Former Superintendent Critchlow Asked Her Cabinet To Post Positive Comments About the District on TOPIX

Recently, I posted the handwritten notes former Fox C-6 assistant superintendents Tim Crutchley and Todd Scott wrote after their conversation with former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Critchlow in which she told them that her husband Jamie Critchlow had been posting comments on the TOPIX.COM website. As I mentioned in that post, getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from some of Fox's former school district administrators had been a huge problem for years.

According to Tim Crutchley's deposition, former superintendent Dianne Critchlow had been concerned with comments that were being posted on TOPIX.COM for quite some time. Mr. Crutchley stated that comments on TOPIX were discussed quite often in their "cabinet" (assistant superintendent) meetings. In fact, she asked her "cabinet" (the assistant superintendents) to post positive comments on TOPIX about the school district in response to the comments that were critical of the district.

Former superintendent Dianne Critchlow's directive lead to some administrators posting comments on TOPIX.COM during the school day as well as at home. Not all of the comments posted were positive as you can see by reading the ones listed in the exhibits in the lawsuit that was filed with Jefferson County courts in November 2014.

Comments Posted On TOPIX from Fox's IP Address Date Back to 2010

Some of the earliest posts made on TOPIX that came from the school district's IP address date back to October 2010. They were made by a user named "Bullwinkle" who responded to a post that I had made on Topix regarding my concerns about the school district's open District Wide Compliance Review.

Former superintendent Dianne Brown was not happy that we had filed an OCR complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights in August 2008. And then in March 2010, Washington D.C. Office of Civil Rights informed superintendent Brown that her school district would be undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review adding insult to injury.

Making the public aware of the District Wide Compliance Review was something that former superintendent Dianne Brown didn't want. When I would ask the school board about it during public comments, Dianne would respond saying that it couldn't be discussed due to litigation. But, there was no litigation related to the Compliance Review. Stating that there was ongoing litigation was a simple way to make everyone believe that it couldn't be discussed. It was simply another tactic used to keep people from questioning things in the district. The District Wide Compliance Review was an investigation of the school district's Section 504 practices.

So, when a comment was posted on TOPIX by Bullwinkle referencing the recent Due Process decision for the OCR complaint, it was very obvious to me as to who would have posted that online comment. I just couldn't prove at the time that the comment came from a school district computer.

Dianne Brown and former assistant superintendent and Section 504 Coordinator, Dan Baker, had both been involved with the OCR complaint and Due Process Hearing as well as the District Wide Compliance Review in 2010 and were aware of the recent ruling.

So, when it was confirmed that Bullwinkle's comment that was posted on TOPIX.COM on November 16, 2010 came from a the school district's IP address, it helped validate my suspicions.

Below is part of Bullwinkle's comment that was posted on TOPIX. The comment seems to have a bit of an attitude resonating from it: 

"Channel person. You must be the disgruntled parents over the OCR case. get over it! you lost."

The Due Process Hearing ruling had made by an attorney who was hired by the school district and who just happened to be a former law associate in two different law firms of the attorney who represented the school district during the Due Process Hearing. The attorney hired by the district to hear the Due Process Hearing was supposed to be "Fair and Impartial" but that was not the case. That's just how the game has been played in our state for a very long time.

Bullwinkle also responded to another comment in which I had talked about speaking to Fox's school board president in 2008 about speaking to the school board and superintendent Brown blocked the school board from speaking to me. When superintendent Brown arrived at the meeting, she told me that the school board had already decided not to speak with me.

However, the board president at the time wasn't aware of this decision as we were already speaking about getting on next months agenda since he had forgotten to put me on the agenda for that evening. Apparently, superintendent Brown forgot to tell him that "he" had already decided not to speak with me. Superintendent Brown seemed to be the only person who knew that the school board had decided not to speak with me.

Bullwinkle didn't catch that my comment was about speaking with the board president in the fall of 2008. I guess being angered by information being posted in a public forum that had been kept quiet for so long was causing unrest in the upper ranks. My comment related to this incident caused Bullwinkle to post the following comment on TOPIX.COM:

11/16/2010 - 08:10AM

"The school board president is a female and has been president since early last spring you dip stick. 

Mr Critchlow, I will call you and we can start our own campaign against these crazy parents.. LOL Perhaps we can find them something to do at your school... hahahaaa"

Bullwinkle posted 5 comments on TOPIX.COM during October and November 2010. Several of Bullwinkle's online posts made "positive" comments about superintendent Brown and the school district. Bullwinkle certainly wanted to make sure that the community was aware of the great job that superintendent Brown was doing for our school district.

What helped confirm my suspicions that Bullwinkle was most likely superintendent Brown, was that the language and writing style used by Bullwinkle was strikingly similar to that found in the Superintendent Messages written by Superintendent Dianne Brown that she posted on the district website and also published in The Rock newspaper.

There was no doubt in my mind as to who Bullwinkle was who was posting on TOPIX defending superintendent Brown and responding to criticisms that were made on the Fox High School Superintendent thread.

Even though Bullwinkle didn't post that many messages, the phrases and keywords used by Bullwinkle gave you the impression that you were reading comments written by superintendent Dianne Brown herself.

Here are some of the phrases and keywords that stood out in Bullwinkle's comments. Compare the phrases to those used in Dianne Brown-Critchlow's Superintendent Messages from 2010 to 2013:

• Kudos to you
• second to none
• I applaud
• I'm proud of
• positive attitude

Below are the comments posted on TOPIX by Bullwinkle in 2010 from the school district's IP address with the dates and local time that they were posted:

10/19/2010 - 9:51AM

This is obsurd. Those of you who are relishing in these rumors are worse than the rumors theirselves. Complete rubbish. I have two kids that graduated from the district. Couldnt be more impressed with their experience and education. I applaud the superintendent and all her efforts. Her personal life is exactly what it is. Hers...not yours! Get a life people!

In 2010 when the message above was posted, Dianne Brown did have two kids that had already graduated from the district.

11/05/2010 - 11:19AM

Who here has been divorced or has had a close friend or relative get divorced? Because your not a public figure does that give all of us the right to judge you/her? Nope dont think so. One thing thats a common factor here is about the kids. Do you think your children would be proud of you guys posting negative remarks about their teachers and administration? Think about that... 

I love humans nowadays. Collectively forming a cyber‐subpar lynch mob with nothing to do other than try to tear people down. 

As you judge others always keep in mind you too will be judged when your time comes. 

Im proud of the school district. Its teachers, faculty, administration and staff are second to none. Kudos to you guys!!! I know your doing everything you can to help our children succeed.

The next comment posted by Bullwinkle was quite intent on defending superintendent Brown who had been getting criticized online about her close relationship with Jamie Critchlow.

11/08/2010 - 10:33AM

"Dear unknowing fellow constituents,... 

I am amazed that any of you morality, podium pounding blabber‐mouths feel you have any right to judge. Do you know the superintendant or any of the people being accused on here? What are your facts? I'm sure you caught wind of a rumor and you took it to the highest level without knowing a damn bit of whats going on. Have you lived in her house? Have you been in her former marriage? Have you had her confide in you why she got a divorce? NO... you have not and don't kid yourself if you think you have a clue. This is where the term "hypocrite" applies. 

I know the parents and board hold her in high regard and have nothing but the utmost respect for her. And my opinion still remains the same. Get a life and find a positive place in your head to venture to. The world is crappy enough without this rubbish and your nonsense. Be a parent with a positive attitude...not a bad one."

11/16/2010 - 8:10AM

The school board president is a female and has been president since early last spring you dip stick. Again...more lies to harm others. 

Mr Critchlow, I will call you and we can start our own campaign against these crazy parents..LOL Perhaps we can find them something to do at your school...hahahaaa

Below is the complete post that was made by Bullwinkle in response to my comment about the District Wide Compliance Review being conducted by OCR. In that same post, Bullwinkle also responded to another person who used the screen name "Please" which was not me:

11/16/2010 - 10:03AM

Channel person. You must be the disgruntled parents over the OCR case. get over it! you lost. 

"Please" You are correct in that affairs in the work place are frowned upon and Im sure Paul would agree with you. However, making accusations without proof is slander and you, my friend, are crossing the line repetitely. You lose. get over it! 

Put your name out there like Mr Critchlow did. Hes being ripped on here too and I applaud him for his righteousness.

Bullwinkle certainly thought highly of former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Brown back then and also thought that the school board held "her in high regard". Bullwinkle's comments certainly had a familiar ring to them.

I wrote an article about this in July 2014 titled:

What Got Our Educators Riled Enough To Write Defamatory Comments?

Comments Posted From District and Home Computers and Cell Phones
If you read through the exhibits in the publicly available lawsuit, you will see date / time stamps and an IP address recorded for each post. The school districts IP address was documented by MOREnet. Other IP addresses that were traced back to individual homes and cell phones were verified by the respective Internet Service Providers.

You'll probably notice that not all of the posts made on TOPIX that were traced back to the school district or to the homes or phones of school district administrators were "positive" posts.

The dates and times in the exhibits from TOPIX.COM are in Pacific Standard Time. So, you must to add 2 hours to the times that are documented in military time in the exhibits. The text of the lawsuit didn't properly document the times when they were converted from the exhibits into the lawsuit text.

Did Jamie Critchlow Use a School District Computer to post comments?

In Tim Crutchley's notes of his conversation with Jamie Critchlow, Mr. Crutchley documented that Mr. Critchlow didn't use any district computers when he posted comments on TOPIX.COM, "We asked if he used personal or district computers and he said he used personal computer."

Did Mr. Critchlow tell the truth when he told Mr. Crutchley that he didn't use a district computer?

On November 16, 2010 at 7:49AM, there was a comment posted on TOPIX by someone using the screen name, "Jamie Matthew Critchlow". The online post was removed from TOPIX long ago but was provided by TOPIX when subpoenaed since it originated from the school district's IP address.

The original comment posted by the screen name, Jamie Matthew Critchlow was as follows except that I redacted part of the phone number that was made in the original online post and in the lawsuit exhibits:

Public...let me introduce myself. I am Jamie Critchlow. Principal of the Bridges program at Fox C‐6. I have been made aware of this website and rumors as of late. I am on here to speak to you as a concerned parent. I am truly apathetic for anyone who finds comfort in these negative words. Dr Brown and I are great friends who have found solitude in each others friendship through difficult times. The light in which both she and i have been shed on this website is at best ridiculous. If you have any questions you would like to ask please call my personal cell at 314‐775‐XXXX.

Read through the TOPIX.COM posts that are documented in the lawsuit that was filed electronically in the Jefferson County courts in November 2014. You can see just how many comments were made on TOPIX from the school district's IP address. The district said they were unable to trace which specific computers the posts came from when asked to do so. However, there's a definite pattern in the content that goes along with certain screen names in many of the online comments.

Hopefully reading through the online comments will give everyone a little more perspective as to why I've put so much time and effort into documenting what was going on in our school district. It's important to get the facts and the truth to the public so this type of behavior never happens again in our school district.

Fox's former superintendent, Dianne Brown/Critchlow invested a lot of time and effort into hiding information from the public for years. That allowed her to get away with a lot of things that never should have happened. It's very well documented in my emails to board members and administrators as well as audio recordings that I made when I attended school board meetings as to what was going on.

It's extremely hard for anyone to even imagine that this sort of harassment could or would occur especially since it was being done by some of the top administrators in our school district.

It's even harder to imagine that our Fox C-6 school board members did nothing to stop it. I repeatedly spoke to them and emailed them about this harassment for years.

In 2014 after obtaining IP addresses, we provided the lawsuit information to the Office of Civil Rights since this sort of behavior would surely be considered retaliation under Section 504 Law. However, the Office for Civil Rights told us they couldn't do anything until there was a court ruling. We also spoke to the Department of Justice as well.

There's a huge problem with the system and the people involved when this type of harassment cannot be stopped. Perhaps this will be a lesson that everyone will learn from.

The following document contains all of the online posts that were submitted in the original lawsuit along with the locations that the online posts were made from. Reading through the online comments that were posted and from where shows is a very sad example of how desperate people were to keep their jobs as I brought my concerns to our school board that our superintendent did not appreciate.

Lawsuit With Exhibits Electronically Filed in Jefferson County Court in 2014 over TOPIX.COM Posts

Stark Similarities Between Fox C-6 and Lee's Summit R-7 School Districts!

I received an email today from a parent in Lee's Summit, Missouri. They found my blog and wanted to discuss with me the similarities between their school district and Fox C-6. Their email said that they already sent information from my blog to the Assistant Attorney General to provide comparison information.

Here is the list of similarities sent to me by a parent in the Lee's Summit R-7 school district.

Similarities Between Fox C-6 and Lee's Summit R-7:

• OCR Resolution Agreement for Not Following Civil Rights Laws
• Cease and Desist Orders Against People Who Question District Actions
• Board Meetings Not Videotaped and Available For Broadcast
• Violations of Board Policies, Federal, State and Local Laws
• Questionable Use of Taxpayers' Funds
• Educator Certification Issues
• Failure By Board To Respond To Patrons' Concerns
• Retaliation Against Anyone Who Questions The Board and Their Actions
• Superintendent Does Not Want Community To Know About Resolution Agreement With OCR.
• Taxpayer Dollars Used To Pay Attorneys to Fight Against Lawsuits When If They Followed The Laws, The Money Could Be Spent On The Education Of District Students
• DESE Passes The Buck Back To Parents To Complain To Board and Nothing Gets Corrected On Behalf of Students
• Community Only Reads All Of The District Generated Positive Public Relations Articles
• District Boasts of Awards They Have Received (Questionable Data To Back Up These Awards.  Would An Award Even Be Justified If The Recipient Stated Up Front That They Are Being Monitored By the Department  of Education Office For Civil Rights For Non-Compliance Of Civil Rights Laws?)

After I read their list of similarities, I had to laugh because of how similar the problems are in Lee's Summit R-7 compared to Fox C-6. You can see that there are quite a few.
They stated in their email that there are many more.

First, you have to understand that many of the school districts in our state are represented by only a few law firms. Many of the attorneys in these firms have worked with or for the same firms before splitting or starting their own firms. Therefore, the same strategies and tactics are employed by nearly all of the districts in the state on legal issues. Plus, there are quite a few books out there as well on dealing with the media as a school district superintendent with useful tips on what and what not to do. It's all about controlling the image and perception of your school district. It's the superintendent's job to make their district look good.

For several years now I have known about issues in other school districts in our state as I researched the issues going on in the Fox district. But, seeing a list from another parent on the other side of the state proves that we have some serious problems with MO DESE and with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (ED OCR) in Kansas City, Missouri. 

U.S. Department of Justice Gets Involved

In speaking recently with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), I learned that the DOJ now has the ability to initiate their own independent investigations when ED OCR refuses to do so. Of course it helped that the USDA OCR Office asked the DOJ for assistance in getting Fox C-6 to comply with the USDA's August 2011 Final Agency Decision. The August 2011 USDA Final Agency Decision found both the Fox C-6 School District and MO DESE non-compliant with Section 504 and the ADA. So, in their efforts to bring the district into compliance if MO DESE doesn't do their job, the DOJ has been asking for documentation for their case against the school district. We are quite happy to supply them with the information we have. I also asked the DOJ about handling retaliation since that is directly written into the laws and they do cover that as well.

For example, there have been a lot of online libelous and defamatory attacks made against citizens who voice their concerns about our school district in online forums. And, what I find interesting about some of the comments made by these anonymous posters is that they seem to have access to information that only our top administrators would know about. For example when cease and desist letters were sent out and how someone made a reference about something happening before they were even sent.

Could it be a coincidence that these "anonymous" people have access to this information or are they just school supporters guessing? It's quite obvious that a few people in our school district don't like some of the questions posed at school board meetings by a few citizens in our community.

It's kind of humorous that the Character Education Trait of the month for June at Fox is Perseverance. That's the word that will hopefully be remembered by our school administrators and school board members as to how change is invoked in our community. I have been thanked by many teachers and staff for my efforts on calling out our school district's administration and school board. There are a few others in our community that are not afraid to speak out. They should be thanked as well. Hopefully in the end all of this effort will bring about a positive change within our school district.

It appears that Lee's Summit R-7 has a Resolution Agreement with ED OCR similar to Fox. However, Fox is also still undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review that Lee's Summit has not had yet. Fox's District Wide Compliance Review was initiated in March 2010 by ED OCR and it is still open as well according to a recent Freedom of Information Act request stating that ED OCR couldn't provide any information because the investigation was still ongoing.

I am hoping that providing this information and more to the U.S Department of Justice regarding problems with school districts in our state will lead to changes at MO DESE and ED OCR. ED OCR has allowed Fox C-6 to get by with doing practically nothing towards fulfilling the Resolution Agreement signed by the district in May 2009. You must be wondering why our school board hasn't done something to make sure Fox complies with Federal laws.

USDA Works Towards Enforcement

USDA OCR has been aware of problems in our state since 2008. In fact, in 2008 the USDA specifically came to Missouri to retrain districts after the USDA watched a video presented by attorneys at their annual school law seminar. Fox C-6 did not attend the training. The training was presented to the Food Nutrition Directors in our state. Maybe that's why our former Food Nutrition Director retired. Our district has a new Food Nutrition Services Director who is the daughter in law of one of our school board members. Our new Food Nutrition Director has been given two years to get her degree and certification to do her job since she only had a high school diploma when she was hired into the position with a salary of $65,000. I'm still wondering why Fox refused to meet with the USDA in March 2013 when the USDA came to do a Compliance Review of our district. But, then that was after the August 2012 meetings with the USDA when the district refused to comply with the USDA's Final Agency Decision.

Why would the USDA be more intent on compliance enforcement than ED OCR? I believe it could have something to do with the fact that the USDA's Regional Office is located in Colorado. In contrast, ED OCR's Regional Office is located in Kansas City, Missouri. The Director of the Kansas City ED OCR Office is Angela Bennet. Mrs. Bennet was an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Missouri. William (Bill) Dittmeier is the Chief Attorney for the KC ED OCR Office. Mr. Dittmeier was an attorney that represented the Kansas City School District for years before working at the Kansas City ED OCR Office.

Failings of the Kansas City ED OCR Office

Our experience with the Kansas City ED OCR Office has been quite similar to many others in Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. The KC ED OCR office has many investigations that have been open since 2009. Making Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the KC ED OCR Office are supposed to be handled within 20 days. Some requests have required multiple requests and have taken more than 6 months to get a response from this office. A quick search for Bill Dittmeier and Angela Bennet returned a link to the following document from the KC ED OCR office sent to a parent in Oklahoma. It's just another example of what has been happening in this ED OCR Office.

Oklahoma FOIA Request Response from Kansas City ED OCR Office

We contacted and voiced our concerns with Randolph Wills the U.S. Department of Education Enforcement Director regarding the Kansas City ED OCR Office a couple of years ago. Mr. Wills is the regional Director that oversees the Kansas City ED OCR Office. Mr. Wills responded a couple of years ago when I first contacted him. He informed me that he would look into our concerns and get back with us. Mr. Wills never got back with me and has not returned phone calls or emails left or sent to him since then. Not responding to concerns seems to be the same tactic taken by many school districts in our state take as well. U.S. Senator Roy Blunt's office even attempted to contact the Kansas City ED OCR Office and experienced similar problems. So this is not an isolated incident.

Since the USDA OCR office is not located in Missouri, there seems to be more enforcement efforts as opposed to ED OCR. ED OCR has allowed cases to remain open for years. Once they have a case go into monitoring ED OCR occasionally sends out monitoring letters to let the district know they still have or haven't complied with their Resolution Agreement. Sometimes it may be more than a year between monitoring letter updates.

The question we have sent KC ED OCR several times is, how many years does ED OCR allow a district to fail in fulfilling a Resolution Agreement before they move to enforcement or opening an investigation?

KC ED OCR responds with a standard letter stating that they will let you know when they plan to send out their next monitoring letter. For example, ED OCR informed us last year that they would be sending out a monitoring letter to Fox C-6 in August 2012. When that letter wasn't sent, they informed us it would be sent in November 2012. Then we were informed it would be sent in January 2013. Then we were told it would be March or April of 2013. ED OCR finally sent the monitoring letter on April 25, 2013. This was after the original April date that we were given. Do you see a pattern or problem here with this office?

Not Just A Statewide Problem

It's very disappointing to know that there are other school districts in our state that are doing the same thing as Fox C-6. It is also very disappointing to know that there are problems in other states that are covered by the Kansas City ED OCR Office as well. When asking ED OCR several times to engage the U.S. Department of Justice since it is documented in their Case Processing Manual that they will do so when a school district does not comply, ED OCR informed us that they weren't going to do so. ED OCR said the district had not indicated that they weren't going to comply. One would think that after 4 years of not complying with the Resolution Agreement and being given numerous updated deadlines, that ED OCR would recognize the fact that the Fox C-6 has no intentions of complying.

Now that the DOJ has informed us that regulations have been updated to allow them to initiate their own investigation independent of ED OCR, perhaps we will see improvements in our state and in the Kansas City ED OCR Office.

Fox C-6 Superintendent Salary Update Mid-Year Pay Hike?

From a Missouri Sunshine Request to MO DESE for all salaries for the Fox C-6 school district from 1990 to present, I found that the salary reported for superintendent Dianne Critchlow was NOT was reported to me by the school district last August for the 2012-2013 school year. MO DESE salary data provided by the school district reports superintendent Dianne Critchlow's salary at $246,824 instead of the $238,785 that was reported last fall. It should be noted that the salary reported to DESE does not include other perks such as a school SUV, insurance or annuity payments. We will have to wait for the June 2013 School Board Packets to be released this week to see how much Dianne Critchlow's salary will be for next year. Her new salary should be listed with the other salary schedules.

I also now know why then Dianne Brown informed me via email back in 2011 that my information was incorrect about how much her current husband Jamie Critchlow was paid for the 2009-2010 school year. According to MO DESE, school districts are required to report the amount that the person would have been paid if they worked the entire year in their position even if they started late in the year. So, her husband didn't make the full $98,589 since he worked as a teacher for a couple of months prior to being promoted to Director.

August 2012 Fox C-6 Superintendent Salary Report

So, why was there an increase in the middle of the school year?

Since school salary data is public information, I am providing this information for the public so they can start asking our school board why they keep providing such LARGE pay increases to our superintendent during poor economic times. Also, you should ask our school board for some justification for those raises comparing our district to other districts under our superintendent's leadership. It has taken more than 2 years for our school administration and school board to work on and adopt new school board policies. Those policies have still not been updated. In fact, some of the policies were required to be updated to meet Federal law in May of 2009 by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). The district still hasn't updated those policies for ED OCR even though the district signed a Resolution Agreement with the ED OCR to make the changes in May 2009. It would seem to me that a school superintendent making over $250,000 with benefits would be able to accomplish the simple things like updating policies under their watch. It also appears that our school board doesn't consider holding people accountable very seriously if those simple things can't be accomplished.

You may also want ask our school board why the Fox C-6 School District refused to meet with the USDA for a Compliance Review in March 2013. Our new Food Nutrition Services Director Kelly Nash would have been the one to meet with and discuss with the USDA the compliance review. Our district was found Non-Compliant by the USDA in August 2011. However, the USDA did meet with MO DESE since they are required to keep Missouri schools compliant.

I have read on Topix posts stating that our school district is not in jeopardy of losing any federal funds based on my previous articles on the Fox C-6 Watchdog site. Federal agencies really don't like to withhold funding federal funding from school districts. But, it is in their guidelines to do so when a district fails to come into compliance with the law. It will be interesting to see how the district handles becoming compliant now that the USDA is working with U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). According to the DOJ, the USDA is attempting to work with MO DESE to bring the district into compliance. If MO DESE fails to bring our district into compliance, the DOJ will be ready to step in and conduct their own investigation and enforce compliance. Time will tell. 

It does make you wonder what our school board members are thinking doesn't it?

It's time to find a new superintendent who can get the job done!

Superintendent Critchlow's Salary Data:
2013 - $246,824
2012 - $228,573 - Dianne Critchlow
2011 - $215,276
2010 - $207,393
2009 - $192,586
2008 - $164,428
2007 - $152,068
2006 - $137,859
2005 - $108,663
2004 - $105,749
2003 - $102,633
2002 - $98,005
2001 - $28,529

2000 - $73,248
1999 - $68,879 - Dianne Brown
1998 - $61,273

1997 - $57,822

1996 - $33,018

1995 - $30,488

1994 - $26,268

1993 - $24,075

1992 - $22,906

1991 - $21,315 - Dianne Brewer

Director of Bridges Jamie Critchlow's Salary Data:
2013 - $116,103
2012 - $107,813
2011 - $101,884

2010 - $98,589

Fox C-6 and MO DESE Undergo USDA Compliance Review

Does Our School Board Know About The USDA Compliance Review?
The week of March 25, 2013 the USDA Office of Civil Rights (USDA OCR) will be visiting the Fox C-6 School District and the state of Missouri's Department of Secondary and Elementary Education (MO DESE) to conduct an onsite Compliance Review. USDA OCR will be covering their Guidelines and Regulations in which the school district and MO DESE were found to be Non-Compliant in their August 2011 Final Agency Decision (FAD). The Compliance Review is being conducted at both the district and state level. Their review will be focusing on the Assurance Agreement that the State and School District sign in order to receive their federal funds. The Assurance Agreement covers the USDA's Federal Regulations and Guidance, and more in depth Section 504 Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act (ADA AA). This Compliance Review stems from an April 2009 complaint filed with the USDA. The USDA performed a preliminary onsite visit in September 2009 to the state and then a November 2009 visit to our school district, and issued a preliminary report to the Washington D.C. office in March of 2010. The March 2010 report stated that our school district did not understand their responsibilities in following the USDA Guidelines and Regulations and the laws contained therein.

Fox and MO DESE Found To Be Non-Compliant

How did Fox being found to be Non-Compliant by the USDA cause the state of Missouri to be Non-Compliant? According to the USDA's Final Agency Decision, the Fox C-6 School District signs an assurance agreement each year with MO DESE. Each year MO DESE signs an assurance agreement with the USDA stating that it will ensure that our state's school districts will abide by the Guidelines, Regulations and laws that the USDA is charged with enforcing when participating in the USDA's National School Lunch program. Since MO DESE is responsible for ensuring that school districts in the state follow the USDA's Guidelines and Regulations, and the laws it covers, and Fox was found to be Non-Compliant, the entire state of Missouri was found to be Non-Compliant.

U.S. Department of Justice Gets Involved

In order for all of this to occur, the USDA had to work with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to pursue enforcement action against our school and our state. The USDA has a Case Processing Manual that is a step by step guide that they must follow before they can come into the state and then to the district to enforce the law. But, once the USDA found the state to be non-compliant, it has the ability to withhold federal reimbursement for the entire state of Missouri's National School Lunch program. This covers Free and Reduced lunches as well as the standard reimbursement for a regular pay school lunch. Based upon the number of lunches reported by Missouri DESE and the USDA's reimbursement formula, this would amount to over $1,000,000 dollars per day that the USDA could withhold from the state of Missouri due to the Fox C-6 School District not complying with the USDA's Guidelines and Regulations and not following Section 504 Law, the ADA and ADAAA.  The USDA prefers voluntary compliance as opposed to withholding federal funds.

Rest assured, our school district didn't like the decision that the USDA handed down. The school district attorneys spent a good amount of time in filing an appeal as well as conducting conference calls with the USDA. Our school district attorneys even made Freedom of Information Act requesting any and all correspondence between us and the USDA. Everything I sent to the USDA was statement of fact and documentation from meetings and or documents that I found online at MO DESE, school attorney presentations and emails from the district and attorneys. This is when our school district learned that I had supplied the USDA with an audio recording of our December 7, 2009 Section 504 meeting and a transcript of that meeting. Why did I record the meeting? Because I had learned in an August 2008 Section 504 meeting that statements made and documented in our meetings with the school and documented by school weren't accurate or misrepresented the facts. Since it was our word against theirs, I needed proof as to what was said and occurred during those meetings.

District Attorneys Lying To Federal Attorneys?

For example, following a May 2009 504 meeting, the school district attorney at the time made false statements to the Kansas City US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (ED OCR) attorney about statements I informed ED OCR he had made during the meeting.  During that meeting, the district attorney stated that "episodic and in remission only applied to people with cancer" in reference to the new ADAAA. I told the district attorney during the meeting that this is not what the new law said. He told me that yes it was because he had "just read it in the congressional findings the day before". He then told me that we weren't here to debate the new law. I told ED OCR that he was trying to teach the team that the new law didn't apply to our case, which was not true.

In discussing my concerns with the ED OCR attorney about what the district attorney said during the meeting, she told me that she was sure that he wouldn't have said that. She said she would call him and ask him if he said that. She called him and emailed me back. In her email, she informed me that the district attorney told her that he never said that. I said thanks for checking and then I emailed her a copy of my audio recording of the meeting as proof that he did in fact make those statements during the meeting!

The Federal Law On Lying

Why would a school district attorney be willing to lie to a federal attorney when there are laws that carry big penalties for doing so? Could it be that he thought he wouldn't get caught because what happens behind closed doors in 504 meetings stays behind closed doors? You know there is a problem with how your district is handling things when district attorneys lie to ED OCR federal attorneys and the ED OCR attorneys brush it off. The law that I am referring to is United States Code (USC) 18 Section 1001. It is known as the Federal Law on Lying. It's the same law that was used to put Martha Stewart in jail. It should be noted that a person does not have to be under oath when making false statements in order for it to be a crime. The person doesn't even have to make the false statement directly to the federal employee or agent. For instance, let's say that a school district official makes false statements or falsifies documentation to MO DESE during an investigation. Now, let's say that the results of that MO DESE investigation are then turned over to a federal agency such as ED OCR. Those false statements or falsified documentation would violate this law. Under this statute, it is a crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially false statement concerning any matter that is within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Department of Education and the US Department of Agriculture fall under this jurisdiction. The penalties for violating this law are up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine per count and the statute of limitations under this law is 5 years.

Here is a great article covering USC 18 Section 1001:

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/businesspersons-beware-lying-is-a-crime/

So, it appears that this is how things have been done for years by our school district. If it weren't for my audio recordings it would have been my word against the school's word. Since there is no school board policy at Fox C-6 that prohibited the audio recording of 504 meetings at that time and there still isn't. I started recording our 504 meetings. There is a policy that prevents someone from recording IEP meetings unless you request permission prior to the meeting to do so. NOTE: The new school board policies that our school board has been reviewing since March of 2012 and are still working to adopt includes a new policy that will prohibit audio recording 504 meetings just like IEP meetings. I wonder what prompted our school district to add this to their policies?  

After all of the false statements I had heard during our 504 meetings, I began recording the meetings as a way of documenting what was going on so I could review them later and make notes as to what they were trying to pull. I was not as knowledgeable in Section 504 law back then. For parents that don't do this on a daily or regular basis, the district can easily walk all over you. They will tell you things that aren't true hoping that you don't catch them in their lies so they don't have to do things that they are required to do but may not want to do. It still begs the question as to why attorneys were brought into this entire process in the first place. But, I am guess that it was because we got up to speed on the laws very quickly and were able to go toe to toe with their attorneys so well that they had to resort to misrepresenting the facts.

School Districts Get To Choose Due Process Hearing Officers

I am guessing that our school district attorneys kept assuring our superintendent that they would win this case. They were able to pull off a win in a Due Process Hearing when the school district hired a former law associate of the school district attorney to act as a Due Process Hearing Officer. We handled our side of the case pro se. Every attorney we spoke with told us we would be wasting our money if we hired an attorney because the school district had already rendered their decision. The Due Process Hearing was simply a formality. According to our school district's Procedural Safeguards, the school district gets to choose the Due Process Hearing Officer. It just happened that the district chose an attorney that used to work closely for years with the district attorney representing school districts in other law firms. In fact the two of them even spoke at a 2007 Missouri Speech and Hearing Conference on "How To Testify In Due Process Hearings". So, you can probably see that chances are pretty slim that any due process hearing with the school district will be "fair and impartial". In fact, within a few seconds of getting the name from the school district as to who the Due Process Hearing Officer would be, I was able to find his name on several court cases with the district attorney representing school districts against parents when they worked together in other law firms.

When we talked about backing out of Due Process (we had no chance of getting a fair hearing), the school district informed us that they would exercise their right to file a Due Process Hearing against us because they wanted to get this decision finalized once and for all. Once the district attorney got the decision she wanted, she put it into her presentations that she made across the state. The USDA reviewed the school district's Due Process Hearing decision and gave it very little credibility. So, even though the district attorney was able to get the decision she wanted, the USDA found that the hearing officer did not properly apply the law and that is why they are stepping in. ED OCR didn't step in at all. I will go into my theories as to why in another article. It has something to do with the fact that the lead attorney for ED OCR in the Kansas City OCR office is a former Missouri School District attorney. We have a long list of excuses as to why ED OCR can't seem to enforce the law after nearly 5 years of handling our case.

Our Superintendent Did Inform the School Board

The district filed an appeal to the USDA Final Agency Decision which Mr. Dan Baker was so proud to tell me about after the December 2011 school board meeting when I asked him if the administration had ever informed the school board about the ruling. I told Mr. Baker and Dianne (Brown at the time) that the board members I had spoken to didn't know anything about the USDA ruling. Dianne informed me that she had sent an email to the board. She sent me a copy of the email that she sent the board dated August 24, 2011 the next day as proof that she informed them. She sent it to me on December 14, 2011. This is how she described the USDA Final Agency Decision to the school board in her email:

Good morning, 

I received this 12 page document from our attorney regarding the Simspon case. I am sending it to you and will provide a copy in your backup materials in case you can't open the document. In summation, it is a long letter from USDA and their OCR. Terry (attorney) has noticed many inaccuracies in the document. 

However, I am just reminding everyone that since this is pending litigation. We cannot talk to the Simspons about the case. Per our attorney, please ask them if you are notified to contact myself or the district's attorney. 

Thank you!
Dianne

Did the School Board Read the "long letter" From the USDA?

I know that Ruth Ann Newman wasn't aware of the "long letter". Dan Smith didn't recall seeing the "long letter" when I asked him if he had after the December 2011 school board meeting. He also wasn't aware of it when another friend of mine had asked him about it prior to the board meeting. However, he did recall seeing it when Dianne Critchlow walked up and told him that he had. It was quite humorous to see Dan's recall improve when he was told that he had seen it because Dianne had emailed it to everyone on the board. The question is, did anyone read it? I'm guessing that they didn't.

Since Dianne reminded him that he had seen it and that I was wrong to assume that the board members were unaware of the letter since I had asked them and they didn't know anything about, she pointed out in her email to me in her normal arrogant attitude that, "Your statement last evening that the Board of Education was not informed is false and inaccurate." Thank you Dianne for correcting me! My mistake. She had informed the school board in an email about the USDA ruling. Our superintendent didn't seem too concerned with the fact that our school district and the entire state of Missouri had been found Non-Compliant by the USDA at the time. She also had trouble spelling my last name in her email. At least she was consistent. I guess that's OK because the USDA had trouble spelling the school name in their document which was one of the inaccuracies that the district attorney noticed. It is very important note that the school district was eventually informed that there was no appeal because it was a Final Agency Decision. That's why they are now conducting a Compliance Review of our district and MO DESE.

Fox's new Food Nutrition Services Director (school board president Linda Nash's daughter-in-law) is going to get thrown into the frying pan or get grilled this week when she gets to meet with the USDA and the Office of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR). Wow! All of this effort because our school district didn't want to fill out some paperwork like other school district do. Also, I guess our superintendent didn't like getting caught doing something wrong. That's why the district pays the attorneys to make things "look" proper. Well, that's at least what they want you to think. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this Compliance Review brings given the fact that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is now involved and given the fact that attorneys from the DOJ recently contacted us.