability. The coordinator should investigate these concerns, institute corrective actions when appropriate, inform the individual about the district’s complaint procedures, and assist individuals in filing complaints when needed
• Implement the district’s discrimination complaint procedure with respect to allegations of Section 504/ADA violations, disability discrimination, and harassment based on disability; receive and process complaints; and oversee the step-by-step process to be sure that timelines are met
• Conduct and/or coordinate investigations of Section 504/ADA complaints in accordance with the district’s discrimination complaint procedures. This may involve interviewing complainants, respondents, and witnesses; reviewing documents and other relevant materials; and researching legal standards and requirements relevant to the complaint. If the Section 504/ADA Coordinator has identified a conflict of interest with respect to a particular complaint, the coordinator should recommend that the district hire a neutral outside investigator to investigate a particular complaint
• Upon completion of the investigation, provide the superintendent with a written report of the complaint and the results of the investigation in time for the superintendent to respond to the complainant within 30 days after the district initially received the complaint
• Organize and maintain records of all Section 504/ADA and disability discrimination complaints filed, including all formal and informal complaints. At least annually, review complaint files to ensure that the district’s complaint procedures and timelines are consistently being followed, and to identify any patterns and repeat offenders

Textbooks and Instructional Materials
In coordination with the district’s Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator:

• Participate in the development and implementation of the school district’s instructional materials policy and bias review criteria with respect to bias pertaining to disability in all textbooks and instructional materials
• Ensure that the district evaluates all textbooks and instructional materials for bias, update bias review criteria when needed, and participate on the instructional materials committee when appropriate

Reviewing Systemic Barriers
In coordination with the district’s Civil Rights Compliance Coordinator:

• Participate in the development and implementation of the school district’s process to routinely review disaggregated student discipline data and course and program enrollment data to identify and address potential disparities and systemic barriers based on disability 
• Continually monitor school programs, activities, and services (including, but not limited to, Advanced Placement courses, Highly Capable Programs, Career and Technical Education courses, Alternative Learning Experiences, extra-curricular activities, etc.) to ensure that all students are given an equal opportunity to participate without discrimination based on disability
• Coordinate with the district’s human resources office to evaluate employment criteria, recruitment, compensation, job classification, benefits, and advertising to ensure that they are not discriminatory on the basis of disability

Sample Section 504 Building Designee Job Description

• Maintain building records and documentation for all students eligible under Section 504 and provide copies to the district Section 504 Coordinator
• Ensure the implementation of Section 504 procedures in the school building, including:
• Coordinating referrals
• Determining appropriate Section 504 team composition and participating on Section 504 teams as needed
• Facilitating Section 504 evaluations and development of Section 504 plans
• Providing notices and documenting parental consent
• Distributing Section 504 plans to appropriate staff
• Monitoring the implementation of Section 504 plans
• Scheduling annual reviews of each Section 504 plan
• Scheduling period re-evaluations of all students eligible under Section 504 at least every three years
• Assuring that Section 504 plans move with the student to the next grade level and to new schools
• Coordinating training of building staff on Section 504 requirements
• Conducting manifestation determinations when required for students eligible under Section 504
• Serve as a daily resource to the building administrators, teachers, and staff regarding Section 504
• Serve as a liaison between the school building and other district staff regarding Section 504 issues
• Maintain contact with the district Section 504 Coordinator and request assistance and training when needed
• Attend periodic district Section 504 trainings as needed to stay informed about current district requirements to comply with Section 504

Dear Colleague Letter On Retaliation Law from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights

A friend and parent who has had similar issues dealing with their school district pointed out to me today that the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) recently posted a Dear Colleague Letter on their website regarding Retaliation. I find it funny that the Dear Colleague letter was posted one day before ED OCR sent out a monitoring letter to our school district that had been delayed for nearly 9 months. ED OCR will occasionally post Dear Colleague letters when they see a preponderance of problems in school districts, colleges and universities that fall under their jurisdiction. This Dear Colleague letter is significant in the fact that our school district has taken the stance over the last 5 years that they have been doing things properly according to what they have been told by the district attorneys. However, as documented in several monitoring letters sent to our school district from ED OCR, Fox C-6 HAS NOT been properly following the law. More significant is the fact that because of our efforts in asking our school district and school board to do the right thing and properly follow the law, my family and I have been the target of numerous and continued retaliatory actions by our school district. I'm sure our Superintendent will deny that. I'll just go ahead and present the facts for everyone and that way you can decide for yourself. I'm sure that that the retaliation has been done in order to keep us from pursuing the issue with the federal agencies and hoping that we would eventually give up. It's worked for our school district in the past. So why quit now?

I believe our Superintendent and school district attorneys are probably disappointed with the fact that we haven't stopped our efforts to get our school district to do the right thing. I'm sure they thought I would have given up after receiving a "Cease and Desist" letter from the latest district attorney (#3) handling the case that was sent in August 2012. Well maybe the attorneys didn't want us to stop because they get paid to make things go away. Our Superintendent has to be asking herself why I haven't given up after reading all of the defamatory and slanderous remarks made against me and my family in online forums by supporters of our superintendent and school board members. She must really be perplexed. It could have something to do with the fact that I know our school district is in the wrong and that I will make sure that the truth comes out. Eventually my efforts will help a lot of other students and parents and keep them from having to go through the same thing. I'm certainly not going to allow our Superintendent to continue to make false and misleading statements about me and what the district is doing. I will always choose to take the high road and do what is right.

Examples of Retaliation - 2008 School Board Meeting
So,  what are some examples of retaliation? Well, one of the first occurrences of retaliation from our school district after we filed a complaint with ED OCR was when our school Superintendent Dianne Brown (now Critchlow) refused to let me speak with our school board during closed session in 2008. I had already been speaking with then board president Wes Griffith and board secretary Debby Davis prior to the start of that night's meeting. School board members Dan Smith, Ruth Ann Newman and Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker were also there. I was talking to Wes Griffith and Debby Davis about being put onto the next month's closed session agenda after Wes Griffith had forgotten to put me on that night's agenda. I had spoken with him earlier that afternoon on the phone and he had agreed to allow me to speak to the board that night per board policy. Our board secretary had already checked the schedule for the next month's meeting and had already informed our board president and I that I could be on next month's agenda when Superintendent Dianne Brown arrived at the meeting. She immediately informed me that the school board had already discussed my issues and that they had decided that they were not going to meet with me. It sounded to me like it was our Superintendent's decision and NOT our school board's decision that they weren't going to meet with me. Why wouldn't our school board president and school board secretary know that they had already decided not to me with when they told me that they would put me on next month's agenda? How difficult is it for our Superintendent to tell the truth? Needless to say, I didn't get my chance to speak with the board at the next month's meeting after our Superintendent made her decision for the board. That is a problem for both our school board and our community.

In speaking with attorneys from the Kansas City Office for Civil Rights at a seminar a couple of years ago, they informed me that our Superintendent's actions in 2008 sounded like retaliation to them. I must point out that the KC ED OCR attorneys at the seminar weren't the same attorneys that have been handling our complaint since August of 2008. It was good to know that some ED OCR attorneys considered it retaliation when our Superintendent blocked me from speaking with our school board. That's how she has been running our district and our board has done nothing to stop it.

The retaliation has only gotten worse since then. I also know that this has happened to another parent in our district that filed a complaint with ED OCR and MO DESE. But, since it was the husband of the teacher that made the retaliatory comments towards that parent, ED OCR didn't consider it to be retaliation from the school district. I would have to say that the Kansas City ED OCR Office has been walking a thin line for quite some time on what IS or IS NOT retaliation.

Fear of Speaking Up

Hopefully the Dear Colleague letter from Washington D.C. will bring about some changes in the Kansas City ED OCR office. I know that teachers and staff in our school district are afraid to speak up and say anything for fear of retaliation from our Superintendent and Central Office Administrators. School board members Linda Nash, Cheryl Hermann and John Laughlin all acted as if they were unaware that school employees were afraid to speak up and point out problems in our district at a meeting held before the March school board meeting with two recipients of "Cease and Desist" letters from our Superintendent. Cheryl Hermann admitted at that meeting that she wasn't even aware of the fact that "Cease and Desist" letters prior to the issue being brought out in the open. It seems that our Superintendent has a problem with informing our school board members about issues in our school district.

2012 Cease and Desist Letter
The Cease and Desist letter that I received in August 2012 from the school district attorney informed me that if I continued to speak with people in our community and current and former teachers and administrators that the district would take legal action against me. The district didn't want me talking about the complaints that we had filed with ED OCR and other issues in our school district. I guess I should say thank you to our Superintendent for formally documenting the district's retaliation towards me and my family for filing OCR complaints against our school district. I had no intentions of filing an OCR complaint against Fox until I was told that I should file a complaint in 2008 by a MO DESE Compliance Officer. He told me that he thought our school district wasn't following the law and I should file a complaint. If ED OCR didn't think my complaint was valid it would be dismissed.

Online Bullying and Calling My Dad Into Critchlow's Office
Well, our complaint with the district wasn't dismissed and our Superintendent wasn't happy with the fact that I filed a complaint. So much so that she had Vern Sullivan a former Fox C-6 School Board Member and former employee and Friends of Fox political action committee representative call my father into her office.  She told my father to tell me to stop pursuing things with the district. My father had worked for the school district for 42 years and was an assistant superintendent for more than 20 years. My father has also been the target of several online posts that have been made on the Topix online forum. Sometimes the online posts contain information that is not public information and only select administrators would or should know that information. That is why I fully believe that some of those posters are school administrators, their spouses, or their family and friends. Many of the retaliatory online comments made against me and my family directly reference complaints filed against our district with ED OCR. The general public doesn't know or care about our issues and concerns with the school district. But, our Superintendent certainly does. She only wants the public to know that Fox is a National District of Character and that our district is in the Top 10 of something in our state.

School Board Members Need To Read Dear Colleague Letter
I hope our current school board and our former school board members take the time to read the Dear Colleague Letter from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. 

This Dear Colleague letter points out how the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) gets involved with cases and how federal monies can be terminated from the Department to the recipient. The letter states why the USDA Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR) referred our USDA case to the U.S. Department of Justice. Fox C-6 refused to comply with their Final Agency Decision that was sent to the school district in August 2011. The USDA's referral to the DOJ was not made due to retaliation from the district or supporters of the district. But, now that the Department of Justice has our case, they now have the ability to investigate any retaliation that has been occurring ever since our complaints were filed with ED OCR and USDA OCR. The Dear Colleague letter which applies to both ED OCR and USDA OCR states that, "The enforcement actions available to OCR include initiating administrative proceedings to suspend, terminate, or refuse to grant or continue financial assistance made available through the Department to the recipient; or referring the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for judicial proceedings." This language is in the ED and USDA's Case Processing Manuals. It is being spelled out in this letter as a reminder to school districts, colleges and universities due to recent cases and DOJ rulings.

ED OCR, or at least the Kansas City ED OCR Office that we've been dealing with seems to have difficulty recognizing retaliation. The KC ED OCR Office also doesn't seem to put much effort towards enforcing the law based upon the fact that they continue to issue new deadlines each time our school district fails to meet the deadlines set by ED OCR. If ED OCR were to follow their guidelines of trying to close cases out in 180 days rather than allowing things to continue for nearly 5 years, I believe that their office could save the taxpayers quite a bit of money. With attorneys at ED OCR making over $100,000 per year, it adds up when there are a couple of attorneys assigned to a case. I know there a lot of other cases that have been in "monitoring" status for many years. In fact, the attorneys working our case laughed about the fact that ED OCR has some cases that have been in monitoring for more than 10 years.

It seems that their might be a management issue in the KC ED OCR office that needs to be addressed so cases can get resolved in a more timely manner.

You can find U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Dear Colleague letter online at the following URL:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201304.html

I have also posted a copy of the letter below:



Dear Colleague Letter

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

April 24, 2013

Dear Colleague:

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education (Department) is responsible for enforcing Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age by recipients of Federal financial assistance (recipient(s)) from the Department.¹ Although a significant portion of the complaints filed with OCR in recent years have included retaliation claims, OCR has never before issued public guidance on this important subject. The purpose of this letter is to remind school districts, postsecondary institutions, and other recipients that retaliation is also a violation of Federal law.² This letter seeks to clarify the basic principles of retaliation law and to describe OCR’s methods of enforcement.

The ability of individuals to oppose discriminatory practices, and to participate in OCR investigations and other proceedings, is critical to ensuring equal educational opportunity in accordance with Federal civil rights laws. Discriminatory practices are often only raised and remedied when students, parents, teachers, coaches, and others can report such practices to school administrators without the fear of retaliation. Individuals should be commended when they raise concerns about compliance with the Federal civil rights laws, not punished for doing so.

The Federal civil rights laws make it unlawful to retaliate against an individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by these laws.³ If, for example, an individual brings concerns about possible civil rights problems to a school’s attention, it is unlawful for the school to retaliate against that individual for doing so. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual because he or she made a complaint, testified, or participated in any manner in an OCR investigation or proceeding. Thus, once a student, parent, teacher, coach, or other individual complains formally or informally to a school about a potential civil rights violation or participates in an OCR investigation or proceeding, the recipient is prohibited from retaliating (including intimidating, threatening, coercing, or in any way discriminating against the individual) because of the individual’s complaint or participation. OCR will continue to vigorously enforce this prohibition against retaliation.

If OCR finds that a recipient retaliated in violation of the civil rights laws, OCR will seek the recipient’s voluntary commitments through a resolution agreement to take specific measures to remedy the identified noncompliance.⁴ Such a resolution agreement must be designed both to ensure that the individual who was retaliated against receives redress and to ensure that the recipient complies with the prohibition against retaliation in the future. OCR will determine which remedies, including monetary relief, are appropriate based on the facts presented in each specific case.

Steps OCR could require a recipient to take to ensure compliance in the future include, but are not limited to:

• training for employees about the prohibition against retaliation and ways to avoid engaging in retaliation;
• adopting a communications strategy for ensuring that information concerning retaliation is continually being conveyed to employees, which may include incorporating the prohibition against retaliation into relevant policies and procedures; and
• implementing a public outreach strategy to reassure the public that the recipient is committed to complying with the prohibition against retaliation.

If OCR finds that a recipient engaged in retaliation and the recipient refuses to voluntarily resolve the identified area(s) of noncompliance or fails to live up to its commitments in a resolution agreement, OCR will take appropriate enforcement action. The enforcement actions available to OCR include initiating administrative proceedings to suspend, terminate, or refuse to grant or continue financial assistance made available through the Department to the recipient; or referring the case to the U.S. Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.⁵

OCR is available to provide technical assistance to entities that request assistance in complying with the prohibition against retaliation or any other aspect of the civil rights laws OCR enforces. Please visit http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm to contact the OCR regional office that serves your state or territory.

Thank you for your help in ensuring that America’s educational institutions are free from retaliation so that concerns about equal educational opportunity can be openly raised and addressed.

                                    Sincerely,

                                      /s/

                                    Seth M. Galanter

                                    Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

¹ OCR enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Age Act), and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (Boy Scouts Act). OCR also shares enforcement responsibilities with the Department of Justice for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in state and local government services, programs and activities, regardless of whether they receive Federal financial assistance.

² The Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that retaliation is a violation of the Federal civil rights laws enforced by OCR. See, e.g., Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005); Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2003); Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002).

³ See 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (Title VI); 34 C.F.R. § 106.71 (Title IX) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 (Section 504) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference); and 34 C.F.R. §108.9 (Boy Scouts Act) (incorporating 34 C.F.R. §100.7(e) by reference). Title II and the Age Act have similar regulatory language. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.134 (Title II); and 34 C.F.R. § 110.34 (Age Act).

⁴ See OCR’s Case Processing Manual for more information about resolution agreements, available at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.html.

⁵ See 34 C.F.R. § 100.8.