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

The April 7, 2015 School Board Election is only one week away!

It's very important that you learn as much as you can about the candidates who are running for the Fox C-6 school board so you can make an informed decision.

This past year has definitely been a pivotal year for our school district. This past year will easily overshadow all of the previous problems that have occurred in the history of our district.

I don't remember any time in the history of the district where almost every single Central Office administrator left the district or was demoted/moved out of the Central Office.

The election of the next two school board members for the Fox C-6 School District is a very important decision and one that needs to be well researched. You need to talk to your neighbors and make sure that they get out and vote and are well informed.

It's important that we elect two new board members who will represent the taxpayers and not special interest groups or family members. We need school board members who are going to represent the community.

We need board members who are approachable and willing to listen to the concerns of parents and the community and stand up for those concerns.

There is only one long time incumbent left on the Fox's Board of Education. That is Mr. David. He is up for re-election. I certainly hope the community is educated enough by now to know that David Palmer sat silently for years and was willfully blind to the problems being brought to his attention. Enough said!

Meet the Candidates
Last night Hodge Elementary's PTO hosted a meeting with the Fox C-6 Board of Education candidates at 6:30PM at Hodge Elementary School. Hodge is located on off of Prairie Hollow Road.

There was a fairly light turnout of parents and concerned citizens. Less than 25 people in attended the meeting. I believe the meeting was only announced on Facebook and Twitter. I didn't know about the meeting until this past weekend.

It would have been much better if there had been a meet the candidates meeting at the Service Center or at Rickman Auditorium. When Rockwood went through their big scandal a couple of years ago, they hosted large meetings for their candidates to meet the public.

Four of the six Fox C-6 BOE Candidates attended

• Dr. Robin Hanson
• Christ Hastings
• Mark Jones
• Sherry "Chellew" Poppen

Drew Kriese could not attend the meeting because he was out of town. Mr. Kriese had a handout available for those who attended the meeting.

Fox C-6 Board of Education BOE incumbent David Palmer did not attend attend the event. No reason was given as to why he did not attend.

Each of the four school board candidates that attended gave a short introduction explaining why they were running for the board.

A Current and Former Board Member Attended
Fox C-6 board member Dan Kroupa attended most of the meeting. Mr. Kroupa left a little early so the focus of the discussion could get back to the candidates rather than answering questions from parents and patrons about the recent decisions that were made at the March 2015 BOE meeting and some of the other decisions over the past year. Early questions from some of the parents wanted to know how the candidates would have handled the recent decisions which led to discussion with Mr. Kroupa. I would say that there was some anger and frustration over some of the decisions made by the board over the past year.

I mostly sat and listened. I did provide some information as to administrator salary schedules from the past and the recent 1% raise given to the administrators.

I asked the board candidates if they would support hosting listening posts prior to board meetings where the community can speak openly with the school board rather than the limited 3 minutes for Public Comments.

The Rockwood School District hosts listening posts with their community. I brought this to the Fox C-6 school board in September or October 2013. I was told in an email from former superintendent Dianne Critchlow that the district was going to start hosting them at the November 2013 board meeting. However hosting open discussions with the school board was shot down at the November 5, 2013 school board workshop. You can read more about that by clicking on the link below when I wrote about it back in November 2013:

Fox C-6 School Board Fails the Public Again

Former Fox C-6 school board member Linda Tramel also attended the meeting. Mrs. Tramel was asked to serve on the school board after board member Don Earl passed away. Mrs. Tramel was on the board after Bourisaw was fired by the district. This was also during the 2001/2002 audit of the school district by Claire McCaskill. My father also served on the school board during that time replacing Ron Clark.

Linda Tramel talked about the board training that all new board candidates have to attend by state law. She talked about how the board is responsible for hiring the superintendent and developing/approving school board policies.

Overall, there was some really good and healthy discussion that went on about some of the recent decisions with the board candidates. I don't have time to get into all of those points this morning but plan to write more and post an update to this article or write a more in depth article.

Several people thanked me for helping provide information to the community so they can be more informed. I also had a parent thank me for helping their child get a Section 504 plan which had been previously denied by the school district. I will continue to work on holding the district accountable and working towards getting them to do the right thing and follow board policies.

Here are a few of the items that were discussed:

• Board member responsibilities and who they represent.
• Transparency or lack thereof
• The hiring of Dan Baker and Todd Scott as principals in the district.
• Administrative Salaries and the 1% pay raise for the 2015-2016 school year
• Teacher raises for the 2015-2016 school year which ranged from 2% for new teachers to a small amount for long term teachers as explained by Mr. Kroupa.
• The Voluntary Incentive Separation Plan payouts which was responded to by Mr. Kroupa.
• Board Members visiting schools and talking to parents and teachers so they are more in touch with what's going on in the school district.

Fox's Rigorous Process That You Should Trust for the Latest New Hires!

Nikki McClain, a parent in the Fox C-6 School District and the administrator of the Facebook page NO MORE MONEY OR RESOURCES For the Fox C-6 Superintendent recently received a Sunshine Request response from acting superintendent Tim Crutchley regarding the hiring of administrators that were recently announced at the March 17, 2015 Fox C-6 Board of Education meeting.

Thank you to Nikki McClain for sharing with me the response she received from the district.

I had emailed all of the current Fox C-6 school board members early Tuesday morning March 17, 2015 asking for the same information but never received a response from a single board member.

I had also emailed incoming superintendent Dr. Jim Wipke and Fox C-6 board president John Laughlin on Monday March 16, 2015 asking how Dan Baker was even considered as a candidate for the Seckman Elementary School principal position.

I did not receive an email response from Dr. Wipke or Mr. Laughlin. I did receive a Read Receipt message from Mr. Laughlin's email software at 12:18AM on Monday March 16, 2015. I did not receive a Read Receipt message from Dr. Wipke. However, Dr. Wipke told me he received my email when I spoke to him immediately following the March 17 BOE meeting.

Mrs. McClain submitted a Sunshine Request for the list of candidates for the recent new hires for the Seckman Elementary School, Fox Senior High School and Seckman Senior High School principal positions as well as the new Food Nutrition Director. I believe the district did an excellent job in choosing the new Fox Senior High School principal and the new Food Nutrition Director. I haven't dealt with Todd Scott on any school matters other than the time he stood up for Dan Baker and Dianne Critchlow when I asked Dan Baker about the USDA's August 2011 Final Agency Decision that found the Fox C-6 School District Non-Compliant with Section 504 law and the ADA AA. That conversation occurred after the December 2011 Fox C-6 BOE meeting.

I would think that a rigorous hiring process would do a much better job at filtering out potential candidates who have been linked to online bullying of parents in our district as well as not being able to bring our district into compliance with federal law after more than 5 years. Dan Baker signed a Resolution Agreement to do so with ED OCR on May 1, 2009.

After you read Tim Crutchley's response as to who screened the applications and who served on the committees, you may understand why those concerns were overlooked.

Is the Ms. Kriese that is listed on the Seckman Elementary School principal selection committee related to 2015 board candidate Drew Kriese?

A friend of mine told me that the Kriese's attend Oak Bridge Community Church with Tim Crutchley and Kristen Pelster. This person told me that Drew Kriese was speaking with Tim Crutchley at church the Sunday before the announcement of the new hires. Did that perhaps have any influence on the candidate screening as well? I was told that they are also all friends on Facebook as well. Interesting!

March 2015 BOE Meeting Audio
Some of the Fox C-6 BOE members talked about the new rigorous process that was used to hire our new administrators at the March 2015 BOE meeting. Click on the names to listen to the comments from BOE members Dan Kroupa, Dawn Mullins and John Laughlin about the new process from Fox's YouTube recording of the 2015 BOE meeting.

It was stated during the BOE meeting that the Seckman Elementary School teachers heavily influenced the board's decision to hire Dan Baker as the principal at Seckman Elementary. Mr. Baker was surrounded by his cheering teachers at the March 2015 BOE meeting as you can hear in the audio of the meeting.

Yesterday, I posted some tweets linking to the comments from the March 2015 BOE meeting but they appear to have been deleted by Twitter at someone's request.

I also received another Copyright Infringement notice this morning for the same public records report of the 2004-2010 legal bills paid that was paid with taxpayer money to the district's former law firm.

It's difficult to understand how a printed report from your school district for legal fee payments is a violation of copyright infringement. It just gives the impression that someone doesn't want you to know what Fox has been paying in legal fees.

Mr. Baker may have skills and credentials to be a principal in our district. However, it doesn't negate the black cloud that has been hanging and will be hanging over our school district since his "home" (and cell phone) was linked to online posts.

According to the district's response, the district is also keeping the list of candidates for the positions from the public since Missouri Sunshine Law ALLOWS them to do so but does not require them to do so. You can read about Missouri Sunshine Law that is referenced in Tim Crutchley's email response by using the links below.

Top 10 Things You Should Know About Sunshine Law

Revised Missouri Statutes Section 610.021

The following email was sent to Nikki McClain by acting superintendent Tim Crutchley in response to her Sunshine Request regarding the recent administrative hires that were announced at the March 17, 2015 Fox C-6 BOE meeting:

From: Crutchley, Tim - CO Admin.
Date: March 24, 2015 at 2:44:13 PM CDT
To: Nikki McClain
Subject: response to request 

We are in receipt of your March 19, 2015 email request for records. 

Please be advised the identity of candidates considered for employment is a closed record pursuant to Section 610.021(13) R.S.Mo.  As a result, we are unable to provide names of job applicants. 

The District does not have a list of committee members used in the hiring process for the Assistant Superintendent HR, the SHS, FHS or SES principals or the Director of Nutrition Services to provide in response to your request. Although the District is not obligated to do so, it will provide the following narrative in response to your request. 

The screening of applications for the principals and human resources position were done by a committee of district administrators, specifically Dr. Wipke, Mr. Crutchley, Dr. Rizzi and Mr. Brazeal.  The same committee interviewed first round candidates.  Screening and the first round of interviews for the Dir of Nutrition Services was performed by Mr. Scott and Mr. Brazeal. 

Second round interviews  were conducted by the following committees: Fox High School: Ms. Wucher, Mr. Williams, Ms. Schwalbe, Ms. Seliga, Ms. Greene, Ms. Hoeltzer, Mr. Reese, Mr. Sansoucie, Mr. Meadows, Ms. Weisemann, Ms. Rissi plus two students; Seckman High School:  Ms. Adkins, Mr. Prezzavento, Ms. Scott, Ms. Montegomery, Ms. Hildebrand, Ms. Kraus, Ms. Fritz, Ms. Thompson, Ms. Labelle, Ms. Hill, Ms. Rissi plus two students; Seckman Elementary School consisted of Ms. Randolph, Mr. Werner, Ms. Fisher, Ms. Callahan, Ms. McFerran and Ms. Kriese. 

Second round interviews for the human resources position were conducted by Ms. Werkmeister, Ms. Ferranto, Ms. Bambini, Ms. Fritz, Ms. Waller, Ms. Missey, Mr. Wilken and Ms. Mijangos.

Second and final round interviews for the food service director were conducted by a committee that included Mr. Scott, Mr. Brazeal, Dr. Cardona, Dr. Reese, Dr. Schwalbe and Ms. West plus one student. 

Third and final round interviews of high school principal finalists were interviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Education (Dr. Rizzi) and incoming Superintendent (Dr. Wipke). 

Third and final round interviews of elementary school principal finalists were interviewed by the Interim Superintendent (Mr. Crutchley) and incoming Superintendent (Dr. Wipke). 

Third and final round interviews of the human resources finalists were interviewed by Interim Superintendent (Mr. Crutchley), incoming Superintendent (Dr. Wipke), Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Education (Dr. Rizzi) and the Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Brazeal).

Tim Crutchley 

Acting Superintendent 

745 Jeffco Blvd 

Arnold, Mo 63010 

636-296-8000 

636-282-5170 fax

Achievement - Character - Excellence
National District of Character

Arbeitman Departing Fox on June 30, 2015 - He'll Get $66,647 Voluntary Incentive Separation Program Payout

The November 18, 2014 Fox C-6 board meeting packet was posted today. Below are a few key points from the board packet.

This article was updated at 7:45PM on Wednesday November 12, 2014 to include the KMOV News Channel 4 story from Russell Kinsaul at the bottom of the article. I also corrected the article to state that it is Dan Kroupa's sister-in-law that owns the Jewel Box Florist. It is NOT his sister. My apologies for the mistake.


Changes Made To VSIP at 11/03/2014 Board Meeting
Second Update at 11:30PM on Wednesday November 12, 2014. After watching the video from KMOV Channel 4 News, Mr. Brazeal stated that this program was for employees vested into the Public School Retirement System. However, that WAS NOT true prior to the November 3, 2014 Fox C-6 board workshop.

Fox's CURRENT board policies that are posted on the district website HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED to reflect the changes made to the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program which became the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program.

What's Been Removed
In reviewing the changes made to the Voluntary Incentive Separation Program (VSIP) and just published for the first time yesterday in the November 18, 2014 Board Packet, the Requirement that a an employee must have completed a minimum of ten years of full-time service in the Fox C-6 School District in order to be eligible for the VSIP program HAS BEEN REMOVED!

Prior to November 3, 2014, Andy Arbeitman WOULD NOT have been eligible for the VSIP program.

I have assembled the November 3, 2014 Fox C-6 board meeting minutes from the November 18, 2014 board meeting packet as well as the new VSIP agreement and current board Policy 4740.1 to compare the old language to the new language for the Incentive Program.

If you read the board meeting minutes about the VSIP program, you'll notice that there was NO MENTION about the removal of the requirement to complete a minimum of ten years of full-time service in the Fox C-6 School District. It also wasn't mentioned during the board workshop that the 10 year requirement was being removed when the changes were presented to the board.

The new VSIP agreement refers to board policy GBN which DOES NOT EXIST. Board policy GBN is a Missouri School Board Association policy designation which Fox does not use. Fox uses school board policies created by our former law firm.

The new VSIP agreement also contains language that states that any employee accepting the new VSIP agreement "agrees to release any and all claims that the employee may have against the district, including the District's affiliates and subsidiaries, together with their respective members, directors, officers, agents and employees, and their attorneys, including but not limited to, claims for compensatory damages, emotional distress, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, costs, expenses and attorney's fees."

It goes on to state that, "Employee hereby waives, releases, remises, and forever discharges the School District, Board of Education, and their affiliates and subsidiaries, together with their respective members, directors, officers, agents, and employees, including their attorneys, whether in their respective individual of (typo) or official capacities, from any and all claims or other causes of action he or she may have against them, including, but not limited to, any alleged rights or claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act..."

There is a lot more release language contained in the new VSIP agreement. Basically, the updated VSIP has been written as a way for the district to do some CYA for any and all wrong doing of current and former employees and board members. It is a MUST READ document!

The new VSIP gives the appearance that the Incentive Program is now being used as "hush money". It's also giving away taxpayer money to those who would not have qualified before. The board needs to be questioned about this change. It is unacceptable!

Click on the link below to read the new VSIP agreement, the current Early Retirement Incentive policy and the November 3, 2014 board workshop minutes.

November 3, 2014 Fox C-6 Board Workshop Minutes and VSIP Changes

Below is what the current Fox C-6 Board Polices and Regulations state as requirements for the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program:

Regulation 4740.1 (Current Version)  /  4750 (2014 Draft Version)

Full-time staff members who meet all of the following conditions are eligible for early retirement pay upon leaving the employ of the Fox C-6 School District: 

1. Have completed a minimum of ten years of full-time service as an employee in the Fox C-6 School District 

2. Will have obtained a minimum of twenty years and no more than 31 years of credit in the Missouri Teacher Retirement System (as verified by the PSRS) or the Non-Teacher Retirement System (as verified by the NTRS (PEERS)) in the employee’s final contract year. The 20- 31 years of retirement system credit would include all out-of-state, in-state, or military credit purchased by the individual. This program will not be extended to individuals with more than 31 years of credit in the PSRS or NTRS (PEERS) or to those individuals with fewer than 20 years of credit in the PSRS or NTRS (PEERS).

The newer DRAFT version of the above Regulation is 4750. The newer DRAFT version of Fox's policies posted earlier this year have not yet been approved by the school board. It has the same language as Regulation 4740.1 with the exception that NTRS has been changed to PEERS.

Some Highlights from the November 18, 2014 Fox C-6 School Board Meeting Packet

Fox's November 18, 2014 Board Packet on District Site

• Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman will be leaving the district June 30, 2015.
• Mr. Arbeitman will be paid $66,647.50 taking the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program.
  (See more below)
• Two IT 3 employees are receiving $10,000+ raises according to the Contract Modifications section of the board packet. The salary raises are as follows:
• $38,696 to $48,878
• $47,340 to $58,153
  View the Contract Modifications
• Board being asked to approve the updated Code of Ethics / Nepotism Policy as presented in the board packet.
  View the changes!
• Fox changed their Professional Development Plan to a Professional Learning Plan. The changes include updated amounts and approvals for travel and hotel stays as well as reimbursement requirements.
  View Professional Learning Plan Update
• Checks for Seckman Athletic Director Brad Duncan were printed as a separate report for easy abstention when approving checks. Brad Duncan is Fox C-6 board member Vern Sullivan's son.
• View Checks to Brad Duncan
• Checks for the Jewel Box Florist were printed on a separate report for easy abstention. The Jewel Box Florist is owned by the sister in-law of Fox C-6 board member Dan Kroupa.
  (NOTE: This post was corrected to properly reflect "sister in-law". My original post stated "sister" instead of "sister in-law". My apologies for the mistake.)
  View Checks to Jewel Box Florist
• Payment of Bills report as posted in the November 18, 2014 board packet.
  View Bill Payments Report
• A bridges teacher separated from the district on November 7, 2014. (NOTE: This information was in the Late Materials at the October 2014 board meeting but was never updated in the Public October 2014 board meeting packet.)

Mr. Arbeitman Departing from Fox

Mr. Arbeitman has only been working for the Fox C-6 district for a little over a year. He officially started working for the district on July 1, 2013. However, he was invited to and attended the MarzanoGate Conference in June 2013 by former superintendent Dianne Critchlow prior to officially worked for the district.

Mr. Arbeitman will be getting a very sweet deal from the Fox C-6 taxpayers if the school board approves the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program list on page 329 of the board meeting packet. Acting superintendent Tim Crutchley is asking the school board to "Approve, as presented, participants in the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program." at the November 18, 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting.

If the board approves the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program list, Mr. Arbeitman will receive a payment of $66,647.50 for leaving the district at the end of the 2014-2015 school year.

11-18-2014 Staff Separations and Voluntary Separation Incentive Program Participant List from Board Packet

Would you approve this payment of $66,647.50 if you were on the Fox C-6 school board?

What are the requirements for being able to receive the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program?

UPDATED @ 7:45PM on 11/12/2014!

Russell Kinsaul of KMOV News Channel 4 sent me a text earlier today after reading this article. He wanted to do a news story about the large payout to Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman after working for Fox C-6 for only two years by the time he leaves in June 2015. Russell's news story is already online at KMOV.COM. It was explained to Mr. Kinsaul by Fox CFO John Brazeal that the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program was for anyone vested in the Public School Retirement System.

You can watch the KMOV News story using the link below:

KMOV 4 News Story on Andy Arbeitman's $66,747 Voluntary Separation Incentive Payout

Arbeitman's Desoto School District Settlement

Mr. Arbeitman received a $208,000 settlement from the Desoto School District in 2012 after being put on paid leave in May 2012 and eventually resigning from the district.

You can read more about Mr. Arbeitman's departure from the Desoto School District and his subsequent hire at Fox in the following March 2013 news story:

De Soto superintendent who got $208,000 settlement lands job with Fox district

Recap of the November 3, 2014 Fox C-6 Board Meeting Workshop with Audio

Fox C-6 held a Special Board Meeting Workshop on Monday November 3, 2014. It began with a Closed Session meeting at 5:30PM followed by a Public Session meeting at 7PM.

Mr. Underwood from the Missouri School Board Association met with the Board of Education (BOE) and presented information about the 7 Superintendent candidates during Closed Session.

No time was scheduled for Public Comments at the Special Meeting / Workshop.

A Few Important Points From the Meeting

4 - Hodge Mascot Change  (1min 40s)
Hodge Elementary's new mascot will be the Hawks.


5 - Discussion on Nepotism Policy and Whistleblower Policy  (2min 44s)
There was discussion about the updated Nepotism Policy which is much stricter than before. It will be brought to the board at the November 18th board meeting for a vote.

Current Fox C-6 school board vice president Dave Palmer has been richly rewarded for serving on the school board over the past 8+ years. His wife was promoted to the Director of Nursing in June 2006 while Mr. Palmer was serving as the school board president. Gee Palmer was also given a 75% pay increase with her promotion.

The community should be requesting that Mr. Palmer resign his position on the school board and that his wife resign her position as well.

It would be very nice if they repaid the taxpayers for taking advantage of the community. Gee Palmer earned a total of nearly $250,000 more in salary than the highest paid nurse earned in the district during the same period of time. Several nurses in the district had nearly double the number of years of service in the district that Gee did.

Mr. Palmer doesn't give the impression that he was representing the taxpayer for the students as much as it does that he was able to get his wife a high paid promotion in the district. It seems very similar to the Linda Nash / Kelly Nash issue which stirred things up the community nearly 2 years ago.

The Whistleblower Policy was discussed as well to protect anyone working for the district from retaliation for someone coming forward about someone who is not following school district policy. This would have allowed people to speak to a school board member as well who might want to report a problem but were afraid to report it to their direct supervisor. Mr. Kroupa asked for additional time to discuss and improve the Whistleblower Policy.


6 - Board Vacancy  (14min 50s)
Mr. Laughlin told audience that it was the opinion of the district attorney that the Board of Education should appoint a replacement for former board member Cheryl Hermann. Mr. Laughlin is forming a committee and they will be seeking a replacement for Cheryl Hermann.


7 - Voluntary Separation Incentive Program  (16min 10s)
CFO John Brazeal presented some possible changes to the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program.

• Changes extended the deadline to January 16, 2015 to file for the VSIP.
• Payments would be made prior to the end of their employment so they could use the incentive money to purchase service credit to enable the retirement.
• In turn the staff would waive their claims to a variety of issues such as age discrimination or ADA discrimination. It would not include any open claims.

The board approved the changes to the VSIP.


8 - Employment of Certified Staff  (21min 19s)
Todd Scott presented two retired counselors were approved to work 1 day a week to help in the school district.

Approved by the board.


9 - Employment Modifications  (22min 20s)
Todd Scott presented Employment Modifications to the board asking them to approve modifications for 6 administrators to increase their pay by roughly $640 since they had earned their advanced degrees. There was quite a bit of discussion on this topic. In the end, the board voted NOT to approve the modifications.

The vote was 4-NO / 2-YES.

You can listen to the public session of the board meeting by clicking on the link at the bottom of this article.

Below is the agenda for the Special Meeting/Workshop from Fox's website:

Special Meeting/Workshop

for the Fox C-6 Board of Education

Monday, November 3, 2014

5:30 p.m. Closed Session

7:00 p.m. Board Meeting

Notice is hereby given that there will be a Special Meeting/Workshop of the Fox C-6 Board of Education, on Monday, November 3, 2014 and will begin with Closed Session at 5:30 p.m. The Board meeting will occur at 7:00 p.m. at the Fox C-6 Service Center, Roy Wilde Conference Room, 849 Jeffco Boulevard, Arnold, Missouri.

The agenda for the meeting is as follows: 

1. Call Meeting to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call 

2. Adjournment to Closed Session: 

       610.021.3 Personnel

       610.021.13 Personnel Records

3. Building Improvement Plans

4. Hodge Elementary Mascot change

5. Discussion - Form #0342.1 Code of Ethics/Nepotism and Whistle Blower Policy

6. Board Vacancy

7. Voluntary Separation Incentive Program

8. Employment of Certified Staff

9. Employment Modifications - Advanced Degree Work

10. Adjournment 

The Public Session of the meeting started at 7PM. It began with 10 minute presentations from each of the building principals that had not yet presented their building improvement plans to the board members and the public.

After the presentation time was over for all of the principals the Open Session portion of the meeting continued. Below is a link to the original agenda that was posted on the district website:

November 3, 2014 Fox C-6 Board Meeting Agenda

Below is my audio recording of the Open Session portion of the board meeting.

Audio Recording of November 3, 2014 Fox C-6 Board Meeting Workshop

Still Waiting for Answers to My Questions from the February 2014 Fox C-6 School Board Meeting Public Comments

The Fox C-6 School Board still hasn't answered my questions from the February 2014 school board meeting. No one from the Board of Eduction has even responded to my follow up emails requesting answers to my questions.

Perhaps our board members aren't familiar with our School Board's Code of Ethics that states, “As a member of the school Board, I shall: Maintain the public trust through full and open communication.”

The Code of Ethics also states, “As a member of the school Board, I shall: Insist that school funds be spent prudently and effectively to provide maximum educational benefits.”

Since I hadn't received a single response from my March 28, 2014 email to the board, I sent the email at the end of this article on Friday April 4, 2014 reminding the board about the Code of Ethics that they swore to uphold when they took their oath of office.

The only response I received yesterday was an email from Superintendent Critchlow telling me that, "I will forward to Ms Davis as a custodial request."

You'll have the opportunity to vote on April 8, 2014 to elect 3 school board members. They will be responsible for approving payments of more than $120 Million dollars per year of your taxpayer dollars. Should board members know what your taxpayer dollars are being spent on? Our school board policies state that they should.

Fox C-6 has a school board policy on Fraud Prevention. It is Policy 3106 in the Financial Management section of our board policies. Policy 3106 defines Fraud and Corruption and states that the District is committed to protecting the public funds with which it has been entrusted. Here is part of Policy 3106 from our most recent draft copy of our school board policies. If the board isn't provided credit card statements in the board packets as a supporting document, how can they ensure the public that our taxpayer dollars are being used for the purpose for which they are intended?

Policy 3106  

Financial Management 

Fraud Prevention 

The District is committed to protecting the public funds with which it has been entrusted. Minimizing the losses to fraud and corruption is an essential part of ensuring that all of the District's resources are used for the purpose for which they are intended. 

The public is entitled to expect the District to conduct its affairs with integrity, honesty and openness, and demand the highest standards of conduct from those working for it and with it.

Definition of Fraud and Corruption 

Although there is no precise legal definition of fraud, the term is used to describe a multitude of offences, including deception, forgery, theft, misappropriation, collusion and false representation of material facts. 

Corruption arises when a person receives any benefit which influences them and causes them to act differently when conducting District business.

Certainly you want school board members that are going to communicate with the public and answer questions. You also want a school board that realizes that it's their responsibility to run the school board meetings as documented in our board policies. The board needs to know that the superintendent works for the board and ultimately Fox C-6 taxpayers. The school board DOES NOT work for the superintendent. Therefore, if our school board is asked to provide documentation to the public, they should convey this request to the superintendent and they shouldn't accept excuses as to why the district can't easily and openly provide such documents to the public.

When your school district superintendent has a salary of $256,131 and your district's administrators have the 2nd highest average salary in the state, there really shouldn't be ANY EXCUSES as to why Fox can't do what so many other school districts across the state routinely do for their patrons.

April 4, 2014 Email to the Fox C-6 School Board

Date: April 4, 2014 7:49:32 AM CDT
To: Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent, Dan E. Smith, David Palmer
Cc: Crutchley, Tim - CO Admin., Davis, Debby - CO Secretary, Critchlow, Dr. Dianne, Steve Holloway, John Laughlin, Cheryl Hermann, Linda S. Nash, Dan Kroupa
Subject: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board and Missouri Sunshine Law Documents Request

Last week on March 28, 2014, I emailed everyone on the Fox C-6 School Board my questions which I posed at the February 2014 school board meeting. I have not received a response to my questions as required by school board policy. 

I didn’t even receive any acknowledgements that anyone in the district or on the school board received my email. I did receive two Auto Replies stating that Superintendent Critchlow and a school board member were out of the office. 

In last week’s email, I renewed my request for answers to my questions from the February 2014 board meeting and the questions posed in my March 18 email to the board. I also made a request for electronic copies (PDF) of the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Administrator Salary Schedule as well as electronic copies (PDF) of the credit card statements for the 2013-2014 school year that the school board approves payments for each month as listed in the Bill Payments. 

Please consider this email a Missouri Sunshine Law request for electronic versions of the documents requested above as well as the requests for information that I emailed to the board on March 18, 2014. 

I also requested from Mr. Arbeitman a copy of the board policy that states that persons wishing to speak to the school board must follow a “chain of command” for questions that are board actions. My review of our board policies was documented in my March 18 email. Please provide the policies as requested that states a “chain of command” requirement for board actions.

I also renew my request to the school board to post the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school district budgets on the school district’s website like they do in many other school districts such as Northwest, Parkway, Rockwood, Camdenton and many more. It takes less than 30 seconds of time to publish the documents on the district website. Hearing Superintendent Critchlow state that there is no state law or mandate that requires our school district to even have a website is not a good excuse for not publishing the data. As a school board, you should be requesting that this data be made available to the public on the district website.
As Fox C-6 school board members, you were elected by the community to represent us. You took an oath and are required to follow the Code of Ethics as documented in our school board policies. You are required by the Code of Ethics to “maintain the public trust through full and open communication” and “Insist that school funds be spent prudently and effectively to provide maximum educational benefits.”

Can you please explain how failing to respond to emails from parents or patrons or failing to respond to Public Comments follows our school district’s Code of Ethics which state, “As a member of the school Board, I shall maintain the public trust through full and open communication.”? 

Thank you, 

Rich Simpson

  

Date: March 28, 2014 7:34:53 AM CDT
To: Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent, Dan E. Smith, David Palmer
Cc: Davis, Debby - CO Secretary, Critchlow, Dr. Dianne, Steve Holloway, John Laughlin, Cheryl Hermann, Linda S. Nash, Dan Kroupa
Subject: RE: Response to public comment at the February 18, 2014 board of education meeting 

Thank you for delaying the decision to approve the school board policies at the March 2014 school board meeting and for posting a link to them on the front page of Fox’s website.

Since the March 2014 school board meeting, I discovered that the entire section of Employee Evaluations was left out of the board policies Forms section even though they are listed in the Form’s Table of Contents. I was able to locate the Employee Evaluation Forms in the 2012 draft version of the board policies on the district website and review them. These should be added back into the Forms section of the document.

Contrary to Superintendent Critchlow’s statement at the November 5, 2013 board workshop, all questions from Public Comments are not answered. Many questions have gone unanswered.

At the February 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting I asked the following questions that are still unanswered despite renewing my requests in my previous email:

How can the school board approve Bill Payments when there are no payment descriptions documenting what each payment is for? 

How can the school board approve paying the credit card bills when they aren’t provided with the credit card statements to document what was purchased with the credit cards? 

I also asked where I could find a copy of the Administrator Salary Schedule? Could it be found on the website? The copy from last year’s board packets for the 2013-2014 school year only had “X”’s for the Administrator Salary amounts. 

I haven’t received answers to these questions. I was simply told by Mr. Arbeitman in his email that if I wished to have him look into the matter that I should give him a call.

Fox has now paid more than $2 Million in credit card bills for the 2013-2014 school year and the board packets did not include credit card statements. There needs to be accountability for this spending. Fox’s board policies states that Bill Payments need to be supported by Invoices, Purchase Orders and Vouchers. Those aren’t provided in the board packets. If a board member wants to know what a payment is for, they must make a request for the documentation. If there aren’t any descriptions on the payments, it’s difficult for them to know what to ask for.

Please email me electronic copies in PDF format of the Credit Card statements for the American Express, Visa and Discover card for the 2013-2014 school year.
Also, please email me a PDF copy of the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Fox C-6 Administrator Salary schedules that include salary amounts. 

The Fox C-6 school board needs to request that the district post the school district budget on the district website like they do in other school districts. If Northwest, Camdenton, Rockwood and Parkway can afford to take the 30 seconds that it takes to copy the documents to their district website, Fox should be able to do the same as well.

I haven’t received a response from Mr. Arbeitman documenting the policy that he alluded to about following the “chain of command”.  Mr. Arbeitman spoke about this at the November 5, 2013 school board workshop.  At that workshop, when Mr. Arbeitman suggested that the district put a policy in place, Superintendent Critchlow stated that the district already had rules in place. Board member Cheryl Herman said that “It’s not a must.” that the community has to contact district administrators prior to speaking to the school board.

Please review our school board policies and provide me with the section that states that questions concerning board actions or decisions requires patrons to first speak with district employees prior to speaking to the board.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you,

Rich Simpson 

==============================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:24 AM
To: Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent
Cc: Davis, Debby - CO Secretary; Critchlow, Dr. Dianne; Dan E. Smith; David Palmer; Steve Holloway; John Laughlin; Cheryl Hermann; Linda S. Nash; Dan Kroupa
Subject: RE: Response to public comment at the February 18, 2014 board of education meeting 

==============================================================
From: Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:09 PM
To: Rich SimpsonCc: Davis, Debby - CO Secretary; Critchlow, Dr. Dianne; Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent
Subject: Response to public comment at the February 18, 2014 board of education meeting 

Mr. Simpson, 

Thank you again for your time and public comments at our board meeting last night.  With regard to your requests to; 

-include more information in our board packets online
Yes, my request to the Fox C6 School Board on 2/18/14 included that all the credit card statements (full originals less account numbers) be included in board packets. 

-more detailed credit card bills
Actually, this statement is not completely accurate.  My request to the Board of Education on 2/18/14 was that the Board make available to the public the actual original credit card invoices/statements.  I asked the Board to provide the original statements from the credit card company to the public by including them, in their entirety, in the board packets that are then made available to the public on the District's website. By copying this correspondence to Dan Smith, I renew my request to the Board and ask that a member of the Board respond to my request.  

-the district budget online
My request to the Board of Education on 2/18/14 was that the Board publish the district’s budget(s) on the District’s website. The district recently provided the Board with the 2014-2015 district budget. Please publish the 2014-2015 budget on the district website like they do in other districts such as Rockwood. 

-more descriptions of payments
Again, this is not completely accurate.  My request to the Board of Education on 2/18/14 was that the Board include a description for each line item payment/disbursement.  Currently there is no description at all, so it’s not accurate to state that I am requesting "more descriptions" when none currently exist. The only information that the Board currently makes available to the public is the name of the Payee to whom payment is made.  No information regarding what the payment is for is included and, therefore, the information is not useful to the average citizen.  My request to the Board on 2/18/14 was that the Board provide information about the intended purpose for each payment.  The example I provided was the recent payment of $24,000 to "The Bridal Shop" which may seem unusual to the average resident but would be immediately clarified if accompanied with a simple description statement indicating that this payment was for  "choir robes". This was practice in our District previously and it currently is the standard in other area school districts. Since the Board that approves spending based on this information, my request is directed to the Board. Board policy 3150 states that list of bills for approval, “will be supported by invoices, approved purchase orders, properly submitted vouchers, or in accordance with salaries and salary schedules approved by the Board.” Therefore I renew my request to the Board.  

-the statement according to your calculations the district has approximately $2,000,000 in credit card bills to date 

The district actually has $1,993,799 in credit card bills to date and a lot of schools utilize credit cards/purchasing cards to pay bills for added cash back rebates.  This allows for more value of the school district dollar.  Most of the credit card bills during the current year are electric bills district-wide, monthly copier costs, and as much of our office/teacher types of supplies when the credit card was still allowed for those types of charges. We have received approximately $35,000 in rebates to date. 

Thank you for this information; however, to clarify, my concern was and is not that the District utilizes a credit card(s).  My concern is that the Board provides no descriptive information about credit card purchases to the public and does not include credit card statements like they do in other districts in their board packets.

In order to better meet your needs, thoughts, and questions, we would like to be more proactive with your monthly public comments rather than reactive.  That said, I am requesting that if you know what your questions, opinions, thoughts, or desires are prior to our board meetings, that you to please call me in advance so that we can better serve you and your comments.  This will in no way stop you or prevent you from making monthly public comments, but rather it will allow more validity and affirmation for our board of education that you are following the proper chain of command as per board policy.  If you choose not to contact me in advance, all further responses from your public comments will be a “thank you” response and that we look forward to responding to you in the future when you are willing to communicate with district employees first.  At this time, your request for more detailed credit card bill descriptions, the district budget posted online, and more detailed descriptions of monthly payments are being requested from only one individual and we can make those available to you upon request.  The board appreciates your comments and they will continue to be taken under consideration. 

This is where we disagree, and where I seek your further very specific clarification. Please provide me with a copy of the Fox C6 school board policy to which you refer above.

Perhaps you may be referring to school board Policy 1480 regarding “School/Community Relations - Public Complaints”. It states: 

“Although no member of the community shall be denied the right to petition the Board of Education for redress of a grievance, the complaints will be referred through the proper administrative channels for solution before investigation or action by the Board. Exceptions are complaints that concern Board actions or Board operations only.” 

Obviously, Policy 1480 is not applicable here since my concerns meet the stated exception, i.e. the concerns I addressed at the 2/18/14 school board meeting are about “Board actions” and “Board operations” and I am therefore not subject to any “chain of command”.  My concerns/questions were not about student or personnel issues, instruction, discipline, or learning materials.  But perhaps there is another policy that applies of which I am unaware? 

Furthermore, I find it shocking that you have made a threat to me on behalf of the school Board-- “If you choose not to contact me in advance, all further responses from your public comments will be a “thank you” response and that we look forward to responding to you in the future when you are willing to communicate with district employees first.” 

Therefore, at your earliest convenience, please provide me with any school Board policy, documentation, or correspondence that supports your claims that:

• the School Board may refuse to respond to a public question/concern about Board actions unless the resident “first” submits their concern to you

• you, Andy Arbeitman, an employee of the school district, hold the authority to prescreen questions and concerns from members of the public to determine if, in your assessment, the concern is “valid” or not “valid” for consideration by the Board

• the Board has made the decision to abdicate its responsibility and has expressly delegated its authority to you to determine if questions/concerns from the public are “valid” or not “valid” and deserving of a reply from them  

Finally, you added a comment about administrative salaries that was not on your public comment request sheet.  I will be happy to look into this for you upon receiving a return phone call.  My number is listed below.  I look forward to your call. 

Your request seems silly since my only availability for phone calls is outside of regular business hours when you would not normally be in your office.  My question, as asked to the School Board on 2/18/14 is that the School Board of Education include the administrative salary schedule on the district website. It should also be included in the board packets with actual salaries and not just “X”’s for the salary amounts. It doesn’t provide the public with any information to only place an “X” for a salary amount. Generally, I can be reached by phone at home between the hours of 6 and 7 a.m. or between 8 and 10 p.m.  Or, if it's more convenient, please simply include this information, along with your responses to my other questions contained in this email, in your response 

I also request that the Board of Education delay approving the Board’s updated Policies, Regulations and Forms until the April 2014 Board meeting. The District and the Board should have properly notified the public that they were available for review and recommendations. No announcements or notifications were posted on the district website or in the local paper notifying the public that the updated Policies and Regulations had been posted for the public to review. 

Prior to approving the updated Polices, Regulations and Forms, please remove Vickie Hanson as a point of contact. She retired from the district in 2008.

Thank you, 

Rich Simpson

Getting Answers to Questions from the Fox C-6 School Board Is Extremely Difficult!

Should the Fox C-6 school board answer questions from Public Comments per school board policy?

Asking questions during Public Comment or emailing the Fox C-6 school is like speaking to or emailing a brick wall. I emailed the board on Friday March 28 the questions that I asked at the February 2014 school board meeting that still haven't been answered. It's been almost a week since I sent that email and I haven't received a single response or acknowledgement from the board or the administrators that they even received my email. I did get two Auto Replies. One was from Superintendent Critchlow stating that she was out of the office and another from a school board member stating that he was out of the office.

As taxpayers who elect school board members to represent the community, I believe that we are being poorly represented by our school board. The board president should respond for the board. However, Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman told me that our school board has asked him to respond for them.

So, if there is no response, who should the public blame? The school board should request that Mr. Arbeitman respond to the questions through the superintendent or acting superintendent.

In my March 28 email, I made another request for a copy of the administrative salary schedule for this year and next year. Mr. Arbeitman informed me in a previous email that I would have to make another request for the administrative salary schedule because it wasn't on my list of topics that I submitted for Public Comment at the February 2014 school board meeting when I asked the question verbally during my Public Comment.

So far there haven't been any answers to my questions despite what Superintendent Dianne Critchlow stated at the November 5, 2013 board workshop. You can listen to her comments below from that workshop. Her statement about responding to questions at Public Comments was simply political showboating and false. Cheryl Hermann asked the district to notify the board when the district responds to questions. That still doesn't happen either.

The school board or the district simply doesn't respond to questions that they don't want to answer. There have been numerous questions that have gone unanswered for years such as, why won't the district audio or video record board meetings? Or, why won't the district post the budget on the school's website? Superintendent Critchlow did state that Fox doesn't have a full time person to maintain our website as an excuse as to why the district can't post our budget online at the November 2013 board workshop. She also stated at that workshop that there's NO state law or mandate for the district to even have a website as another reason why the district's budget isn't online. You can read more about the November 5 workshop in my previous posts here.

Listen to Superintendent Critchlow's Comments
on Public Comment

"I can go on record saying that every single person that's made a comment has received feedback. It may not always be the feedback they want to hear. ... But, never is there a public comment, unless they're really just not asking anything and just stating a comment. But, if they ever want answers, they get them! We have a policy that says we'll get back to them within a week. The only thing that we probably fail to do all the time is to tell you."

At the end of this post is a copy of the email that I sent to our school board and administrators on Friday March 28. In that email I also included the email that I sent to the school board and administration on Tuesday March 18, 2014 since I never received a response to that email. The email sent on March 18 had my comments in red in response to Mr. Arbeitman's February 19, 2014 email.

Perhaps no one on the board or in the district noticed my requests for documents and requests for answers to my questions in my March 18, 2014 email. Therefore, I tried to make my questions and requests stand out more clearly in my March 28, 2014 email. Maybe I should have highlighted my questions in yellow and used red text to make them stand out even more.

According to school board policies, questions during Public Comment are supposed to be responded to within a week. As professional educators, I expect to at least receive an acknowledgement response from our school district or central office. Since, my email was copied to a several members of the school board, it is Public Record and can be obtained via a Missouri Sunshine Law request to the district.

Perhaps the school board secretary didn't respond to my request for documents within 3 business days as required by law because I didn't mention Missouri Sunshine Law in my request. It appears that I'll have to resubmit this email again and more clearly state my request for documents via Sunshine Law in order to obtain copies of the credit card statements for the 2013-2014 school year and administrator salary schedules.

Wouldn't you like to know what the Fox C-6 School District spent more than $2 Million dollars on so far this year with district credit cards?

The school board approved the payments but aren't supplied the credit card statements in the board packets.

So, how did they approve the payments?

Wouldn't you also like to know how the board approves check payments when there aren't any descriptions on the bill payments as to what the payments are for?

March 28, 2014 Email to the Fox C-6 School Board

Date: March 28, 2014 7:34:53 AM CDT
To: Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent, Dan E. Smith, David Palmer
Cc: Davis, Debby - CO Secretary, Critchlow, Dr. Dianne, Steve Holloway, John Laughlin, Cheryl Hermann, Linda S. Nash, Dan Kroupa
Subject: RE: Response to public comment at the February 18, 2014 board of education meeting 

Thank you for delaying the decision to approve the school board policies at the March 2014 school board meeting and for posting a link to them on the front page of Fox’s website.

Since the March 2014 school board meeting, I discovered that the entire section of Employee Evaluations was left out of the board policies Forms section even though they are listed in the Form’s Table of Contents. I was able to locate the Employee Evaluation Forms in the 2012 draft version of the board policies on the district website and review them. These should be added back into the Forms section of the document.

Contrary to Superintendent Critchlow’s statement at the November 5, 2013 board workshop, all questions from Public Comments are not answered. Many questions have gone unanswered.

At the February 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting I asked the following questions that are still unanswered despite renewing my requests in my previous email:

How can the school board approve Bill Payments when there are no payment descriptions documenting what each payment is for? 

How can the school board approve paying the credit card bills when they aren’t provided with the credit card statements to document what was purchased with the credit cards? 

I also asked where I could find a copy of the Administrator Salary Schedule? Could it be found on the website? The copy from last year’s board packets for the 2013-2014 school year only had “X”’s for the Administrator Salary amounts. 

I haven’t received answers to these questions. I was simply told by Mr. Arbeitman in his email that if I wished to have him look into the matter that I should give him a call.

Fox has now paid more than $2 Million in credit card bills for the 2013-2014 school year and the board packets did not include credit card statements. There needs to be accountability for this spending. Fox’s board policies states that Bill Payments need to be supported by Invoices, Purchase Orders and Vouchers. Those aren’t provided in the board packets. If a board member wants to know what a payment is for, they must make a request for the documentation. If there aren’t any descriptions on the payments, it’s difficult for them to know what to ask for.

Please email me electronic copies in PDF format of the Credit Card statements for the American Express, Visa and Discover card for the 2013-2014 school year.
Also, please email me a PDF copy of the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Fox C-6 Administrator Salary schedules that include salary amounts. 

The Fox C-6 school board needs to request that the district post the school district budget on the district website like they do in other school districts. If Northwest, Camdenton, Rockwood and Parkway can afford to take the 30 seconds that it takes to copy the documents to their district website, Fox should be able to do the same as well.

I haven’t received a response from Mr. Arbeitman documenting the policy that he alluded to about following the “chain of command”.  Mr. Arbeitman spoke about this at the November 5, 2013 school board workshop.  At that workshop, when Mr. Arbeitman suggested that the district put a policy in place, Superintendent Critchlow stated that the district already had rules in place. Board member Cheryl Herman said that “It’s not a must.” that the community has to contact district administrators prior to speaking to the school board.

Please review our school board policies and provide me with the section that states that questions concerning board actions or decisions requires patrons to first speak with district employees prior to speaking to the board.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you,

Rich Simpson 

==============================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:24 AM
To: Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent
Cc: Davis, Debby - CO Secretary; Critchlow, Dr. Dianne; Dan E. Smith; David Palmer; Steve Holloway; John Laughlin; Cheryl Hermann; Linda S. Nash; Dan Kroupa
Subject: RE: Response to public comment at the February 18, 2014 board of education meeting 

==============================================================
From: Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:09 PM
To: Rich SimpsonCc: Davis, Debby - CO Secretary; Critchlow, Dr. Dianne; Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent
Subject: Response to public comment at the February 18, 2014 board of education meeting 

Mr. Simpson, 

Thank you again for your time and public comments at our board meeting last night.  With regard to your requests to; 

-include more information in our board packets online
Yes, my request to the Fox C6 School Board on 2/18/14 included that all the credit card statements (full originals less account numbers) be included in board packets. 

-more detailed credit card bills
Actually, this statement is not completely accurate.  My request to the Board of Education on 2/18/14 was that the Board make available to the public the actual original credit card invoices/statements.  I asked the Board to provide the original statements from the credit card company to the public by including them, in their entirety, in the board packets that are then made available to the public on the District's website. By copying this correspondence to Dan Smith, I renew my request to the Board and ask that a member of the Board respond to my request.  

-the district budget online
My request to the Board of Education on 2/18/14 was that the Board publish the district’s budget(s) on the District’s website. The district recently provided the Board with the 2014-2015 district budget. Please publish the 2014-2015 budget on the district website like they do in other districts such as Rockwood. 

-more descriptions of payments
Again, this is not completely accurate.  My request to the Board of Education on 2/18/14 was that the Board include a description for each line item payment/disbursement.  Currently there is no description at all, so it’s not accurate to state that I am requesting "more descriptions" when none currently exist. The only information that the Board currently makes available to the public is the name of the Payee to whom payment is made.  No information regarding what the payment is for is included and, therefore, the information is not useful to the average citizen.  My request to the Board on 2/18/14 was that the Board provide information about the intended purpose for each payment.  The example I provided was the recent payment of $24,000 to "The Bridal Shop" which may seem unusual to the average resident but would be immediately clarified if accompanied with a simple description statement indicating that this payment was for  "choir robes". This was practice in our District previously and it currently is the standard in other area school districts. Since the Board that approves spending based on this information, my request is directed to the Board. Board policy 3150 states that list of bills for approval, “will be supported by invoices, approved purchase orders, properly submitted vouchers, or in accordance with salaries and salary schedules approved by the Board.” Therefore I renew my request to the Board.  

-the statement according to your calculations the district has approximately $2,000,000 in credit card bills to date 

The district actually has $1,993,799 in credit card bills to date and a lot of schools utilize credit cards/purchasing cards to pay bills for added cash back rebates.  This allows for more value of the school district dollar.  Most of the credit card bills during the current year are electric bills district-wide, monthly copier costs, and as much of our office/teacher types of supplies when the credit card was still allowed for those types of charges. We have received approximately $35,000 in rebates to date. 

Thank you for this information; however, to clarify, my concern was and is not that the District utilizes a credit card(s).  My concern is that the Board provides no descriptive information about credit card purchases to the public and does not include credit card statements like they do in other districts in their board packets.

In order to better meet your needs, thoughts, and questions, we would like to be more proactive with your monthly public comments rather than reactive.  That said, I am requesting that if you know what your questions, opinions, thoughts, or desires are prior to our board meetings, that you to please call me in advance so that we can better serve you and your comments.  This will in no way stop you or prevent you from making monthly public comments, but rather it will allow more validity and affirmation for our board of education that you are following the proper chain of command as per board policy.  If you choose not to contact me in advance, all further responses from your public comments will be a “thank you” response and that we look forward to responding to you in the future when you are willing to communicate with district employees first.  At this time, your request for more detailed credit card bill descriptions, the district budget posted online, and more detailed descriptions of monthly payments are being requested from only one individual and we can make those available to you upon request.  The board appreciates your comments and they will continue to be taken under consideration. 

This is where we disagree, and where I seek your further very specific clarification. Please provide me with a copy of the Fox C6 school board policy to which you refer above.

Perhaps you may be referring to school board Policy 1480 regarding “School/Community Relations - Public Complaints”. It states: 

“Although no member of the community shall be denied the right to petition the Board of Education for redress of a grievance, the complaints will be referred through the proper administrative channels for solution before investigation or action by the Board. Exceptions are complaints that concern Board actions or Board operations only.” 

Obviously, Policy 1480 is not applicable here since my concerns meet the stated exception, i.e. the concerns I addressed at the 2/18/14 school board meeting are about “Board actions” and “Board operations” and I am therefore not subject to any “chain of command”.  My concerns/questions were not about student or personnel issues, instruction, discipline, or learning materials.  But perhaps there is another policy that applies of which I am unaware? 

Furthermore, I find it shocking that you have made a threat to me on behalf of the school Board-- “If you choose not to contact me in advance, all further responses from your public comments will be a “thank you” response and that we look forward to responding to you in the future when you are willing to communicate with district employees first.” 

Therefore, at your earliest convenience, please provide me with any school Board policy, documentation, or correspondence that supports your claims that:

• the School Board may refuse to respond to a public question/concern about Board actions unless the resident “first” submits their concern to you

• you, Andy Arbeitman, an employee of the school district, hold the authority to prescreen questions and concerns from members of the public to determine if, in your assessment, the concern is “valid” or not “valid” for consideration by the Board

• the Board has made the decision to abdicate its responsibility and has expressly delegated its authority to you to determine if questions/concerns from the public are “valid” or not “valid” and deserving of a reply from them  

Finally, you added a comment about administrative salaries that was not on your public comment request sheet.  I will be happy to look into this for you upon receiving a return phone call.  My number is listed below.  I look forward to your call. 

Your request seems silly since my only availability for phone calls is outside of regular business hours when you would not normally be in your office.  My question, as asked to the School Board on 2/18/14 is that the School Board of Education include the administrative salary schedule on the district website. It should also be included in the board packets with actual salaries and not just “X”’s for the salary amounts. It doesn’t provide the public with any information to only place an “X” for a salary amount. Generally, I can be reached by phone at home between the hours of 6 and 7 a.m. or between 8 and 10 p.m.  Or, if it's more convenient, please simply include this information, along with your responses to my other questions contained in this email, in your response 

I also request that the Board of Education delay approving the Board’s updated Policies, Regulations and Forms until the April 2014 Board meeting. The District and the Board should have properly notified the public that they were available for review and recommendations. No announcements or notifications were posted on the district website or in the local paper notifying the public that the updated Policies and Regulations had been posted for the public to review. 

Prior to approving the updated Polices, Regulations and Forms, please remove Vickie Hanson as a point of contact. She retired from the district in 2008.

Thank you, 

Rich Simpson 

The Fox C-6 School Board Fails The Public Again!

On Friday November 15, 2013, I emailed Superintendent Dianne Critchlow and Fox C-6 school board to ask if the school board was still planning on hosting the open discussion session with the public prior to the November 19, 2013 board meeting like they do in the Rockwood school district.

I sent my email as a reply to Superintendent Critchlow's October 4, 2013 email in which she told me that the Fox C-6 school board would begin hosting listening sessions beginning in November before each board meeting (see email below).

Mr. Simpson. 

I did take your suggestions to the board on the workshop Tuesday evening.  I copied and pasted the info from Rockwood’s website that you provided. The board is going to host listening sessions beginning in November before each board meeting. 

Have a great day! 

Dianne

I sent my November 15th email to the board after reading the November 5th board workshop / meeting minutes that were included on page 38 of the November 19th board meeting packet. The board meeting packet was posted on the district's website on Tuesday November 12th. From the workshop minutes, it appeared as if the district was no longer planning on hosting listening sessions with the community. 

So, I sent the following email to the Fox C-6 school board and Superintendent Critchlow on Friday November 15th:

Does the school board still plan on hosting a listening session at the November 19^th board meeting like you stated they would in your email below?

If not, then when was it decided that they would not be hosting one?


Thank you,

Rich Simpson

Here is the response I received within a couple of hours from Superintendent Critchlow regarding the school district's decision on hosting public discussions with the school board:

Mr. Simpson, 

I believe that you were at the workshop on Tuesday, Nov. 5^th when this was discussed.

After further discussion and advice from the attorney, the district will not be hosting listening posts.

You are welcome to continue making your public comments as explained in the last email you sent.

Have a wonderful weekend.  Enjoy this great weather with your family before winter strikes.

Dianne

So, the Fox C-6 school board is now unwilling to provide the same type of open communication with the public as they are now providing the public in the Rockwood school district.

The Fox C-6 community should be extremely concerned with the fact that our school board doesn't respond to emails and that they don't respond to Public Comments at board meetings contrary to what Superintendent Critchlow stated at the board workshop. The public is currently allowed 3 minutes to speak to the board at a school board meeting. Superintendent Critchlow told the board at the November 5th workshop that "every single person that's made a comment has received feedback" is NOT a true statement.

Furthermore, the community should be even more concerned with the fact that our school board violated Missouri Sunshine Law by taking the public discussion about Board Meetings into Closed Session at the November 5th board workshop at the suggestion of school district attorney Ernie Trakas as documented by Superintendent Critchlow's email to me on November 15th. Mr. Trakas did so after board president Dan Smith suggested that maybe the school board could respond to the public at the next school board meeting. Mr. Smith made this suggestion shortly after Superintendent Critchlow had just finished telling the school board that she has always provided feedback to every single person who has made Public Comments within a week as documented in our board policies. Mr. Smith's statements were a direct contradiction of what Superintendent Critchlow just stated otherwise there would be no reason to respond to the public at the next meeting.

The two newest board members may not know that Superintendent Critchlow's statement wasn't true regarding always responding to the public within a week. However, the other board members know that it's not true as they've received numerous emails from me over the past several years requesting responses from them after I've spoken at school board meetings. I never received a response from them. Even recently, I had to send another email asking that if Mr. Smith would not respond to my emails if another board member could and Cheryl Herman responded to let me know she received it. Mr. Smith has never replied to my emails.

I have emailed the board sometimes weeks and months after asking questions of the board and still no one on the board responded. Occasionally, Superintendent Critchlow would respond to some of the questions. However, she was very selective on what she responded to. The questions that I asked were directed to our school board and not our superintendent. The school board is elected to represent the public, not the superintendent.

This is the very reason that it is time for our community to speak up and start asking our school board questions and demand that they start looking for a new superintendent who can tell the truth and is willing to be transparent and open with the community. Right now Superintendent Critchlow is running our school district and our school board. The school board is supposed to hold our superintendent accountable for her actions and they are not doing their job.

I certainly hope that everyone in our community contacts our school board members and asks them why they violated Missouri Sunshine Law and why they are unwilling as a whole to host open discussions with the community.

Mr. John Laughlin, Mr. Steve Holloway and Ms. Cheryl Herman appear to be willing to speak with the community openly after listening to them speak at the November 5th board workshop. However, I don't believe that Mr. Dave Palmer, Mr. Dan Smith, Ms. Linda Nash or Mr. Dan Kroupa share the same sentiment based upon their comments at the workshop.

Below is an excerpt of the transcript from my audio recording of the November 5th workshop from when Mr. Dave Palmer spoke at the board workshop. These were his comments right after school district attorney Ernie Trakas told the board that he felt that community listening times were a bad idea.

Dave Palmer - Board Vice President
"I can tell you going to the MSBA meeting. They uh, when we were up there and we were doing the votes. They only allow 3 minutes. That's what they uh, recommend. They don't. They don't change it. Uh, I can tell you that there was plenty of times when the people that were trying to articulate their thoughts across appropriately stated and it worked. Uh, I agree with Ernie. I just think for (inaudible) purposes, it's not to the board's and the school district's benefit. If somebody wants to talk to you, let them talk to you. But, even then you need to be careful, I believe what you're talking about because you never know what subject you're broaching and I'm not sayin people will do this but there's always gonna be somebody out there that might possibly be upset enough to take somebody personally to court over something they stated. 

Uh. And I don't think, you, or me, or us as a board should put the district in that position. That's just my candid thoughts. It's not that I don't want to hear people. I'll listen to em. I'm probably not going to respond to em. I'm thinking about what they say. But I'm not gonna to take the chance on them saying "He said this" and it gettin twisted. I'm not doin it. I grew up with a brother that's a judge. I'm not doin it."

(laughter) 

Dan Smith - Board President"OK. So, I would take it, uh, Dave, uh, that you were leaning towards not doing this at this time."

Dave Palmer - Board Vice President 

"Yeah I mean, I just. If they want to talk to me personally, I'll listen to em. I think we should. I think we owe that to them. I'm just sayin if you listen to somebody be careful what you say to em. How you respond. I pretty much when I listen to somebody on certain subjects, I'm pretty much closed lip. Not because I'm afraid, cause I don't want anything to get misconstrued, even accidentally. Not that somebody's going to do it on purpose. Maybe I misstated. You know misstate something that I've, it's possible, you know. If I'm not answerin, I didn't say it. You know and then I can take everything they said; all the information I can get from you guys and administration and I can come to a better decision at that point."

U.S. Department of Education Issues Another Monitoring Letter to Fox C-6

Is it simply incompetence? Does our school board not do proper oversight? Is our superintendent not keeping our school board informed of Federal investigations and simply using taxpayer dollars to fend off federal agencies? Is it a matter of the federal agencies not properly enforcing the laws? Or is it all of the above?

The United States Department of Educations's Office for Civil Rights issued another "monitoring" letter on April 25, 2013 to the Fox C-6 School District in reference to the Resolution Agreement the school district signed with the U.S. Department of Education (ED OCR) in May 2009.  The letter was supposed to be issued in November 2012. Then it was supposed to be issued in January 2013. Then it was supposed to issued by March 2013. So, even Kansas City ED OCR can't seem to get their act together as well. However, after dealing with OCR for years and observing their patterns of practice and lack of response, it seems that this is being done to push it off to the end of the school year so another school year has gone by and nothing gets done.

The monitoring letter sent to our school district states that the District still hasn't fully complied with the May 2009 Resolution Agreement. The district has now been given another new deadline of June 25, 2013 to comply with the agreement. ED OCR has been sending monitoring letters to our school district since December 8, 2009 after the district didn't meet the August 2009 deadlines that were set in the May 2009 Resolution Agreement. So, the process continues.

Some of the items listed in the agreement are to update Fox's 504 Procedural Manuals as well as update school board Policies and Regulations which currently do not meet federal non-discrimination laws and Civil Rights Acts. So far, Fox has refused to make these changes and school district attorneys have been fighting ED OCR. As a National District of Character, one would think that our school district would properly follow federal laws even more so when a federal agency has specifically reviewed school documentation and pointed out the pages and paragraphs in our Policies and Regulation that must be revised in order to meet federal laws.

One would also think that it would be important to our school board members that our school district follows federal laws as well. Making sure that our district follows the law is part of what our school board members swore to do when they took their oath of office. So, have our school board members become complacent? Or have they not been kept informed by our school superintendent. It's our school superintendent's job to keep our school board informed. If she is not keeping them informed and the district is spending tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars because she is not keeping them informed, that would be a violation of her contract and she should be dismissed. I would certainly like to see an explanation from our school board as to why after 4 years our school district has not been able to fulfill an agreement signed by our district with ED OCR in May of 2009.

I spoke to Dan Kroupa about this on election day before the ballots were counted and before he took office. So, Dan has been fairly well informed about what's been happening with the federal agencies and that they have been monitoring and investigating our school district for nearly 5 years. He even asked me why our district just doesn't comply. I told him that's a very good question.

Our superintendent DOES NOT want the public to know about the investigations that have been going on in our school district. She used taxpayer dollars to have a school district attorney send me a letter a couple of years ago to inform me that the district may be under investigation but that there is nothing to tell the public until ED OCR completes their investigation. The investigation the district attorney was referring to in that letter is a completely different matter. It is a District Wide Compliance Review being done by ED OCR. It was opened in March of 2010. You can even find references to it by other attorneys across the country using Google. Attorneys in other states have referred to Fox's District Wide Compliance Review for things to watch out for when they are teaching their school districts about the law.

Falling Through The Cracks
You might wonder why it takes ED OCR so long to investigate. Well, for one reason, the ED OCR Kansas City office has quite a reputation for allowing things to "fall through the cracks" as Mr. Dan E. Smith our current school board president liked to say in his campaign bid for State Representative.

I have been in touch with parents across our state and in other states that are served by the Kansas City Office for Civil Rights. Many of them have had the same experience that we have had with this office. In fact, their office has had cases open for as long as 10 years and attorneys in their office laughed about that during a phone call with them.

The school district attorneys are very well versed in how the cases are handled in the Kansas City OCR office. This is all explained in training seminars on Education Law teaching school administrators and school board members. There are ways to get around the system. It's just a matter of waiting them out. 

The federal agencies will continue to extend deadline after deadline despite ED OCR's Case Processing Manual stating that after refusing to comply they can reopen an investigation and move forward with enforcement. We have been in contact with the Washington D.C. OCR office as well. In fact, our U.S. Senators have contacted the Kansas City OCR office as well. Our senators are very well aware of the issues with ED OCR and the fact that there is a lack of enforcement or for that matter a lack of response from the agency as a whole. It sounds rather familiar to the lack of communication from our school board. You can write our school board but chances are slim to none that you will get a response. It seems that this is the standard way of doing business in the Department of Education. In fact, the State of Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education MO DESE passes the buck back to the local school district. This way nothing gets done and the taxpayers keep paying the price.

Mistakes in 504 Procedures Manuals and School Board Policies and Regulations
The recent monitoring letter from ED OCR identifies many errors in our school district's 504 Procedures Manual as far as the language not properly following the ADA and ADAAA. These documents were supposed to be corrected and supplied to ED OCR back in August 2009. So, why has it taken our school district so long to do this simple task? Why has ED OCR extended deadline after deadline year after year as our district has failed to do so? Why hasn't our school board stepped in and done their job to make sure that our school district complies with the law and the request of federal agencies? Where is the breakdown of communications between our school board and our superintendent? What about holding the people accountable who's responsibility it is to update these documents?

ED OCR has specifically pointed out that contact persons are incorrectly or are not even identified in our school board Policies and Regulations. ED OCR has also identified language that applies to employees of the school district as well in regards to discrimination and civil rights that is missing. Our school superintendent likes to brag that our district is a "School of Excellence". This may be true when it comes to many of the great teachers we have in our district. However, our upper management team seems to be sorely lacking in this area. I pointed out issues with our school board policies to former board member Ruth Ann Newman in February 2011 and she was quite defensive for my doing so. If the board is unable to recognize or even admit that there is a problem, then our community has a problem and board members need to step down so others in our community can do the job that they are supposed to be doing. I read online posts made be people defending our school superintendent and school board members and telling what a wonderful job they are doing. In my opinion, those people posting must be family members or they are our superintendents and school board members themselves. The community is well aware of the problems that have been occurring within our district. However, most of them are afraid to say anything for fear of retaliation. Hopefully, now that the Department of Justice has become involved thanks to the USDA with whom our school district recently refused to meet with for a Compliance Review, things will begin to change.

Retaliation and Defamation By The District
Personally, I don't take these matters lightly given the fact that that my family and I have put up with a considerable amount of retaliation, libel, defamatory comments and attacks made on my character over the past several years. I decided to stand up for what is right and bring this to the attention of our community and to our school board after I learned that our district wasn't following the law in my own case. If they weren't following the law in that matter, there was a good chance that there weren't following the law in other matters in our district. And, I was correct! And because I have learned the law and have been voicing my concerns, our Superintendent has worked hard to discredit me. She continues to tell people that my information is "false or inaccurate" or that much of what I write on my blog is false. Who are you going to believe? Who knows, maybe TROOP will make some more defamatory and slanderous and untrue statements about me over on Topix again. Just to be clear again for everyone, I don't post on Topix and haven't since January of 2011. But, you can bet that our Superintendent's supporters have. I found it very interesting how TROOP seemed to disappear off of Topix after several posters made comments that they thought TROOP was our Superintendent's husband. Wouldn't that certainly be a shock to our community considering the vulgarity of TROOP's language. TROOP certainly had a lot of inside information that would only have been known to a few individuals in our district.

I certainly never thought that I would spend so much time learning about education and civil rights law as an engineer. But, when your reputation is attacked by school district personnel and school district attorneys, you want to set the record straight. Because there is so much to learn, our school district has been able to get away with things for years. That and the fact that our Superintendent has been able to keep her wrong doings out of the public eye and out of the media. Not only has our school district's actions affected me and my family in a negative way. But, they have affected many in our community negatively due to their abuse of power and limitless amounts of money that they can spend on attorneys in an attempt to quiet those who speak out. Many in our community can't take on our school district because they work for the district and others simply don't want the grief. Hopefully, this will all change in the near future after we have a change in leadership and a change in school board members. One can definitely hope!

Our District administrators and district attorneys like to throw out a lot of statements that misrepresent the law hoping that you don't know the law. Some of it is the simple fact that our own superintendent and assistant superintendent as well as principals and staff don't know the law or have been incorrectly taught the law.

I would certainly expect that our Superintendent Dianne Critchlow who makes nearly $250,000 a year and Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker who makes nearly $150,000 a year and do this as their full time job would know the law. Dianne Critchlow has been working in education for more than 20 years and Dan Baker has been working in education for 18 years. I have to ask. How long does it take to learn the laws that they are supposed to follow? Dan Baker is responsible for knowing Section 504 Law. That is part of his job. Our Superintendent is responsible as well. So, you have to add to their salaries the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars that our district is spending in legal fees to correct the problems. It's definitely costly to the taxpayer when laws aren't followed due to lack of knowledge.

How Many Years Before ED OCR Does Their Job?
So, how many more years will this continue before our school district fulfills the requirements they agreed to in the May 2009 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR? How many more years will our school district be undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review by ED OCR? How many more thousands of dollars will it cost the taxpayer? These are questions you should start asking our school board members because they approve the Bill Payments each month when those checks are sent to the school district law firm. At least you can now find out for yourself how much our school district is spending in legal fees because the Bill Payments are now being included in the Board Packets on the district website. These are supposed to be the same Board Packets that are sent out each month to our school board members for review prior to school board meetings. Our school district's law firm is Mickes Goldman O'Toole. Or, you can look for payments made for Legal Services in the description.

How Much More Money Will Our District Waste?
In August and September of 2012 combined, our school district doled out more than $103,000 to the school district law firm. Of course, the school district was having meetings with the USDA OCR office back then dealing with their other Non-Compliance issue. I will have to make a Sunshine Law Request to obtain copies of the invoices from the school district law firm in order to find out exactly what those legal expenses were for. I'm sure that almost everyone in our community would rather see that money being spent on books for our kids rather than paying school district attorneys. I'm sure that statement may have our Superintendent spending more money on another "Cease and Desist" letter sent to defame my character. If any of the facts above are incorrect regarding ED OCR and the USDA OCR, please let me know so I can correct them. The documenting of their misdeeds continues. The best thing is that we now have the Department of Justice working on the case thanks to the USDA OCR. You can be assured that they are being provided with complete and accurate information.

I think our school board needs to start looking for a new Superintendent and a new Assistant Superintendent. What do you think?