Alleging Retaliation on Behalf of Students with Disabilities from AmericanBar.org

Below is a link to an article with one of the best written and most important paragraphs that I've read on retaliation as it relates to Section 504 law that I found on the American Bar Association website.

I found the article after being contacted by a parent recently who withdrew her child from our school district due to retaliation. She wasn't the first parent in our district to do so.

The Conclusion paragraph from the article does a very good job of stating what can happen in a school district when your school board doesn't do its job of proper oversight of school district administrators. It's what happened at Fox during the Critchlow era and the mishandling of Section 504 issues in our school district. It's also the reason that led to the ousting of a former superintendent and her husband and the demotion of a former district 504 Coordinator / assistant superintendent and another assistant superintendent. It also led to the ousting of the law firm and a state audit of Fox's school district finances.

All school board members past, present and future should read the paragraph below as well as the full article on retaliation. I spent a number of years reaching out to Fox's school board members for help but very little was done until online defamatory posts were traced to school district administrator's homes in our district. I had mentioned it numerous times to Fox's school board members over the years but was ignored.

The 2019 American Bar Association article covers retaliation in Section 504. It's something that I'm very familiar with and have had years of first hand experience dealing with school district attorneys, an elementary school principal, assistant superintendent and Section 504 Coordinator as well as Fox's former superintendent. I've also witnessed first hand the lack of enforcement of Section 504 law by the Kansas City U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.

Section 504 law and Fox's school board policies prohibit retaliation. However the law and board policies must be enforced or there's no reason to have them in the first place.

Below is the Conclusion from the 2019 American Bar Association article on Alleging Retaliation on Behalf of Students with Disabilities:

CONCLUSION

"Retaliatory conduct of teachers and school administrators can have lasting consequences on families. When schools inhibit parent advocacy, they risk not meeting the disability-related needs of the child, leading to lack of progress and, in some instances, medical and psychological harm. Actions that criminalize parent advocacy through truancy referrals, seeking civil restraining orders, filing false abuse or neglect claims, or taking other acts to “push out” the family from the school have reverberations in the community and dire consequences for the family. Public schools must accept and work with all children and all of their caregivers, regardless of how difficult it might be. Thus, severe actions against those they serve should be taken as a last possible resort and only after there is a review of all policies and procedures, teacher training, and a proactive attempt at parent engagement, and finally, only if it is for a legal, legitimate, and nonretaliatory reason.

Bringing forth viable and strong claims of retaliation will promote change because it will force schools to assess their behavior, return to parents and students the power to assert their rights, and inform and educate the courts and public that disability-based discrimination in public schools is a continuing problem. However, retaliation claims must be strictly alleged and meet the evidentiary standard to be successful."

Alleging Retaliation on Behalf of Students with Disabilities

AmericanBar.org

Why the Fox C-6 Community Wasn't Aware of Problems in the District

So, why wasn't the Fox C-6 community aware of ongoing problems in our school district for such a long time? Why weren't charges filed during the investigation of the state audit findings? I was told that school board meeting minutes were reviewed as part of the investigation. So, the fact that our school board meeting minutes did not contain details about what concerns were being brought to our school board members and district leaders during Public Comment, investigators could only go on what was documented in the minutes. I voiced my concern about the lack of details in board meeting minutes for years and was met with a lot of resistance from our former superintendent on the issue. That's why I always audio recorded my Public Comments because I knew they wouldn't be documented very well in the board meeting minutes. Defending Lack Of Detail In Board Meeting Minutes In defending her position on the lack of detail in our school board meeting minutes, former superintendent Dianne (Critchlow) Salsman sent me the following statement in a September 17, 2013 email:

"Per MSBA council, minutes are not verbatim, it is merely an account of the meeting through the board secretaries eyes."

Below is an example of what Fox's board secretary saw through her eyes and documented for the January 15, 2013 school board meeting that I spoke at. PUBLIC COMMENT AS DOCUMENTED IN BOARD MEETING MINUTES: Rich Simpson - Requested more board information on the district website. PUBLIC COMMENT READ AT THE BOARD MEETING:

Over the last several years I have attempted to encourage you to do the right thing and you have repeatedly failed to do so. I have invested thousands of hours into researching how our school district operates as well as that of other school districts across the state, and across the country. During which, I have gained a tremendous amount of information and knowledge. Much to my disappointment however, I have come to the realization that the school district that I grew up in and loved as a child is not at all what I thought it would be when my children began attending. We have a lot of great teachers in the district, however, the leadership and school board has stifled their abilities to do a great job – even made them fearful for their jobs if they were to express their opinions. Tell me, is this how a school district should be run? I have requested for our community to have board meetings video or audio recorded due to the fact that our board minutes are vague or not always accurate. I have requested that school board meeting information packets be published online prior to school board meetings or after board meetings along with the minutes so our community can be more informed and involved in what is going on within our district. Our school board policies even require that board minutes be accurate and complete and without the board meeting information packets they are not. I have requested that school board member contact information be placed on the district website so our board members would be accessible to the community. All of these things are done in other school districts. 

Why can’t our school district do these things? 

I have never received an answer from our school board as to why these things cannot be done. Our superintendent has informed me that this information is not on our website which I am aware of and that is why I have been asking for it to be. It is my hope that you respect others in our community that may speak at this evening's school board meeting and that the individuals in our school community refrain from making defamatory comments in online forums in the coming days as has been done to me after I have spoken at previous school board meetings. Those who are making the defamatory comments have no business teaching our children, running our school, etc. if they are employees of our school district. I believe that they are, because no one other than those present in this room at those past board meetings had knowledge of who was present and what was said. They are simply playground bullies. Our district has a no bullying policy but it appears that it does not apply to school officials. It is clear that you have embarrassed not only our school district but our community. Our district is not as well respected or as academically advanced as you tout or would like to believe. You may complement each other here and pat yourselves on the back with the thought that you believe that you are doing a great job. However, a growing portion of the community does not share your same point of view and neither does the community of our peers in surrounding school districts. I respectfully request that our current school board members resign and that past board members do not seek re-election. There are administrators that should resign as well so our school district and community can get a fresh start towards building a new and improved school district and one that we can truly be proud of. Thank you!

Of course, there were defamatory comments posted on TOPIX shortly before and after the January 15, 2013 Fox C-6 school board meeting in an attempt to intimidate anyone from speaking at the board meeting. Below is a link to the article I wrote on January 27, 2013 regarding the documenting of school board meetings and how our former superintendent kept the community from knowing what concerns were being brought to our school board. The real question is, why didn't our school board act upon the concerns being brought to them at the time? Online Posts Traced to District Employees

I made sure that our school board members were aware of the online posts being made and that I believed that they were being made by District employees. In 2014, the online defamatory posts were traced to school district computers and school district employees homes. Imagine that! Since I wasn't a District employee, I couldn't be targeted by District leaders like others who have stood up against the district culture. Instead, District leaders had to tackle the problem in the online forums anonymously and by not documenting in detail the concerns being brought to our school board's attention.

January 15, 2013

School Board Meeting Public Comment

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

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

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

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

Dan Bakers Unique Position Not Covered by News Media

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

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

A SECTION 504/ADA COORDINATOR JOB DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowledge of Section 504/ADA Requirements

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

District Policies and Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Accessibility and Requests for Accommodations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample Section 504 Building Designee Job Description

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

The Bakers NOT Losing Their Jobs at Fox C-6 Was Discussed on Donnybrook Last Night!

What is Donnybrook?

Donnybrook is a weekly discussion / debate program that airs on Thursday night on KETC Channel 9 in St. Louis, MO. It's hosted by 5 journalists that discuss topics of local interest. Past episodes can be viewed online or seen on TV on Sunday evening if you missed Thursday's airing.

This week's discussion on Donnybrook started with the recent announcement of Dan and Angela Baker being allowed to keep their jobs at Fox C-6 after they had been placed on paid administrative leave June 4, 2014.

If you recall, online defamatory comments were traced to the Baker's residence as well as the residence of Superintendent Dianne Critchlow and her husband Jamie Critchlow the former Director of the At Risk program.

It needs to be noted that many comments were linked to the Baker's residence. There may have only been one comment documented in the original lawsuit petition but many more were posted in defense of the school district and our school board that were linked to the Baker's residence.

This is the second time that Fox C-6 has been a topic of discussion on the Donnybrook program. Superintendent Critchlow and the Internet scandal was first discussed on the June 5, 2014 Donnybrook program starting 19:15 in that episode. The prior episode of Donnybrook can be viewed online using the link found at the end of this article.

If you missed last night's episode you can view it online using the link below. It was a great discussion by the Donnybrook panelists regarding Dan and Angela Baker getting to keep their jobs as administrators at Fox C-6.

I believe the Donnybrook panelist's unbiased views believing that the Bakers should have been fired speaks loud and clear to our school board and the community.

Of course, I'm biased because Dan Baker's defamatory comments were directed at me. I pointed that out during my Public Comments at this weeks Fox C-6 school board workshop.

As a Fox C-6 administrator and school district Section 504 Coordinator, Mr. Baker should have been fired immediately once our school board knew that he did in fact post online comments even if they weren't as vile as Troop's comments.

Mr. Baker spent July 2013 through October 2013 in discussions with Missouri DESE and the USDA's Office for Civil Rights attempting to correct issues in our school district and bring the district into compliance with federal law. Fox's school board members were copied on many of the correspondences with the USDA during that time period.

Fox C-6 had been found Non-Compliant by USDA OCR in August 2011. Superintendent Critchlow forwarded that letter of Non-Compliance to the Fox C-6 School Board back then informing the board that she had "received a really long letter from the USDA" but the district attorney found some mistakes in the letter. Dan Baker told me at the December 2011 school board meeting that the district filed an appeal. Mr. Baker said it wasn't fair that the district wasn't offered a chance to file an appeal. That's because it was a Final Agency Decision. In August 2013, the USDA OCR finally took action to enforce the August 2011 non-compliance notification and bring the district into compliance.

It's Not Just Bullying! It's Retaliation!
As an administrator you can't post defamatory comments abut parents that you've been dealing with while being under investigation by federal agencies. It's not just BULLYING! IT IS RETALIATION!

Mr. Baker may not have enjoyed dealing with federal investigations and Section 504 complaints, but that was his job. Mr. Baker was being paid more than $150,000 to ensure that our district followed Civil Rights laws and he failed to do so. That's why Fox C-6 was found Non-Compliant in August 2011. Not only did Dan Baker violate federal law, he violated our district's anti-bullying policy.

The comment from the Bakers house directed towards me were libelous and were meant to discredit me and my efforts towards getting our district to comply with federal law and and for my advocacy efforts on Section 504 issues at Fox C-6.

Since Dan Baker has been handling Section 504 issues for the district for the last 6+ years and working with us directly makes the comments from his residence even more damaging for him because of his position. The board needs to read the 2013 Dear Colleague Letter from ED OCR to understand why Dan Baker's comments were retaliatory.

Even worse was the fact that he was in charge of ensuring that the district properly followed the ADA and Section 504 law. In his anonymous online comment posted under the pseudonym of "Seriously", he called out my "weird eye" which is due to paralysis from a 1978 car accident. I don't think a disability coordinator for a school district should be publicly be making fun of a parent's disability. I doubt Mr. Baker would have posted the comment using his own name. So, I'm betting he never thought that someone could find out that he posted comments online. His comments should have been cause for immediate dismissal once our school board reviewed the current lawsuit petition and knew which post he made.

Retaliation Violates Federal Law

Retaliation in Section 504 Law is a very serious offense as outlined in this 2013 Dear Colleague Letter from ED OCR.  Mr. Baker violated Section 504 Law and should be dismissed. The board cannot be allowed to be "satisfied with the discipline" that the Bakers received knowing that his comments violated Section 504 Law and school board policy. He should have been fired!

KETC's July 24, 2014 Donnybrook Episode 
Below is the link to the July 24, 2014 episode of Donnybrook that aired on KETC Channel 9. The discussion by the Donnybrook panelists about Fox is the very first topic of discussion. Guest host Eric Reid starts off the conversation by saying he asked a Fox High School student purchasing books at a bookstore what she thought about what had been happening lately in the Fox C-6 school district.

Watch the Donnybrook discussion about

the Bakers getting to keep their jobs!

Host Eric Reid started the discussion asking, "Bill, do you think that these two who weren't necessarily vindicated but didn't do as much emailing as the others, do you think they should get to keep their jobs?"

Panelist Bill McClellen of the St. Louis Post Dispatch said, "No I don't. I thought they should be fired. Matter of fact I thought the board members should resign as well. And the other thing that bugged me about this is the discipline they got was being disciplined with pay. I mean, I'd like to be suspended with pay. You know if my boss were to say to me that's enough McClellan we're going to suspend you from pay for a week, I'd say, teach me a real lesson. You know, the idea that somebody does something wrong and you suspend them with pay, is crazy. I don't know what the board is thinking."

Host Eric Reid said, "Well, obviously this has festered for a while. But I guess they figured they came back and said like these two basically weren't as bad as the other players in all this. Now I don't know if that's not enough reason but and as I said, I guess I could see them keeping their job."

Guest panelist Brenda Talent of the Show-Me-Institute said, "And maybe the contract didn't allow them to quite do that. But I would say this, what a statement, what role models are we setting up for our children when this is the kind of conflict resolution they engage in by posting comments, which are rather sophomoric on internet sites. I mean that's what really offends me. These are supposed to be administrators. They're supposed to be mentors to the teachers and they're role models for the entire district. Pretty sad comment on the district."

Host Alvin Reid said, "Well I agree and I would have, I'm one that I would have dismissed them just for being in this conversation with these people in the first place. Never mind that they said some really vile things about people. Just the fact that, you know I agree with you, in that, wait a minute, why are you even involved in this banter?"

Panelist Bill McClellan said, "And not using their names. I mean they had to be found out. It's one thing if a person that works for the district wants to stand up for the district and take on the critics. But to do all of this stuff anonymously, that, that's just wrong on many levels."

Guest panelist D.J. Wilson of KDHX was surprised that an assistant principal at a middle school would be paid over $100,000. (Everyone should now be aware that Fox's administrative salaries have been way out of line for some time.)

Brenda Talent said, "And you're not counting the benefits."

Host Alvin Reid stated that Fox wasn't one of the states lowest performing districts but that it also wasn't one of the highest. D.J. Wilson stated that Fox's Average Composite ACT Score was 23. (NOTE: DESE records for 2013 show Fox's ACT Composite at 22.3).

D.J. Wilson said, "I'd love to be a student in a classroom and someone corrects me about what I said on email. What will they say back to the teacher."

Brenda Talent then said, "Well their comments may not have risen to the level of being libelous, whereas the others might have. But again, it's just sort of, this is how you resolve conflict? We're supposed to be adults here."

Bill McClellan reminded everyone that, "This was the school board that, that one of the board member's daughters-in-law was it, who worked at McDonald's was made dietician over the schools." 

One of the guest hosts said,"I guess they thought she deserved a break today." They all had a pretty good laugh out of that comment and then another person said, "She had it her way!".

Thanks to our soon to be retired Superintendent and former school board members and some current long time board members, our district has made national news and not in a good way.

Watch the June 5, 2014 Episode of Donnybrook on KETC

Superintendent Critchlow has touted our National District of Character award as a way to garner big raises for herself while at the same time bullying parents and critics of the district. The public and the board have been fooled for quite some time and the employees and taxpayers of Fox C-6 are now paying the price.

Donnybrook June 5, 2014 Episode

Fox C-6 Discussion Starts at 19:15

Did Comments Linked to the Baker's Residence Violate Section 504 Law?

When I saw the first news article about Dan and Angela Baker being allowed to return to work at Fox C-6, I thought it was a joke. They had been put on paid administrative leave on June 4, 2014. Being allowed to return to work with just a "slap on the wrist" sets a really poor example for our students and our community for a National District of Character.

To say that I was disappointed by the Fox C-6 school board's decision to allow them to return to work would be an extreme understatement. Since I was the person targeted by at least one defamatory post linked to the Baker's residence so far, the boards decision just seemed extremely disrespectful. 

One of many comment linked to the Baker's residence was posted on Topix within a couple of hours after I spoke at the January 15, 2013 Fox C-6 School Board Meeting. I even stated in my Public Comments that night that I was hopeful that no more online defamatory comments would be posted against me and others in the community who voiced their concerns. I have voiced my concerns to our school board during Public Comments at school board meetings 14 times since December 14, 2010. I have asked questions about the federal investigations and District Wide Compliance Review and USDA Non-Compliance.

Both Dianne Critchlow and Dan Baker have responded on occasion to my questions dismissively.

Why would they not want the public to know about non-compliance issues that falls under their responsibilities?

Dan Baker's Position in the District

Since Dan Baker is the assistant superintendent of elementary education at Fox C-6 and is Fox's Section 504 Coordinator, his online comments were even more inappropriate because of his position. Posting comments online about parents in his position should be grounds for dismissal. His comments violate Section 504 Law which prohibits retaliating against anyone advocating for civil rights in a school district.

Dan Baker and Dianne Critchlow have both been directly involved with OCR investigations dating back to 2008 being conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) and the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR). I have personally been dealing with Mr. Baker and Mrs. Brown-Critchlow on issues in our district since 2008. So directing comments against me for my efforts is retaliation. That's why I was extremely surprised when I was provided information that linked defamatory comments posted on Topix to Dan Baker's residence considering his position in our school district and his direct involvement with OCR complaints being investigated by ED OCR and USDA OCR.

I wasn't surprised by the comments linked to the Critchlow's residence. Information posted in comments from their residence was only known by a few top administrators and the cease and desist letters were requested to be sent by Superintendent Critchlow.

It's also disappointing to know that I spoke to many school board members and sent them emails with documentation regarding these issues since 2008 as well. It appears to me that they did nothing to stop it or even investigate the issues. Now they are having to scramble to rebuild the trust of the community.

Fox's School Board Needs to Learn About Section 504 Law

Our school board members need to learn about Section 504 Law and what is required of our district. They need to learn why comments like those posted by administrators in our school district in charge of federal programs or are responsible for overseeing those in charge of those programs should be a major concern.

I recommend that our Fox C-6 school board members and the public read the following Dear Colleague Letter from the U.S. Department of Education's Assistant Secretary of the Office for Civil Rights that was published on April 24, 2013. A link to that letter can be found below.

The Fox C-6 School District has become the "poster child" that this Dear Colleague Letter was intended to educate. Superintendent Critchlow has been keeping the district's OCR investigations and non-compliance violations from the public for years. So no one really knew that the district was being investigated other than those that didn't want the public to know.

Now that the Fox C-6 taxpayers and others in our school community have learned first hand how some of our school district administrators retaliate against parents in our school district, I hope they start holding our school board accountable for the actions of our administrators.

Dear Colleague Letter

from the

U.S. Department of Education's

Office for Civil Rights

I wrote about the Dear Colleague Letter from ED OCR in May 2013 as well. You can read about it in this post:

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

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out for the Bakers and our school district as more information becomes available.

Online News Stories About the Bakers

The following news stories were published on Monday July 21, 2014 regarding the Baker's being allowed to return to work amid the internet scandal in our school district.

KMOX News Story:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/07/21/fox-school-board-takes-action-regarding-dan-baker-and-angie-baker/

KMOX Link to Fox C-6 Press Release:

https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/press-release-bakers-7-21-14.pdf

Link from KMOX to other news article:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/06/09/fox-school-district-parents-fed-up-with-online-bullying-drama/

Post Dispatch Article:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/two-fox-administrators-linked-to-nasty-online-comments-keep-their/article_1420dd2f-bc9a-58e9-94bc-332c75f7570c.html

Fox 2 News Story

http://fox2now.com/2014/07/21/two-fox-school-district-administrators-keep-jobs-after-online-controversy/

KSDK News Story

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/07/21/fox-c-6-employees-return-after-cyberbullying-suspension/12952911/

KMOV News Story

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Suspended-Fox-School-District-employees-reach-settlement-agreement-267961101.html

KTRS News Story

http://www.ktrs.com/two-fox-schools-employees-keep-jobs-after-scandal/

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fear of Speaking Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have also posted a copy of the letter below:



Dear Colleague Letter

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

April 24, 2013

Dear Colleague:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                    Sincerely,

                                      /s/

                                    Seth M. Galanter

                                    Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

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

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

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

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

⁵ See 34 C.F.R. § 100.8.

Speaking at School Board Meetings Results in Retaliation

I have spoken at several Fox C-6 school board meetings over the last couple of years.  The first time I made Public Comments at a Fox C-6 school board meeting was at the December 2010 meeting.  There were only 7 people from the community in attendance at that meeting.  My speaking at that board meeting resulted in defamatory comments being posted on the TOPIX.COM website.

The first TOPIX.COM post was made shortly after the board meeting that night. Since I was the only person who spoke at the December 14, 2010 school board meeting, the following post on TOPIX.COM was directed at me.

"I went and almost made a public comment then decided that in reality all of this chatter and such is really is none of my business. There was one guy who talked but I thought he was kinda MR so I didn't take him serious. Other than that.... Nothing. no matter what I type on here to stir the pot I truly don't have any proof or knowledge of these rumors. I am sorry for being so belittling and dumb. I just hope they can't get my ISP number and find out who I am."

Post #271 on the Fox High School Superintendent - TOPIX.COM thread

The 7 people from the community, not including myself, that attended the meeting that night were two students who spoke at the meeting and their parents, Kim Robertson, the reporter from The Leader newspaper and a representative from an accounting firm. So, that only leaves school board members and some of Fox's administrators who were in attendance that night, who would have known that I had just spoken at the meeting.

I certainly doubt that the post was made by any of the community members who attended the meeting. However, it makes one question who would have posted the comment or conveyed the information to the person who actually made the post:

There was another post made on TOPIX.COM that was directed at me and my parents a week after the December 14, 2010 school board meeting.  The comments were mostly directed at me, but they indirectly referred to my parents.  I didn't realize that expressing concerns to our school board about their hiring practices would result in such comments.  However, once you've gone to a school board meeting at Fox C-6 and expressed your "concerns within the district" as my Public Comments were documented in the December 2010 school board meeting minutes, you become branded for life by the powers to be at the Fox C-6 School District.

I made my second Public Comment at the April 2011 school board meeting.  This was the meeting that had everyone under shelter for quite a while as a severe storm with tornado warnings blew through the area.  It was so windy that you could see the outside walls of the service center flexing in and out.  You can read about the questions that I presented to the school board at the April 2011 school board meeting in my May 17, 2011 email to the school board.  In that email, I documented the fact that Jamie Critchlow had approached me at the April 2011 school board meeting and told me that I was simply trying to, "stir the pot". It's funny how the post that was made on December 14, 2010 used the same phrase of "stir the pot" that Mr. Critchlow made to me at the April 2011 school board meeting.

I don't recall any specific retaliatory comments that were made on TOPIX.COM shortly after my April 2011 board meeting presentation, but there had been quite a few made between January 2011 and April 2011 and several were quite vulgar in nature.  I guess when you start asking questions of our school board and the school administrators, that a little intimidation usually puts an end to those types of questions.  But, I did not let them deter my efforts.

I next spoke at the August 2011 school board meeting and this time I started off by complimenting the school board for having the school district correct the 10 Elementary Student Handbooks that weren't up to date after downloading the Lone Dell Elementary Student Handbook from the district website.  I found that the Lone Dell Student Handbook was dated for the 2009-2010 school year and had the 2009-2010 calendar of events in it.  Lone Dell parents were told at Open House for the 2011-2012 school year that the student handbooks weren't going to be printed anymore and that they could be downloaded from the website.  I complimented the board after being scolded by Ruth Ann Newman, the school board president at the time, for never complimenting the school board for the great job they were doing.  So, after thanking them for correcting the handbooks which is required by state law to be kept up to date, I moved on to my concerns.

The next school board meeting that I made a Public Comment at was the December 2012 school board meeting.  I asked the school board again as to why they have been unwilling to publish the board meeting packets on the school district website like they do in other school districts.  That was the only concern that I presented at that school board meeting.  However, there were two other presenters at the December 2012 school board meeting that also voiced their concerns.  One was an NEA representative from Festus who spoke to the school board.  The other was a parent who expressed his concern over the recent hiring of our school board president Linda Nash's daughter-in-law as the Food Services Director for the school district with a salary of $65,336.  He expressed his concern after reading about it in the Arnold-Imperial Leader newspaper.  The newspaper article stated that her daughter-in-law Kelly Nash only had a high school diploma and had been an assistant manager at McDonald's for the past 17 years and that the school district was going to give her 2 years to obtain her degree or certification.  I didn't express my concerns to anyone on the school board or administrators that night about the recent hiring practices.  However, I did express my concern about the textbooks shortage in the middle schools though in discussions with school board members and administrators after the school board meeting.

So, I was quite surprised to learn that on Saturday December 15, 2012, there were new defamatory comments posted about me and my family on TOPIX.COM again.  I guess that the powers to be at Fox do not share the same interest I have in ensuring that our school district keeps the community informed about what they are doing by publishing the board meeting packets on the district website and exercising transparency to the fullest degree as one of our board members Dan Smith touted in his most recent election campaign for Missouri State Representative.

So, why do people attack my character and make defamatory and derogatory comments about me on the TOPIX.COM website?

I guess they attack me and my family because between November 2010 and January 11, 2011, I posted a total of 18 comments on TOPIX.COM which were all facts regarding my concerns in the Fox C-6 School District.  I found the TOPIX website while researching information in relation to issues going on in the Fox C-6 school district.  I found many people posting their concerns about Fox on the TOPIX website.  And, it was my opinion that the school district was not keeping the public informed or informed in a timely manner.  School board meeting minutes aren't posted until after the next school board meeting.  So, the school district has more than a month before anyone in the community really finds out about it.  So, I thought I would post the facts that I had researched.  I verified my facts before I posted them as I always do.  However, my postings were met with many negative responses and those responses could have only come from a very few people that were in the know of what had been going on in the school district if you know what I mean.

So, for everyone in the know at the Fox C-6 School District which would include school board members and administrators, I recommend that you re-evaluate your thinking because I am quite sure after reading many of the posts that were slanderous in nature and directed at me and my family that you believe that I have been posting on TOPIX.COM for the past 2 years.  Sorry, but you are ALL quite wrong in your thinking.  The comments on TOPIX don't count the attacks against me and my family that were posted by people in the know on STLTODAY.COM after the August 2010 Post Dispatch news story that I believe was written for the school district to make it appear as if they were properly following the law.

For our school board members and school administrators to even consider thinking that I would make the comments that people have pointed out as being made by me simply shows a lack of knowledge of my character, integrity and intentions.  You may wish to attack my character because in doing so, it makes you feel better about the things that have been going on in our school district for the last several years.  But, the comments that have been posted online and directed at me have been beyond belief.  The comments really do reflect poorly on the people that have posted them.  I never asked TOPIX to remove them as I wanted to make sure that when the truth did start coming out as to what has been going on in our school district that the community would be able to see first hand how a National District of Character treats the patrons and citizens in the school district for voicing their concerns.  Over the past couple of years, I have forwarded many of the comments on to our U.S. Senators and Congressman as well as to the USDA OCR and U.S. Department of Education (ED) OCR and the Department of Justice.  I guess everyone in our school district hasn't read Policy 0215 as they don't seem to be following it very well.  Perhaps it would also be a good idea for our school board members to read their Code of Ethics policy as well.

It certainly has been quite a learning experience over the last 4+ years when I began researching all of the issues and concerns going on in our school district.  I grew up in the school district and my parents devoted their entire professional careers to the district.  I also learned a great deal about the law as well as the founding of our countries education system and a lot about human nature.  I can say that I am a much more informed and better person for it.  It is definitely not what I had planned on doing with the thousands of hours that I have put into this project.  I can only hope that we soon get a completely new school board and a new administration who can show respect to the community and to the teachers and staff that work within our school district.

On January 11, 2013, it will have been two years since I made my last post on TOPIX.COM.  I think that an apology from those that have been posting negative comments about me and my family is in order to both me and my family and the community.  Your comments really do reflect very poorly on our school district!