Pandemic Leads To More Open Government Meetings

This week’s (November 11, 2011 Leader newspaper has an editorial "Pandemic Taught Us How to have Truly Open Meetings" written by Kim Robertson noting how some governmental meetings have become more accessible due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

That's why it’s important to look back and see how much things have improved over the past decade when it comes to transparency in the Fox C-6 School District and just how long it took for that happen. The Fox C-6 community was kept in the dark during former superintendent Dianne Brown/Critchlow’s tenure. From 2005 until 2014, Fox C-6 school board meetings weren’t audio or video recorded. Not having audio or video recording school board meetings made it very easy to keep anyone outside of Fox’s administration, school board and the few who attended school board meetings from learning about what was happening behind the scenes at Fox or what patrons concerns were in the district. Over the years, I wrote articles about speaking at Fox BOE meetings asking our school board to audio or video record the meetings like they did in other school districts. I even emailed examples of website links to other school districts to our school board. Dianne Critchlow would respond and tell me that it was up to our school board as to whether or not to audio or video record BOE meetings. Video Recorded School Board Meetings It’s great that we now have video recordings of our school board meetings. It allows more people in our community learn about our district and watch Public Comments as well as discussions about decisions being made in our district. It also provides the opportunity to see some of the great things happening in our district when are presentations made by groups and clubs and they are recognized for their accomplishments. You can go back and watch the videos at anytime. Posting of Board Meeting Agendas and Supporting Documents Another big improvement that I asked our school board for many times was the posting of the agenda and the supporting board packet information on Fox’s website days ahead of school board meetings. This took years to implement as well. Fox eventually chose to use BoardDocs which works well in sharing access to documents like Bill Payments and other documents such as bids and proposals, etc. When I first started asking for Bill Payment Reports, I was charged to get copies of the reports because they weren’t on the website. Sunshine Law allows for fees to be charged to provide the documents. Charging for documents is another easy way to hide things from the public. I wished I had paid the $180 for a copy of the Credit Card statements in February 2014 after I started asking our school board if they had been reviewing the credit card statements. The credit card statements weren’t included in the board packets. Read the article I wrote about speaking at the January 15, 2013 Fox C-6 school board meeting to see how school board meetings were documented back then. It wasn’t the first time I spoke at a Fox C-6 school board meeting. My first time speaking at a board meeting was December 2010. There were only 7 people in attendance at that school board meeting and Kim Robertson was one of them in attendance. She wrote an article about my questioning the board about the hiring of Jamie Critchlow even though I didn't mention any names during my Public Comments. When I spoke at the January 2013 school board meeting I asked our school board again about recording board meetings and making those recordings available to the public. I also told our school board that I believe that there are people in our school community (aka administrators) who are posting defamatory comments online about me after school board meetings. The online comments after school board meetings began right after the December 2010 school board meeting. Bringing change to your school district is sometimes met with a lot of resistance. Even law firms like to get into the fray of stopping parents from speaking up. The Public Comment I made at the January 2013 Fox C-6 school board meeting were documented board meeting minutes the following month as: PUBLIC COMMENTS: Rich Simpson - Requested more board information on the district website.

Once you read the public comment I made at the January 2013 school board meeting, it’s pretty easy to see why the board meeting minutes of my comment provide very little detail. That’s why having audio or video recordings of school board meetings provides a lot more transparency than the board meeting minutes like the one above from 2013. It’s no wonder why it took so long for the public to learn about what was going in our school district and oust our former superintendent. Audio or video recording BOE meetings is essential to having an accurate record of what the public's concerns are and what was really discussed or stated at the meeting and not just what our superintendent wanted the community or the public to know.

January 15, 2013 School Board Meeting Public Comment

Improvements in Transparency Helps the Community Perform Oversight

Nearly a decade ago, I was writing articles about some of the issues that our community was facing under superintendent Dianne Brown Critchlow. Between December 2010 and July 2015, I spoke at more than 20 school board meetings during the 3 minute public comments portion of the meeting because I could bring “concerns” to our school board as a whole because in 2010, school board members didn’t have individual email addresses like they do now. It took several years of me requesting for that to happen. I wrote articles on my blog and provided examples to our school board of what other school districts were doing in the area such as posting bill payments online for their community as well as board meeting packets and board meeting minutes within days of a school board meeting. Many of the school districts that Dianne liked to compare Fox to also posted audio or video recordings of their school board meetings online for the public to review. Asked to Pay For Bill Payments and Board Packets When I asked for copies of bill payments so I could review them to find out how much Fox was spending in legal fees in order to get around writing a 504 plan, I was asked to pay to get copies of the bill payments via my Sunshine Request because the law allows a school district to charge to provide copies of documents. However, other school districts were posting their bill payments online and were available for free. I pointed this out to our school board members at the time during public comments and via email. It took years for that to occur and it wasn’t until the very end of Dianne’s tenure before that started to happen. One thing that wasn’t posted online was the credit card statements. I asked our school board members during public comments at the February 2014 school board meeting as to whether or not they were being provided copies of the credit card statements with the board packets and bill payments each month for review since Fox had paid more than $2.1 million in credit card bills in the first half of the 2013-2014 school year

It became obvious that they hadn’t been getting copies of the credit card statements when I made a Sunshine Request to get copies of the credit card statements and I was asked to pay between $160 and $170 to provide me copies of those statements. It wasn’t until my Sunshine Request was fulfilled in the fall of 2014 that I noticed that copies of the credit card statements were FAXed to the district. Apparently, getting copies of those credit card statements for the school board was a problem too. Bill Payments Missing from Board Packets I'll never forget the comment I received after a school board meeting from former board member Dan Smith when I asked about posting the bill payments online. He told me that it would lead to more questions from the community. That was a pretty interesting response given the fact that bill payments are public records. Even after the board packets started getting posted online, the bill payments didn't get posted with them. When I asked about that, I was told that they didn't get posted because there were students names on the checks and that it was a privacy issue. It soon became apparent that the bill payments needed to get posted online with the board packets in order to keep the public informed about what was being spent by our school district each month. For ease of access for the community, I started posting copies of school board meeting minutes for the public to review and for me as well for quick access over on my blog. During the 2014-2015 school year, board meeting minutes started to get posted more quickly for the public and archived on the district’s website. I had to pay to obtain many of the board meeting packets in the early days when I made Sunshine Requests for copies of them even though they were already in PDF format. Below is a link to where you can review board meeting minutes and some board meeting packets dating back to the 2001-2002 school year. There's some history documented in those board meeting minutes and board packets of what went on at Fox during that time. There just wasn't a lot of detail. At least not compared to being able to watch video recordings of BOE meetings and being able to download board meeting packets from BoardDocs.

Fox C-6 School Board Meeting Minutes and Packets

Here’s a link to an article written in April 2014 about those missing credit card statements.

What About Those Bill Payments and Credit Card Payments

Changing Your School District's Culture Is Not An Easy or Fun Task!

As school board elections are approaching again on Tuesday April 6th, I’ve been looking back at some of the articles I’ve written over the past 10+ years covering some of the issues in the Fox C-6 School District that needed to be addressed.

School board candidates could learn a lot about just how difficult it is to change the deep rooted culture of a school district and how much push back a person can get when asking for change.

Cease and Desist Letter

In August 2012, I was sent a cease and desist letter for my efforts to bring about more transparency at Fox and bring Fox into compliance with Section 504 Law. In the spring of 2013, three more parents in our school district were sent cease and desist letters. An article was written about the cease and desist letters in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. 

Defamatory Posts For Speaking at Board Meetings

Then there were the defamatory comments posted online about me that were traced to some of our administrator’s homes and a cell phone. The online posts would appear within hours of making Public Comments at a Fox C-6 school board meeting.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch article linked below covers the cease and desist letters that Fox C-6 sent to parents in the district.

The article notes that former superintendent, Dianne Critchlow said:

 "everyone has the right to criticize the district but not spread untruths"

From the get go in dealing with our former superintendent, she made false statements at one on one meetings, board meetings and in emails to me and our school board and even in the news, which have been well documented.

The Post Dispatch article also noted the following quote from former superintendent, Dianne Critchlow:

"You don’t have the right to make up lies and defame someone’s character,”

Apparently, the statement above did not apply to her or her husband.

Our former superintendent should have been more interested in improving transparency and following federal law instead of anonymously posting defamatory comments online that were directed at parents who were trying to hold her and our school board accountable.

Letters sent to Fox dissidents highlight school tensions

STLTODAY.COM

School Board Members Associated With 504 Issues in the District

It’s interesting to note that 5 of our current school board members were either directly involved with some of the issues I was addressing in our school district or are related to individuals who were directly involved with those issues such as the removal of a 504 Plan and efforts to get the 504 Plan reinstated. It prompts the question as to why these individuals decided to run for a position on the Fox C-6 Board of Education.

No Audio or Video Recordings of Meetings at Fox

I asked the Fox C-6 school board numerous times over the years during the Critchlow era to audio or video record school board meetings because of the lack of detail Fox's board meeting minutes.

Fox C-6 school board meetings had been audio recorded prior to Dianne Brown Critchlow's time as superintendent. She couldn't explain why they weren't recorded anymore. She said the last time they were recorded was when Jim Chellew was superintendent.

Examples Of What Other Districts Were Doing Compared to Fox

I brought numerous examples to our school board of what other school districts in our area were doing with regards to audio or video recording school board meetings and posting school district bill payments online for the community to review. I asked for audio and video recordings of board meetings because the public wasn’t getting the truth or the facts about several issues in our district. At the time, Fox didn’t post bill payments on the district website which made it difficult for anyone in the community to help with oversight of school district spending. It also made it very easy for some of our administrators to misuse taxpayer dollars.

The responses from our superintendent are well documented in the articles I've written over the years. The article linked to below was posted a year before the ousting of Critchlow and her husband and the demotion of two assistant superintendents. It serves as a good reminder as to how bad things can get when there’s very little oversight by your school board and district employees fear retaliation from administration.

11 Years To Comply With an ED OCR Resolution Agreement

In May 2009, Dan Baker signed a Resolution Agreement in which Fox agreed to update the district’s 504 manual by June of 2009. It wasn’t until May 10, 2020 that Fox’s 504 manual was finally updated and posted on the district’s website. It took Fox more than 11 years to update the district’s 504 manual. It's hard to comprehend, but very well documented.

Kansas City ED OCR Slowed the Process As Well

It took Ed OCR nearly 16 months just to respond to the district with their review of the district’s updated 504 manual. 

Ed OCR had already reviewed the document in 2018 and asked for a few minor changes to the document in the fall of 2018. During that 16 month delay, I made several calls to the Ed OCR attorney who was listed as the contact person for the 2018 Resolution Agreement.

In the summer of 2019, the OCR attorney told me that their office was understaffed but they hope to complete their review of the 504 Manual prior to the start of the 2019-2020 school year. Of course, that didn’t happen. OCR didn’t notify Fox until February 2020 that their recent changes to the 504 manual finally met the terms of the May 2009 and 2018 Resolution Agreements.

ED OCR Failed Students At Fox For More Than a Decade

It would be safe to say that ED OCR’s enforcement of the May 2009 and March 2018 Resolution Agreements with Fox probably wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t kept calling OCR’s directors and attorneys for more than a decade checking on the progress of their enforcement of the Resolution Agreements. It’s a great example of just how easy it is for school districts to get around Section 504 law for years.

I need to write about my conversation with the ED OCR attorney in May 2020 when I asked her why it nearly a decade to complete a simple District Wide Compliance Review and why OCR wasn't following their case processing manual to bring about enforcement.

In the meantime, a lot of legal fees were billed to the district for responses to OCR requests and refusals by district attorneys to change the language in school board policies and the district’s 504 Manual as requested by OCR.

There were also legal fees for 504 meetings, Due Process Hearings and for helping with a "press release" article that appeared in the Post Dispatch in August 2010 after our Due Process Hearing as well as legal fees charged for reading my blog.

In all, Fox spent more than $100,000 in legal fees between 2008 and 2020 because of the removal of a 504 plan and subsequent refusal to reinstate that 504 plan. The amount of legal fees is based upon my review of bill payment records posted online and obtained via Sunshine Requests. The tactics used and the amount of effort to get around Section 504 law was quite amazing.

Superintendent Dr. Nisha Pitel has done a great job over the past couple of years highlighting our staff and students. I was very disappointed when she announced that she would be leaving our district.

Superintendent Dr. Fregeau's Meet and Greet Presentation to the Community

At the same time, I'm very encouraged by the choice of Dr. Paul Fregeau as Fox's next superintendent after watching his meet and greet presentation on Fox's YouTube channel as well as what I found and read on the Decatur Public Schools website. I highly recommend watching Dr. Fregeau's meet and greet presentation.

One significant point during Dr. Fregeau's meet and greet presentation was when he spoke about his integrity and promised the community that he would never embarrass the district.

Dr. Fregeau had done his homework and had either read or heard about the problems that had occurred during the Dianne Brown Critchlow era at Fox and the embarrassment she brought to our community and the Fox C-6 School District.

The July 2013 article linked below documents some of the pushback I received for my efforts to improve transparency in our district and hold people accountable. It also puts into perspective just how much has improved since Critchlow was ousted in 2014.

School board meetings weren't audio or video recorded during Critchlow's tenure. I recorded them when I attended and when I spoke during public comments in order to have an accurate record of what was said at the meetings and the responses I received, if any.

Fox Has a New Website But the Same Old Problems

11 Years Ago Today Fox C-6 Signed a Resolution Agreement with ED OCR

Today marks another sad milestone in the 12+ year long saga of obtaining a 504 plan in the Fox C-6 School District.

It was 11 years ago today (May 1, 2009) when Dan Baker, who was the 504 Coordinator for the Fox C-6 School District at the time, signed a Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR).

In the May 2009 Resolution Agreement, Fox C-6 agreed to make changes to the district’s Section 504 Manual. Some of those changes were to remove language that did not comply with Section 504 and replace it with new language and submit those changes to ED OCR by June 9, 2009. Those changes to Fox’s 504 Manual were not made. These changes were required after ED OCR opened an investigation following a complaint filed in the fall of 2008.

The agreement also required Fox to do another 504 evaluation by a specific date and submit information from the 504 evaluation to OCR for review.

For the next 5 years, Fox's attorneys refused to make some of the changes to the district’s 504 Manual. They also fought along with administrators, the reinstatement of a Section 504 Plan that was removed in September 2008.

OCR did not enforce the May 2009 Resolution Agreement as part of their job description states. They allowed Fox C-6 to drag things out for years. Then in June 2014, Fox switched law firms when the internet defamation scandal became public.

March 2018 - Fox Agrees to Update 504 Manual Again
In March 2018, Fox agreed again to update the district’s Section 504 Manual and include in the manual the exact language provided to the district by OCR. Fox also agreed to remove language that did not comply with Section 504. The district also agreed to include in the Section 504 Manual at least two examples of students who would qualify for a Section 504 plan.

Checking On Fox's Updated Section 504 Manual
Since August 2018, I've been checking in with Fox’s current Section 504 coordinator as to when Fox’s new Section 504 Manual would be made available to the public. In August 2018, I asked for a copy of Fox’s current Section 504 Manual so I could compare it to the new Section 504 Manual when it became available. I was provided a copy of that manual and it was pretty much the same manual that we had received in 2008.

Fox’s current Section 504 Manual is not available on the district website. I asked about that in August 2018. I’ve been told since then that Fox’s new Section 504 Manual will be available on the district website when it is completed.

2 More Years Have Passed
It’s now been more than 2 years since the Fox agreed again to update the Section 504 Manual. The update still hasn’t been completed. I’ve been told that the district is waiting on OCR to review the document and provide feedback to the district. I’ve also been in touch with OCR numerous times over the past two years on this issue. I've been told by OCR several times that they hoped to complete that task soon. OCR has a history of not returning emails or phone calls after things begin to drag out like they have with Fox.

OCR's Monitoring of Fox's Resolution Agreement
OCR is responsible for “monitoring” school districts to see that they comply with their Resolution Agreements. However, it was easy to see 10+ years ago that OCR doesn’t really do much “monitoring”. The parents have to monitor and check up on OCR to see if they will ever do their job and check on their school district to see if they are doing their job. This has been well documented on my blog.

When will the parents, teachers and staff get an updated Section 504 Manual from Fox?

Probably never.

I’ve often wondered why our school board members don’t check into things like this.

Fox currently has 3 school board members who were directly involved with or are related to someone who was directly involved with the 504 issues in our district.

We currently have two school board members who were on the school board when former superintendent Dianne Critchlow “resigned” from the district amid the cyber bullying scandal. They are not seeking re-election in June.

In the meantime, I’ll keep checking up on this issue since the district is still being "monitored" by OCR and has been since May 2009.

Fox's May 2009 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR

Fox's March 2018 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR

Fox C-6's March 2018 Resolution Agreement and District Wide Compliance Review Letter

The other day I commented on Facebook about the ED OCR Resolution Agreement that Dr. Wipke signed in March 2018. The Resolution Agreement was signed to close the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review. Mr. Brazeal responded to my comment with the following:

“Yes, it is true that Dr. Wipke, Superintendent, signed a Resolution Agreement as presented by OCR in March 2018. This is standard procedure in closing out a review. However, contrary to what you allege, there were no "findings" showing any violations of federal law. Hence, it is no surprise the news media didn't publish this non-story. Thus, it is not responsible to write "just think how many kids were denied 504 plans" when OCR has made no such finding, despite years of examination.”

This kind of comment from school officials is expected. Fox has been sweeping this problem under the rug for nearly a decade.

On Facebook, I responded to Mr. Brazeal's comment above and documented some of the many things that didn’t make it into the March 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter or the March 2018 Resolution Agreement.

The only reason that a district is asked to sign a Resolution Agreement is because OCR found compliance issues while conducting an investigation.

This wasn't the first time Fox signed a Resolution Agreement with OCR. The district signed one on May 1, 2009 related to the same issues based on a complaint filed in August 2008. The May 2009 Resolution Agreement was "monitored" by ED OCR from May 2009 until August 2014. In August 2014, ED OCR visited Fox to do an Early Complaint Resolution and subsequently reinstated a Section 504 plan that had been removed in September 2008.

18 Actions Items for Fox for No "Findings"

It's important to understand that OCR allows school districts to resolve compliance reviews or complaints prior to the conclusion of an OCR investigation. By doing so, ED OCR does not issue any "findings" as Mr Brazeal pointed out in his response. Saying there were no "findings" is very misleading. It gives the appearance that there was nothing found by OCR during their investigation.

However, Fox's 15 page Resolution Agreement clearly documents 18 action items that the district has agreed to do in order to fulfill the terms of the Resolution Agreement and become compliant with Section 504 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Several of the action items in the March 2018 Resolution Agreement were similar to those in the May 2009 Resolution Agreement.

Below is a paragraph from the March 2018 Resolution Agreement stating that OCR will not close the monitoring of the Agreement until OCR determines that Fox has fulfilled the terms of the agreement. Therefore, Fox is currently non-compliant.

"The District understands that OCR will not close the monitoring of this Agreement until OCR determines that the District has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with: the regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(j), and 104.35 through 104.37; and the regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 and 35.130, which were at issue in this case."

Just because a school district agrees to do things in a Resolution Agreement is no guarantee that the district will actually fulfill the terms of the agreement. Fox demonstrated that by their actions from the May 2009 Resolution Agreement.

In March 2018, Fox voluntarily agreed to resolve the Compliance Review prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation. It will be interesting to see how many years it takes before Fox fulfills the terms of the March 2018 Resolution Agreement.

Resolution Agreement Not Provided to School Board
Dr. Wipke did not provide a copy of the Resolution Agreement in BoardDocs for Fox's school board members to review. When I asked why not, I was informed that it was an "administrative action". Since the OCR Resolution Agreement deals with complying with federal law, our school board members should have been provided a copy of the Agreement and the Compliance Review letter as well. Having it in BoardDocs would have also made the documents available to the local community.

Resolution Agreement On ED.GOV
Even though Fox's Resolution Agreement and Compliance Review letter wasn't made available to Fox's school board members or the community, it is available to the general public on ED OCR's website. I have provided links to the documents below:

March 8, 2018 ED OCR Resolution Agreement

One of the actions items Fox was required to do was to send out notices to parents and legal guardians of each District Student:

“By September 17, 2018, the District will send a notice to the parent(s)/legal guardian(s) of each District student through the U.S. Postal Service (U.S. mail), or by email, explaining the District’s obligation to conduct a Section 504 evaluation of any student who, because of disability, needs or is believed to need special education or related services to send out notices to everyone in the district.”

Fox completed the above action item in September 2018.

March 2018 ED OCR Compliance Review Letter

The OCR"s District Wide Compliance Review specifically investigated the following as stated on the first page of the Compliance Review Letter:

"This compliance review assessed whether the District discriminates on the basis of disability against students with food allergies and other health impairments such as diabetes. Specifically, the review addressed whether the District provides individualized health plans to students with food allergies and other health impairments that do not comply with the requirements of Section 504 and Title II, thereby denying those students opportunities to participate in and benefit from the District’s programs and activities that are equal to the opportunities afforded to students without disabilities."

Since it was well documented that ED OCR knew that we were provided an Individualized Health Plan (IHP) instead of a Section 504 plan, it was easy to see why OCR opened a District Wide Compliance Review investigating the practice of providing IHP's instead of Section 504 plans. This pattern of practice had been happening around the country for years as I found in other Resolution Agreements and pointed out in previous articles. The Memphis City School district was caught doing the same thing and signed a Resolution Agreement with OCR in 2012.

Memphis City Schools Reaches Resolution Agreement with OCR on IHCP's

8 Years To Conduct A Compliance Review

The "years of examination" that it took to complete Fox's District Wide Compliance Review is quite a story in itself. Parents and advocates who have filed complaints with the Kansas City ED OCR office have experienced and followed their lack of enforcement for more than a decade.

It took OCR nearly 4 more years after the online defamatory comments scandal became public for OCR to complete their investigation and get the district to sign a Resolution Agreement. During that time, I continually checked in with OCR asking the KC Director and the Regional Enforcement Director when they planned to complete their investigation.

OCR's 8 year investigation don't seem to follow OCR’s mission statement from their website:

“The mission of the Office for Civil Rights is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights.”

You can't ensure equal access to education when it takes 8 years to investigate problems in a school district.

Students Denied 504 Plans
In my Facebook response to Mr. Brazeal, I also noted the fact that there were students who were denied Section 504 plans in the district between 2008 and 2014. Ours was one of them. My remarks about denying 504 plans are true. We don't know how many students were denied 504's because most parents don't know about Section 504. Plus parents aren't willing to battle their school district because they can't afford attorneys and because they fear retaliation from the district.

Several parents of students in our district contacted me over the years telling me that their children had been denied Section 504 plans by the district. Some of those students were eventually provided a 504 plan in 2014. That happened after the district changed law firms as well as ousted former superintendent Dianne Critchlow, fired her husband Jamie Critchlow and demoted Dan Baker, Fox's Section 504 Coordinator at the time. The Critchlow's departure and Dan Baker's demotion was related to online defamatory posts that were traced to their homes and directed at me and a couple of others in the district.

Items Not Documented By ED OCR
ED OCR was made aware of some of the students who were denied Section 504 plans but did not document that fact in the District Wide Compliance Review letter or Resolution Agreement.

OCR also didn't document the monitoring letters that they sent the district between 2009 and 2013. Those monitoring letters did not reflect well on the district as they noted the numerous times that the district failed to meet the terms of the May 2009 Resolution Agreement. OCR also failed to document any of the online postings that were traced to the homes of district administrators.

Retaliation by a school district is prohibited by Section 504 law. This is documented on the last page of Fox's District Wide Compliance Review letter:

"Recipients of federal funds are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by federal civil rights law. Complaints alleging such retaliation may be filed with OCR. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if released."

OCR was made aware of the online postings that were being posted on TOPIX for years. OCR was provided copies of the postings that were traced to the homes of our former superintendent and former Section 504 coordinator in 2014. OCR was also provided the comments that were posted online after the "press release" in the Post Dispatch article from August 2010 after the district "won" its Due Process Hearing.

No Monitoring Letters for Two Years
During ED OCR's "monitoring" of the May 2009 Resolution Agreement, there was more than a two year lapse in their "monitoring" of the district. ED OCR didn't issue any monitoring letters to the district between December 2009 and March 2012. We asked ED OCR numerous times during that two year gap as to when they planned to send new monitoring letters to the district. We also asked as to how many years it would take before they actually enforce the agreement rather than changing the deadlines of the agreement when Fox failed to meet the deadlines that they agreed to.

Ongoing Efforts To Comply with Section 504 and Title II 

One very notable point in the March 2018 Resolution agreement is this statement on the first page of the Resolution Agreement:

"As part of its ongoing efforts to comply with Section 504 and Title II, the District agrees to review and, as needed, amend its Section 504 Manual and Section 504 process to ensure that the Manual and process conform with the requirements set out in the Section 504 and Title II regulations, and are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008."

The statement, "As part of its ongoing efforts to comply with Section 504 and Title II" is a very important statement. It's been more than 10 years since Fox signed the May 2009 Resolution Agreement in which Fox agreed to update its Section 504 Manual and 504 process. However, Fox never fulfilled that part of the agreement. As part of the March 2018 Resolution Agreement, Fox is still working on updating its Section 504 Manual and Section 504 process. How can that be when ED OCR states that they do "vigorous enforcement of civil rights"? Obviously there's a systemic problem at ED OCR regarding enforcement of agreements.

Another item to point out from the March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter is the following statement:

“Since the time OCR opened this compliance review in 2010, the District has worked to improve its process for identifying and evaluating students who may be eligible for Section 504 services and protections.”

That statement from the 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter does not accurately reflect the responses from the district. The statement ignores the fact that the district’s legal counsel refused to update school documents and policies for nearly 4 years as documented by ED OCR in their monitoring letters sent to the district between 2009 and 2013. An article I wrote in July 2013, documents those letters as well as the letters sent to ED OCR from the district’s legal counsel informing ED OCR why they refused to make changes to district policies and documentation that they originally agreed to update.

Press Release In Legal Bills
According to the legal bills from Fox's former law firm (Mickes, Goldman, O'Toole) that I obtained via a Sunshine Request from the district, I discover that the district’s former law firm billed time to review my July 2013 article. The legal bills also documented the many times that Fox's legal counsel helped the district over the years respond to my Public Comments, emails and Sunshine Requests. The legal bills covered May 2010 through June 2014. Legals bills weren't provided for any of the time dating back to 2008 when the attorneys first got involved. My interest in getting copies of legal bills was to determine how many tens of thousands of dollars or more were spent in fighting a Section 504 plan for a student in the district.

The "press release" as noted in the legal bills was for charges in helping to get a story into the Post Dispatch.

The news article ("press release") appeared in the Post Dispatch in August 2010. Comments posted to the online article contained many bullying and threatening comments directed at our family for pursuing a Section 504 plan. The online comments from the Post Dispatch article were forward to both ED OCR and USDA OCR due to the retaliatory nature of those comments. Comments in the Post Dispatch back then were made anonymously and couldn't be traced. However, some of those who commented were identifiable by their remarks.

Fox's former law firm (Mickes Goldman O'Toole) used the media in many of their school district cases to bully parents. I followed several of their cases across the state over the years and searched for articles related to those cases. Similar comments were posted on those articles as well that were directed at families who pursued Section 504 plans for their children.

If it hadn’t been for my constant follow up with ED OCR over the years checking on the progress of the May 2009 Resolution Agreement and the May 2010 District Wide Compliance Review, the District Wide Compliance Review probably would have never been completed or closed by ED OCR.

Law Firm Video Told Educators Not To Provide 504 Plans

It also helped that I found a video on the Doster Mickes law firm's website in August 2008 of an attorney giving a presentation at the 2005 Missouri School Law Seminar. The attorney told educators in our state that they should not provide students with food allergies a Section 504 plan even though they may qualify for one.

I knew the family who the attorney was referring to in her presentation. I knew the family because an advocate who had helped us, had also helped them. Their child’s 504 plan was taken away as well during a Due Process Hearing in front of the school board. I contacted the family about the video I had found and they confirmed that the attorney in the video was referring to their case. The family was very upset to learn that their case was being touted by the law firm.

Video Leads to Statewide Training By USDA OCR

In September 2008, I forwarded a link to the video from the 2005 Missouri School Law Seminar that I had found to both ED OCR and USDA OCR because I knew it wasn't right for attorneys to tell school districts to say deny a Section 504 plan if a student was qualified for one.

Providing that video to the USDA OCR office led to statewide training by USDA OCR for all Food Nutrition Directors in the state of Missouri. Fox didn't attend the statewide training.

My July 2013 article documented the fact that I spoke at the June 2013 Fox C-6 school board meeting during Public Comments and asked the school board about the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review and the May 2009 Resolution Agreement.

My Public Comments at the June 2013 school board meeting were documented in the board meeting minutes as, “discussed Board policies and regulations”. School board meeting minutes weren't well documented for a reason and that's why I had been asking for years for Fox's board meetings to be audio and/or video recorded. Not recording school board meetings allowed administration to keep the public in the dark regarding any concerns in the district because, concerns were poorly documented or not documented at all.

July 2013 Article Covering the June 2013 Board Meeting

June 25, 2013 Fox C-6 Board Meeting Minutes

My response to Mr. Brazeal also pointed out the numerous times I had contacted ED OCR for 9 years asking them when they planned to complete the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review or enforce the May 2009 Resolution Agreement. I was informed repeatedly by ED OCR that they were working on it and that they hoped to get it completed soon or in the next several months.

So, the real “story” is, why did it take ED OCR nearly a decade to enforce the May 2009 Resolution Agreement that the district didn’t fulfill?
Monitoring Letters Sent to Fox
Fox agreed to update board policies and 504 manuals, etc. in 2009. That didn’t happen. The District was sent numerous monitoring letters documenting that fact. So, now in March 2018 the District signed a new Resolution Agreement which closed the District Wide Compliance Review before it was completed and gave the district another window of several years to complete and fulfill that agreement while being “monitored” by ED OCR.

The end of the March 8, 2018 Resolution Agreement contains the following 3 paragraphs that outlines that OCR will be monitoring the agreement and that OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to enforce the specific terms of the agreement. However, similar language was also included in the May 2009 Resolution Agreement as well but ED OCR never initiated enforcement or judicial proceedings after years of not meeting the terms of the agreement.

"The District understands that OCR will not close the monitoring of this Agreement until OCR determines that the District has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with: the regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(j), and 104.35 through 104.37; and the regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 and 35.130, which were at issue in this case.

The District understands that by signing this Agreement, it agrees to provide data and other information in a timely manner in accordance with the reporting requirements of this Agreement and that all actions taken to comply with the requirements of the Agreement are subject to OCR’s review and approval. Further, the District understands that during the monitoring of this Agreement, if necessary, OCR may visit the District, interview staff and students, and request such additional reports or data as are necessary for OCR to determine whether the District has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with: the regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(j), 104.35 through 104.37; and the regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 and 35.130, which were at issue in this case.

The District understands and acknowledges that OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings, including to enforce the specific terms and obligations of this Agreement. Before initiating administrative enforcement (34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10) or judicial proceedings, including to enforce this Agreement, OCR shall give the District written notice of the alleged breach and sixty (60) calendar days to cure the alleged breach."

The March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review Letter to Fox C-6 is an 11 page letter which details some of the things discovered during their interviews with the district during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years.

March 16, 2018 ED OCR District Wide Compliance Review Letter to Fox C-6

The March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review Letter contains the following paragraph:

"Recipients of federal funds are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by federal civil rights law. Complaints alleging such retaliation may be filed with OCR. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if released."

Retaliation Violates Section 504
I have pointed the fact that retaliation or bullying is a violation of Section 504 law in numerous articles and to our school board over the years. This is why it was such an important fact when it was discovered that online defamatory posts directed at me were traced to the homes of our former superintendent, former assistant superintendent (who was demoted to elementary principal) and the home of a former assistant principal.

What's interesting as well is the fact that an incorrect assumption and the forwarding of false information to Fox's former superintendent, Dianne Critchlow by the Lone Dell Elementary principal is what led to the really nasty defamatory online posts that were traced to Fox's former superintendent's home. It wasn't until the principal at Lone Dell apologized to one of the other plaintiffs in our lawsuit for passing on the incorrect information that I was able to confirm who had forwarded the false information to Critchlow. The Lone Dell principal and the teacher who assumed incorrectly that I was involved in the posting of signs in the District were both directly involved in the 504 issues as well.

We filed retaliation complaints with ED OCR, and provided them with copies of the posts and lawsuit. However, nothing became of those retaliation complaints. It makes you wonder what OCR considers retaliation after reading the numerous comments that were posted online and forwarded to ED OCR and USDA OCR.

ED OCR's Lack of Enforcement

The lack of enforcement by ED OCR is a story in itself. I’ve heard the same story from parents around the country who have experienced the same thing in their school districts. When it takes nearly a decade for ED OCR to do “vigorous enforcement” of the law, you quickly learn that ED OCR must be using a different definition of the word “vigorous” than everyone else.

Plus, the fact that ED OCR did not include in their March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter any references to the denials of Section 504 plans or when Section 504 plans were taken away from students between August 2008 and June 2014 even though ED OCR was aware of those facts from district documentation and Due Process Hearings. I asked the current Director of the Kansas City ED OCR office why nothing was noted in the District Wide Compliance Review letter from the 2008 to 2014 school years. I didn't get a response to that question.

USDA OCR Non-Compliance Findings
I also noted in my response to Mr. Brazeal that USDA OCR had issued findings that found Fox and Missouri DESE non-compliant with Section 504. That non-compliance letter was issued in August 2011. This was noted in my July 2013 article along with a reference to a copy of the non-compliance letter. I also wrote an article in March 2013 regarding the USDA Non-Compliance Findings.

Fox C-6 and MO DESE Undergo USDA Compliance Review

Perhaps items weren’t documented in the March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter for the 2008 through June 2014 time frame because things changed in the district in June 2014. That’s when the district switched law firms, our superintendent was ousted and the district switched Section 504 Coordinators.

Following the ouster of the district’s law firm, in August 2014, ED OCR came and did an Early Complaint Resolution which resulted in the reinstatement of a Section 504 plan that had been removed in September 2008. It took nearly 6 years to reinstate a 504 plan that had been removed. That’s the reason why I have been documenting this process and the numerous things that occurred in our district during that time.

The 504 issues going on in our district is what led to my uncovering of other issues involving our former superintendent. People I’ve told about this over the years find it hard to believe all of the things that went on in our district related to this issue. That’s why I have tried to be very thorough in my documenting of it. It's easy to see why Fox wants to sweep all of this under the rug and keep it hidden from the public.

My July 2013 article, documented how slow ED OCR was at following up and enforcing the May 2009 Resolution Agreement signed by Dan Baker, Fox’s former Section 504 Coordinator. (Current Fox C-6 school board member Vicki Hanson was the Section 504 Coordinator prior to Dan Baker taking over the job when she retired in 2008.)

Another article I wrote in June 2013 pointed out some information sent to me by a parent in the Lee’s Summit School District who had read some of my articles. One thing I did not note in the article back then was the fact that the Lee’s Summit Superintendent was one of the highest paid superintendents in the state and the fact that Fox’s former superintendent Dianne Critchlow was the 4th highest paid superintendent in the state at the time. Critchlow eventually became the 2nd highest paid superintendent in the state when she “retired” in 2014 with a salary of $267,468. The Lee’s Summit superintendent was ousted in May 2016 and was the highest paid superintendent in the state with a compensation package worth $397,000.

March 2016 Kansas City Star Article about Lee’s Summit Superintendent

Below is a link to the June 2013 which pointed out some of my concerns as to why it was taking the Kansas City ED OCR so long to perform their “vigorous enforcement” of Section 504 law.

June 2013 Article - Stark Similarities Between Fox C-6 and Lee's Summit R-7 School Districts!