Showing posts with label Mickes Goldman O'Toole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mickes Goldman O'Toole. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 10, 2021

Who Was Watching Over the Office for Civil Rights When Fox Signed the 2018 Resolution Agreement with ED OCR?

In 2015, I asked the following question:

“Who’s Watching Over the Office for Civil Rights?”

In 2021, I found the following answer from a January 2019 announcement:
"Josh comes to Mickes O’Toole from the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights office in Kansas City, Missouri, where he oversaw civil rights compliance in seven states, including Missouri and Kansas. Josh led the office’s investigative and legal staff in the investigation and resolution of thousands of civil rights complaints arising from issues such as race or sex harassment, student discipline, special education, Title IX athletics, among many others. Josh’s work included reviewing school policies and providing training to assist public schools districts and post-secondary institutions with their compliance with federal civil rights laws."


Monday, September 20, 2021

Legal Fees in Fox C-6's September 21, 2021 Bill Payments Report

In reviewing Fox's Bill Payments report in BoardDocs for the upcoming September 21, 2021 Fox C-6 School Board meeting, I found another payment to the Mickes Goldman O'Toole, LLC law firm for $4,412.90 for services for June 2021.

Fox had already paid the Mickes Goldman O’Toole law firm $26,664.00 during the 2020-2021 school year. With $23,996.50 of that amount being paid out in April through June of 2021. It would be interesting to know if the fees were for a Due Process Hearing. If it was, I’d like to know what the Due Process Hearing Officer’s findings of fact and final decision was. Mickes Goldman O’Toole is the law firm that we dealt with for 504 issues at Fox between 2008 and 2014. It’s also the law firm that sent me a cease and desist letter in 2012 and to three other members of our community in 2013. Fox switched law firms after the internet scandal became public in June 2014. Looking through the entire 2020-2021 school year, payments were made to the Thomeczek & Brink LLC law firm in July and August 2020 totaling $24,010.00. This was the law firm that was selected by Fox to represent the district as the Due Process Hearing Officer in our 2010 Due Process Hearing. I’m curious as to whether or not the fees in 2020 were for a Due Process Hearing as well. If it was, I’d like to know what the Due Process Hearing Officer’s findings of fact and final decision was. Our Due Process Hearing in 2010 taught me a lot about the tactics used by attorneys to get around the law. You get a full transcript of your due process hearing providing some well documented examples of those tactics and how testimony and facts are manipulated. Recourse Options For Denial or Removal of a Section 504 Plan If your school district denies or removes a 504 plan, you have 3 options of recourse.

1. File for a Due Process Hearing where the school district gets to choose the hearing officer.
2. File a lawsuit in civil court heard by a judge.
3. File a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights.

However, you should be forewarned, speaking from first hand experience, filing a complaint with the Kansas City Office for Civil Rights may take 10 to 12 years or more to resolve.

Don't count on the Kansas City OCR office to do any “vigorous enforcement” of the law.
During the 2020-2021 school year, Fox C-6 made payments to 6 different law firms as reported in Bill Payments reports in BoardDocs:
Tueth Keeney Cooper Mohan & Jackstadt P.C. - $35,855.00
Mickes O'Toole - $26,664.00
Thomeczek & Brink, LLC - $24,010.00
Bryan Cave Leighton Palsner, LLP - $5,000.00
Gilmore & Bell a Professional Corporation - $6,500.00
Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum, LLP - $1,596.00

To review the Bill Payments report in BoardDocs for the September 21, 2021 school board meeting, use the link below:



Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Dan Baker Probably Doesn't Want the Fox C-6 Community to See the Invoices for Legal Fees!

It was announced that Dan Baker was selected as the new principal at Seckman Elementary at the March 17, 2015 Fox C-6 Board of Education (BOE) meeting.

I voiced my concerns about Dan Baker being selected as a finalist for the Seckman Elementary School principal position to Fox C-6 board president John Laughlin and Dr. Wipke in an email early Monday morning March 16, 2015. Then after not receiving a response I sent another email to all of the Fox C-6 board members at 6:30am Tuesday March 17, 2015.

I also voiced my concerns to the Fox C-6 BOE meeting during Public Comments. Click on the link below to listen to my Public Comments. There were a total of 7 Public Comments made at the BOE meeting. There were two public comments in support of hiring Dan Baker for the principal position at Seckman Elementary which was made by teachers from Seckman Elementary. I wonder if Mr. Baker will give them any special treatment now that he's been selected principal?


Dan Baker's selection reminds me very much of when the community was told that Kelly Nash was the best candidate for Fox's Food Nutrition Director in December 2012 by Todd Scott even though she didn't possess the certification and schooling required for the job as required by board policy.

Dan Baker, possesses the proper certification for the principal job. He was a principal at Hodge Elementary School prior to being promoted to the position of Assistant Superintendent and Section 504 Coordinator for the Fox C-6 School District in the Central Office.

Unlike Kelly Nash, Dan Baker has to face scrutiny from the public for his involvement in the internet scandal that made national headlines at Fox C-6 in 2014 after it was discovered that derogatory posts were linked to the home and cell phone of Dan and Angie Baker as well as to the home of former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow and her husband Jamie Critchlow who was fired by the district in June 2014.

Dan Baker was the Section 504 Coordinator for the district at the time the posts linked to his home were made in 2013. Mr. Baker was also involved in our Section 504 case and had been since May of 2008. Having derogatory comments linked to his home that were made against me could be considered retaliation by the Office for Civil Rights because we had filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) and the USDA's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR) back in 2008 and 2009 respectively.

Section 504 law prohibits retaliating against any individual who files a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights or advocates for someone's civil rights. Therefore, it's very important that everyone understands what the law says on Section 504. It's also very important to know that it was Mr. Baker's job as the district's 504 Coordinator to ensure that Fox C-6 complied with Section 504 law and the ADA AA.

Had the public been properly informed of the district's run in with ED OCR and USDA OCR six years ago, Dan Baker may not have been considered for the principal position at Seckman Elementary School.

Dan Baker, Dianne Brown-Critchlow and Todd Scott have been working hard for years to keep the district's non-compliance issues out of the news and hidden from the public. Board meeting minutes didn't document my questions or letters about the OCR issues. In fact, the district's former law firm sent me letters telling me that the public had no need to know about the Resolution Agreement that Dan Baker signed on May 1, 2009 with ED OCR or the 2010 District Wide Compliance Review investigation until ED OCR released their findings.

The Resolution Agreement signed by Dan Baker has been open now for nearly 6 years and the District Wide Compliance Review has been open for 5 years. 

How long does it take ED OCR to complete an investigation and report their findings?

That means that for nearly 6 years, Dan Baker and the district were unable to meet the terms of the agreement that Dan Baker agreed to in order for the district to be compliant with Section 504 law and the ADA AA. It certainly doesn't seem that Dan Baker was doing his job as Section 504 Coordinator.

I would think that not being able to meet the terms of an agreement with a federal agency for nearly 6 years would weigh heavily on Mr. Baker's job performance reviews over the years. But, since Dianne Brown-Critchlow and the former law firm kept ED OCR at bay for years as well as the USDA OCR, no one knew that Fox was non-compliant with federal law. The Resolution Agreement and District Wide Compliance Review and Monitoring Letters were never documented in the board meeting minutes or board packets.

I don't believe that Dr. Jim Wipke has been fully informed of all of the non-compliance issues with ED OCR and USDA OCR. I spoke with Dr. Wipke this evening after the board meeting about my concerns of hiring Dan Baker as the principal at Seckman Elementary School and Todd Scott as the new principal at Seckman High School. Dr, Wipke offered to get together and discuss my concerns further regarding this issue and that he would like to work with me on this issue.

I think it's time for the public to get involved and make a Sunshine Law Request and demand that the invoices from the district's former law firm be released to the public. Your taxpayer dollars were used to pay legal fees to keep ED OCR and USDA OCR at bay for years. In fact, one of the training sessions by the district's former law firm was titled, "OCR Is Gaining On You! How to Run Faster!".

It's seems quite obvious that someone in the district doesn't want the legal fee invoices to be made public. I've asked for copies of them for years via Sunshine Law Requests and the district still hasn't provided me a single copy of an invoice. 

As a Fox C-6 taxpayer, wouldn't you want to know why the school board approved paying more than $103,000 in legal fees between the August 2012 and September 2012 board meetings?

By the way, the $103,000 in legal fees corresponds time wise with emails we received from USDA OCR informing us that they were in discussions with the district and their legal counsel regarding the USDA's August 2011 Final Agency Decision that found the district non-compliant with Section 504 law and the ADA AA. It also corresponds with the time I was sent a cease and desist letter by the district to keep me from speaking with the public and school employees and former employees about my concerns with the district.

If Dan Baker and Dianne Brown-Critchlow were responsible for being found non-compliant with Section 504 law and the ADA AA in the USDA's August 2011 Final Agency Decision, shouldn't the public have been told about that?

Spending $103,000 in legal fees in just two months in 2012 was two times more than what the district paid the same law firm for legal fees for the entire year in 2005 from information recently provided to me by Fox's CFO John Brazeal.

It seems to me that paying out that much in legal fees in just two months in 2012 would have raised red flags for our school board members. In fact, we sent a letter to Dave Palmer and other board members back then asking them about the amount of money that the district was spending in legal fees because it appeared that the district wasn't following board policy on legal fees. We never received a response from our letter. You may want to make note of that since Dave Palmer is running for school board again this year.

I've made numerous Sunshine Requests for actual copies of the invoices for legal fees but I've only been given the dollar amounts for the invoices. Why is that?

Transparency is what keeps your school district and school board accountable. If there's a lack of transparency then there will be a lack of trust and lack of accountability in both the district and and the people in charge of running and overseeing the district.

Back in August 2010, the Post Dispatch wrote an article in which Dan Baker was quoted as saying, "the district had spent a lot in legal fees during the dispute, but he did not know an exact amount." What Mr. Baker didn't tell the newspaper was that the district decided to bring their legal counsel to a 504 meeting in August 2008. We asked why an attorney was need for a 504 meeting. The explanation given by the attorney was to ensure that the district was doing things properly. Well, it took from September 2008 when Dan Baker removed a 504 plan until August 2014 to get the 504 plan properly restored by the district. Restoring the 504 would not have occurred if the the district hadn't changed law firms.

Between 2008 and 2014 my wife and I worked to get the district to properly follow Section 504 law and restore what was improperly removed in 2008. However, some of our administrators decided to resort to bullying tactics using the internet as well the media in an attempt to halt our efforts to expose what was going on in the district.

So now, nearly a year after it was discovered that derogatory comments were traced to the home and cell phone of Dan and Angie Baker, Mr. Baker was selected as the principal of Seckman Elementary School despite his being linked to the internet scandal and to large sums of money being spent defying ED OCR and USDA OCR.

What do you think motivated the Bakers to post derogatory comments online?

In order for the community to believe that Dan Baker was the right person for the job, the district needs to release the invoices from the former law firm dating back to 2008 since he worked closely with the former law firm to get around the law.

Who Were the Other Job Candidates?
The district also needs to provide the public with the list of other candidates that applied for the job as well as the members of the selection committee that narrowed down the field of candidates. Without full disclosure of that information, the public is never going to believe that Dan Baker was the best candidate for the job!

Please contact you school board members and request that they release the invoices for legal fees from the Mickes Goldman O'Toole law firm.

Also ask the school board to publish the list of candidates that applied for the Seckman Elementary School principal position and the names of the selection committee members for the job.

Perhaps a community of requests for how your taxpayer dollars were spent on legal fees will finally encourage the district to release the invoice information. Other school districts publish that information, why can't Fox?

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Events Related to the "Cease and Desist" Letters Were Troublesome!

UPDATED: Monday January 12, 2015 and Wednesday January 14, 2015 
Fox's CFO John Brazeal pointed out errors in my post which I have corrected. 

Below is text from Mr.  Brazeal's email received on January 12, 2015 regarding the errors in my article:
"This is another situation where you are connecting things that are not connected, then making false and misleading statements on your blog about your bogus findings. 
MGO invoices have sections, such as "General", "Special Education", "Lagoons",  etc. Each section of the billing shows a total charge for that section. At the end of the invoice, there is a total for all sections. It is like an invoice with an invoice. 
The figure of $2810.04 I mentioned was the amount of fees charged for the "special Education General" section of the 3/5/2013 invoice. The 3/5/2013 invoice was $4,159.54, which included the $2810.04 charge for "Special Education General" plus $1,394.50 for "General". 
The payment of $2813.00 for February 2013 included $1,984.50 for "General" plus $375.00 for "Special Education General" plus $453.50 for "Special Education" cases, for a total of $2813.00. 
There is absolutely no correlation between the $2810.04 and the $2813.00. One number is for a section total of the invoice in March 2013 and the other for the invoice total for February 2013." 

My sincere apologies for incorrectly "connecting things that are not connected". Having clarification as to what is on an MGO invoice helps tremendously. I have not been provided any invoices from my Sunshine requests to date.

My mistake was certainly not intentional!

Mr. Brazeal has been extremely helpful to the Fox C-6 community in uncovering the fraud, waste and abuse that occurred in our district under our former superintendent. He is working to ensure that our district follows our policies. Policies weren't always followed in the past. Not knowing them was part of the problem.

Mr. Brazeal was instrumental in providing me with the credit card statements so they could be made public. I had asked for the credit card statements in February 2014 but was deterred from obtaining them by being asked to pay $170 to locate and copy them.

In no way were my observations of "Doctoring Invoices?" with hand written comments implying that Fox's new CFO Mr. Brazeal was involved with those hand written comments. He has been doing an excellent job of researching what occurred in the past and analyzing and documenting what he has found.

I strive for accuracy in all of my reporting of data. My incorrect connection of things that weren't connected was based on the information that was originally provided to me at the bottom of this article on January 8, 2013. I was unaware of the other details that were on the March 5 and March 20 invoices.

I have not been provided with any invoices for legal fees from my Sunshine requests to date. Having copies of those invoices would certainly make reporting on them much easier. They public record and taxpayer dollars are paying for our district's legal fees.


Article below with corrections:

For years I've been documenting how much Fox C-6 has spent in legal fees attempting to silence critics and deal with non-compliance issues with the Office for Civil Rights with both the U.S. Department of Education (ED OCR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Nutrition Services division (USDA OCR).

This past week I renewed my 3 month old Sunshine request for copies of invoices from Fox's former law firm in order to document for the public how much money was spent on these types of activities. 

Fox's new CFO John Brazeal responded to my request with some information related to the February 2013 "cease and desist" letters sent out to 3 patrons in our district which did not include me. The "cease and desist" letter that was sent to me was sent in August 2012.

Fox was in the middle of a legal fees spending spree when the district sent me a "cease and desist" letter in August 2012.

In fact, Fox C-6's Board of Education (BOE) approved payments of $55,891.28 at the August 2012 BOE meeting and another $48,002.01 at the September 2012 BOE meeting in legal fees to Fox's former law firm Mickes Goldman O'Toole (MGO) according to the August and September 2012 board meeting packets. I doubt that Fox's BOE ever saw or reviewed the invoices presented at the August and September 2012 BOE meeting since it wasn't common practice to do so.

Not only do I think that former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Critchlow's decision to send out "cease and desist" letters to district patrons was wrong, I also think that spending $103,893.29 in legal fees in just 3 months to be an "unusual amount of professional legal service" for our school district.

So, why did Fox C-6 spend $103,893.29 in legal fees in just 3 months?

That's something that I've been trying to document for years. I know that the district has spent an "unusual amount" in legal fees responding to non-compliance issues with both ED OCR and USDA OCR as well as putting two different families in our district through Due Process Hearings. From what I could determine from board packet payments, the district spent at least $125,000 in legal fees related to the Due Process Hearing that we were forced into back in 2010.

I would venture to say that district administrators don't want to freely share copies of invoices for legal services with the public when they spend taxpayer money sending out "cease and desist" letters to patrons who are critical of the district or when they spend taxpayer money related to non-compliance issues with the Office for Civil Rights.

Sunshine law allows government bodies to charge reasonable fees to obtain documents such as invoices for legal services.

Sunshine law also states that the Custodian of Records may waive the fee if it is determined that a waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the school district and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

Charging fees to obtain documents is one way that Sunshine law can be abused in order to hide the activities of a school district. Most citizens aren't willing to pay hundreds of dollars of their own money in order to expose questionable behavior and spending in their school district.

I asked the district to waive the $170 fee they wanted to charge me to obtain the district credit card statements in April 2014 and the district (Dianne Critchlow) refused. The public knows now why Dianne Critchlow didn't want district credit card statements made public.

The same thing has gone on for years related to the amount of money that the district's been spending on legal fees related to non-compliance issues with the Office for Civil Rights. Dianne Critchlow doesn't want the public to know how much money has been wasted on legal fees simply to avoid doing what it was obligated to do by law. The amount of legal fees spent in trying to get around the law is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding as to why our district and many others don't want to write 504 plans. That's why I asked the district to waive the fees.

The media can afford to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on Sunshine Requests. However, the media hasn't tackled the big issue as to why our district fought so hard to avoid writing a 504 plan and fulfill their Resolution Agreement with ED OCR and avoid a District Wide Compliance Review from the Office for Civil Rights. Taxpayer dollars have been used to pay the attorneys to keep ED OCR and USDA OCR at bay for years. Just how much money was spent is only an estimate at this point since I don't have copies of the invoices. But, that amount is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

District Policy 0360 documents the use of a School Attorney. The question is whether or not former superintendent Dianne Critchlow advised the board when the district spent $103,893.29 in legal fees in just 3 months in 2012. Would you consider that an unusual amount of professional legal services?
District Policy 0360 - School Attorney
The Board recognizes that the increasing complexity of School District operations frequently requires procurement of professional legal services. Consequently, the Board may employ an attorney and/or law firm for purposed of systematically securing such services. The Board shall prescribe the duties, compensation and term of service for the attorney and/or law firm. It shall be the duty of the council to advise the Board and to make recommendations concerning specific legal problems submitted. 
A decision to seek legal counsel or advice on behalf of the School District shall normally be made by the superintendent or by persons specifically authorized by the superintendent.It may also take place as a consequence of formal Board direction.

Many types of legal assistance to the district may be considered routine, and may not require specific Board approval or prior notice. However, when the administration concludes that unusual types or amounts of professional legal service may be required, the Board directs the administration to so advise it, and to expeditiously seek either initial or continuing authorization for such service.

Now that you're aware of board policy and why I've been asking for copies of invoices from Fox's former law firm dating back to 2008 brings me back to the Sunshine request I made more than 3 months ago. My Sunshine requests and information from this blog have led to many other Sunshine requests from the media and others which takes up district time. If district administrators had followed the Character Traits they so heavily touted, perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for people to make Sunshine requests.

I'm glad that Mr. Brazeal decided to do some research into the legal fees related to the "cease and desist" letters. The costs related to the "cease and desist" letters is minimal compared to the cost of Due Process Hearings and filing appeals with the ED OCR and USDA OCR and responding to monitoring letters year after year.

Mr. Brazeal stated the following in his response:
The events related to the “cease and desist” letters were troublesome.
Mr. Brazeal pointed out in his response to me that board meeting minutes documented that I mentioned the "cease and desist" letters during my Public Comments at the March 19, 2013 board meeting. I explained to him in a response to his January 8 email that my "cease and desist" letter was sent out in August 2012 and that he would need to review invoices from 2012 to find the cost of my "cease and desist" letter and that my comment at the March 2013 board meeting was a general comment concerning the use of "cease and desist" letters.

Below is a portion of what I told Fox's Board of Education during my Public Comment at the March 19, 2013 board meeting regarding the Cease and Desist Letters:
I think it is very important for the community to know that using taxpayer dollars to send out cease and desist letters to individuals in the community who voice their concerns at board meetings and in the community is unacceptable. It is also very unacceptable for individuals who are very well in the know of actions being taken by our administration prior to them even being public to be making slanderous comments about individuals in online forums anonymously. Well, actually they use a variety of different names all within minutes of each other but spreading the same message. This type of conduct will eventually lead to the dismissal of educators within our district if proven to be who everyone now believes to be the person or persons posting these messages.
It's definitely interesting to see what I had to say back then knowing what we know now.

I highly recommend reading my March 19, 2013 Fox C-6 board meeting report article. That article contains the full text of my Public Comments made at that meeting.


What's interesting is the fact that Mr. Brazeal's research found an invoice dated March 5, 2013 for $2,810.04 with the following 3 entries:
  • 2/5/2013 EGT-Correspondence from Dr. Dianne Critchlow regarding proposed correspondence to District patron
  • 2/5/2013 EGT-Review/revise proposed correspondence to District patron
  • 2/26/2013 EGT-Correspondence from R. Herman, attorney, regarding cease and desist correspondence
I told Fox's Board of Education and the public at the March 19, 2013 that it was unacceptable for the district to use taxpayer dollars to send out Cease and Desist letters to individuals who voice their concerns about the district. I believe that most taxpayers would agree with me that doing so is not a good practice.

It appears that my comment at the March 19 meeting must have caused concern about using taxpayer dollars to send out cease and desist letters because MGO sent Fox an invoice the very next day on March 20, 2013 as noted by Mr. Brazeal listing the same 3 entries from above regarding proposed correspondence to District patron with a "star" by each of the entries and a note at the end of the invoice stating "changed to No Charge".

And, in order for the public to believe that the district wasn't charged for the Cease and Desist letters an article appeared in the Post Dispatch on March 23, 2013 with the following remark:
 "The letters did not cost the district anything extra beyond its regular contract with the firm.”
So it appears that, the "cease and desist" letters DID cost the district $2,810.04 until I expressed my concerns at the March 19, 2013 board meeting about using taxpayer dollars to send out "cease and desist" letters to silence district critics.

It was certainly strange how an updated invoice appeared the very next day?

Mr. Brazeal noted in his response that the March 5, 2013 invoice was paid in full and receipted by Fox's former law firm Mickes Goldman O'Toole (MGO) on March 18, 2013. The problem with this scenario is the fact that a March 5, 2013 invoice shouldn't have been approved for payment until the March 19, 2013 Fox C-6 BOE meeting and the check for the March 5, 2013 invoice shouldn't have been sent until after being approved at the March 19, 2013 meeting.

Another interesting quote from the March 23, 2013 Post Dispatch article was the following from former Fox C-6 Superintendent Dianne Critchlow.
“You don’t have the right to make up lies and defame someone’s character,” Critchlow said.
It was certainly an interesting comment for Dianne Critchlow to make considering the content of the online comments that were traced back to her home during that time period. Her comment is a true statement. However, I think she was hoping that everyone would think that the lies and defamatory statements were coming from her critics and not from district administrators.

Everything Has To Be Verified
For years I've had to verify everything I was told by some of Fox's administrators because many times the information was false. 

(Updated) When I informed Mr. Brazeal that he will have to reconcile all of the invoices in order to determine whether or not the fees for the "cease and desist" letters were truly changed to "No Charge" I was unaware of the detail information on the 3/5/2013 invoice.  

There were so many legal fees paid out during the 2012-2013 school year, that producing paperwork to give the appearance that a bill was refunded with a "No Charge" would be easy to do. So, without reviewing every single invoice and associated payment to MGO that year makes it difficult to know whether or not the "cease and desist" letter fees were truly written off.

At least we know that the district originally paid the invoice for the "cease and desist" letters and didn't get an updated invoice until the day after I commented about using taxpayer dollars to send out "cease and desist" letters.

A "cease and desist" letter sent to another patron on February 12, 2013 but was noted in the information that I was provided surrounding the "cease and desist" letters. There's no mention of it on the March 5, 2013 invoice.

2012-2013 Check Payments to MGO
Below are the payments made to MGO for the 2012-2013 school year gathered from Fox's board meeting packets. As you can tell, Fox C-6 spent a lot in legal fees during the 2012-2013 school year: $145,064.80

07/10/2012  - $20,622.74
07/12/2012  - $17,237.26
08/10/2012 -  $18,031.28
09/07/2012  - $47,277.01
09/12/2012  -      $725.00
10/09/2012  -   $5,982.50
11/12/2012  - $10,125.47
12/13/2012  -   $3,762.00
12/20/2012  -   $5,840.00
02/14/2013  -   $2,813.00
03/12/2013  -   $4,159.54
04/09/2013  -   $3,480.50
05/21/2013  -   $1,170.00
06/11/2013  -   $3,838.50

How much did it cost the district to send out a Cease and Desist letter to me in August 2012 when the district spent $103,893.29 in legal fees between July and September 2012?

It's going to take some time to discover just how much money was wasted in legal fees by Dianne Brown-Critchlow and her assistants.

Brazeal's Legal Fees Research
Below is the information Mr. Brazeal assembled and sent to me on Thursday January 8, 2015 related to the 2013 Cease and Desist letters: (NOTE: EGT - attorney Ernie G Trakas)
The events related to the “cease and desist” letters were troublesome. I spent some time today reviewing those events. I have the following observations in date order:

1. A MGO invoice dated March 5, 2013 includes the following entries:
     a. 2/5/2013 EGT-Correspondence from Dr. Dianne Critchlow regarding proposed correspondence to District patron
     b. 2/5/2013 EGT-Review/revise proposed correspondence to District patron
     c. 2/26/2013 EGT-Correspondence from R. Herman, attorney, regarding cease and desist correspondence 
2. MGO apparently billed the District on an hourly basis, however, their invoices do not include any time on task data nor any hourly rate for services data. In any event, the March 5, 2013 MGO invoices shows a fee of $2,810.04 for professional services rendered, which includes the three items shown in Item 1 above. The $2,810.04 fee was paid in full. MGO receipted the payment on 3/18/2013. 
3. The minutes of the March 19, 2013 BOE meeting indicate you made a statement about the “cease and desist” letters. 
4. A MGO invoice dated March 20, 2013 was issued with the identical listing of professional services as the March 5, 2013 invoice. The three entries enumerated in Item 1 above remain listed on the March 20, 2013 reissue of the invoice. Beside each of the three entries there is a hand-written “star”. On the last page of the invoice there is more handwriting consisting of a “star” followed by the words “changed to No Charge”. The invoice amount is reduced to $2,535.04. Since the 3/5/2013 invoice was already paid, the payment of $2,810.04 (receipted on 3/18/2013) is recorded, thereby creating a $275.00 credit balance on the 3/20/2013 invoice. 
5. A March 23, 2013 Post Dispatch article authored by Leah Thorsen outlines the letters well, and includes this text: “The letters did not cost the district anything extra beyond its regular contract with the firm.” 
Just an FYI…...

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

How Much Does Fox C-6 Spend on Legal Fees?

Fox C-6 uses the Mickes Goldman O'Toole law firm for most of its legal services. On occasion the district will use other law firms such as Thomeczek & Brink to act as a Due Process Hearing Officer for the district. The district also has to pay a service to record and transcribe Due Process Hearing testimony.

Here are some past articles that explain why Fox spends quite a bit of your tax dollars on legal fees:






You can find the payments to the law firms in the monthly school board packets in the Bill Payments section.

Below are the totals from all of the Bill Payments that have been provided in the school board packets dating back to April 2010. They are broken down by school year which runs from July 1 through June 30.

At the November 2013 board workshop, school board president Dan Smith wanted to make sure that things get passed through the district's legal counsel when responding to questions from the public unless they are just simple questions.

Fox C-6 Legal Fees

2009-2010 - $11,185.11 (Only April - June 2010 Data) 
Mickes Goldman O'Toole - $11,185.11
Thomeczek & Brink - $570.00

2010-2011 - $100,342.74
Mickes Goldman O'Toole - $82,974.52
Thomeczek & Brink - $17,368.22

2011-2012 - $81,029.43
Mickes Goldman O'Toole - $81,029.43

2012-2013 - $148,903.30
Mickes Goldman O'Toole - $148,903.30

2013-2014 - $80,579.43 (Through March 2014)
Mickes Goldman O'Toole - $80,579.43

Friday, March 21, 2014

Response to Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman's Response to My February 2014 Public Comments

It's pretty easy to see that your school board isn't being allowed to answer questions from patrons of the district. I asked Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman at Tuesday night's school board meeting if he had received my email response to his email. He said he had. However, he seemed quite offended by my response. He told me that I misunderstood his email and that he was only trying to be proactive in asking me to contact him if I knew what I wanted to ask the school board by getting me information prior to the school board meeting.

I told Mr. Arbeitman that his email made it pretty clear that the school board was not going to respond to my questions with anything other than a "Thank You" unless I first called him with my questions. He told me that's not what it said. He said that it said "If". I again told him that his email said IF I didn't contact him first, that the board wasn't going to answer my questions. It was quite clear. He again tried to explain that I was taking his email the wrong way and that I just needed to give him a chance.

I recommend that you read Mr. Arbeitman's email that he sent me last month below and read my response to him. I'm fully aware of how the Mickes Goldman O'Toole law firm and the Missouri School Board Association trains school boards to basically remain silent. There is the belief that the board doesn't have the knowledge needed to respond to patrons on their own. They encourage the boards to have the superintendent or another school district designee respond for them. It's best for the school district to respond to patrons so the board doesn't say something that they shouldn't.

Mr. Arbeitman told me Tuesday night that the school board asked him to respond to my questions. I don't recall seeing anything documented in Fox's school board minutes stating that the school board has asked Mr. Arbeitman to speak for them.

How can Mr. Arbeitman answer questions for the board? He does not approve the Bill Payments. The school board does.

How does the school board approve the Bill Payments without knowing what the payments are for?

Does the district expect school board members to call the Central Office and ask about every check that seems questionable such as The Bridal Shoppe or the numerous monthly payments to restaurants, etc?

It appears that our school board isn't representing our community very well since they won't respond themselves. So, I ask again, why does Fox C-6 have a school board?

I recommend reading this article on the Missouri Education Watchdog's website:


According to Assistant Superintendent Arbeitman's email last month, there is only one person requesting information from the school district. Therefore, the district has no reason to publish public records such as school district budgets, bill payment descriptions or credit card statements like they do in other school districts.

The residents and taxpayers of the Fox C-6 School District can continue to call the Central Office if you want to know why the district spent another $24,000 this month at The Bridal Shoppe. Or perhaps you might want to ask the Central Office why the district paid all of the following restaurants this past month in the area as documented in the March 18, 2014 school board packet.

Without credit card statements, there's no way of knowing what was purchased on the credit cards by the card holders in the district. It's odd that the total credit limit of the 25 VISA card holders as documented by the board packets is only $44,000. However the district continues to have bills nearly double that amount. Review the 2013-2014 Bill Payments which lists the 25 VISA Credit Card Holders on page 2 of the report.

RESTAURANT PAYMENTS
Pomodoro's - $362.70
Panda Express - $350.00
The Dough Depot - $264.00
Detour Grill and Bar - $350.00
Bandana's Barbecue - $470.00
Gator South Beer & Wine Garden - $750.00
The Dough Depot - $456.00
Little Ceasars Pizza - $275.00
Panda Express - $358.00
The Dough Depot - $319.00
Waffle House #1324 - $392.00

CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS
American Express - $29,260.06
VISA Card Services - $79,186.67 (The total credit limit of card holders is: $44,000)
Sam's Club Discover - $20,501.19


My Response to Mr. Arbeitman and the Fox C-6 School Board
I responded to Andy Arbeitman's email regarding my Public Comments at the February 19, 2014 Fox C-6 School Board meeting. I wrote about his email last month. I also copied all of the school board members which makes my response a Public Records document.

My responses are in RED. Mr. Arbeitman's email was very clear in which he stated“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.”

However, it is possible that Mr. Arbeitman may have not fully understood what he wrote to me. There is a high probability that the Mickes Goldman O'Toole law firm wrote the email for him. Therefore, he may not have fully understood what he sent me. The law firm has been writing emails for the district for years since federal agencies have been investigating the school district. Even more so since the USDA found the District Non-Compliant with federal laws and was caught trying to subvert the complaint process last fall.

Dan Baker's Email Slip
The law firm wants to make sure the district doesn't get into any further trouble. A few years ago, Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker, who is the District's Section 504 coordinator, accidentally sent us an email that he meant to send to the district attorney. He was asking the attorney to respond to one of our emails when he had time "Ha Ha". I forwarded the email back to Mr. Baker and told him that I think he intended to send it to the school district attorney Mike Hodge since he addressed it to Mike.

The Mickes Goldman O'Toole law firm handles emails for districts across the state like down in the Camdenton school district. It's a win for the law firm as they continue to bill month after month. Fox pays nearly as much per year in legal fees to the Mickes Goldman O'Toole law firm as it costs to add another Central Office Administrator to the payroll less their retirement benefits. Training school boards that they don't have the knowledge necessary to speak with the public, the law firms are able to bill quite a few hours to school districts across the state helping them stay out of trouble.

It's time that we have some parents and taxpayers go to the Central Office and start scanning invoices and credit card statements to see where all the money is going. We've been told the district doesn't have enough money and that's why they really needed to pass the bond issue. I'd also recommend making copies of invoices from the law firm to see how much they've been billing the district for the last 6 years on OCR related issues.

Law Firm Doesn't Provide Detailed Billing
In the past, I've been told that our law firm doesn't provide the district with detailed billing. It's hard to believe that our district doesn't get detailed billing. You just never know what kind of excuse you will hear when you ask questions as our administrators hope to keep you from knowing the truth!

I believe that it's time for a State Audit of the Fox C-6 School District prior to Superintendent Dianne Critchlow's retirement!


Here is my email response to Mr. Arbeitman that I sent Tuesday March 18, 2014:


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 Simpson
Cc: 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 C-6 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



Mr. Arbeitman's Response to My March 18, 2014 Public Comments:

Below is the response I received from Mr. Arbeitman. It appears that our school district doesn't acknowledge the fact that we have elected school board members to represent the community. It would also seem as if he didn't hear Linda Nash's parting message in which she told the few people in attendance at the March school board meeting that it is the school board's job to hire (or fire) the Superintendent.

Perhaps we should provide an Organizational Chart like they have in other school districts to Superintendent Critchlow and Assistant Superintendent Arbeitman which when properly drawn shows the Board of Education above the Superintendent and not the other way around.


========================================================================

From: Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent
Date: 03/19/2014 11:23 AM (GMT-06:00) 
To: Rich Simpson 
Cc: Davis, Debby - CO Secretary ,Crutchley, Tim - CO Admin., Arbeitman, Andy - Assistant Superintendent
Subject: Response to Public Comments at the March 18, 2014 board meeting 

The district has their revised board policies on the website for review; however, we will add a public notice so that the patrons can be more informed.


The board of education continues to be in consideration of Mr. Simpson’s comments and suggestions.  In the meantime, upon request via email or phone, hard copies of the budget and such will be made available to Mr. Simpson.  Please contact Andy Arbeitman at 636-296-8000 or arbeitmana@fox.k12.mo.us.