Sunshine Law Lessons From the 2015 State Audit of the St. Joseph School District

There are a lot of lessons to learn from the 2015 St. Joseph School District State Audit. One very important section of the state audit report is the Sunshine Law section.

Hopefully the Fox C-6 community and our Fox C-6 school board members and board candidates will read the Sunshine Law section of the St. Joseph School District state audit report very carefully because it's very educational. Of course, some of our district administrators didn't want the public to know what was going on in the district as documented in email responses to my questions regarding board meeting minutes and other issues.

The lack of transparency and intentional lack of details in school board meeting minutes allowed the malfeasant behavior of some of our district administrators to continue for years unchecked. Board members should have done their job but they were willfully blind as to what was going on.

When I spoke for the first time at a school board meeting in December 2010, it had been more than two and a half years of dealing with the district on Section 504 issues where the district had been found non-compliant with the law and had signed a Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Educations's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). The Resolution Agreement was signed by Dan Baker on May 1, 2009 in which the district agreed to do things in order to become compliant with the law by certain dates. As of December 2014, the district still had not met the obligations of the agreement from May 1, 2009.

In March 2010, Fox C-6 was notified that the district would be undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review which was issued out of the Washington D.C. ED OCR Office. The District Wide Compliance Review has been an open investigation ever since and is still an open investigation. The public was never notified of the Resolution Agreement or the District Wide Compliance Review. Former superintendent Diane Brown-Critchlow as well as the district's former law firm addressed both the Resolution Agreement and the District Wide Compliance Review informing me at board meetings during Public Comment and in letters from their legal counsel that there was nothing to tell the public until the Resolution Agreement was closed or the District Wide Compliance Review investigation was completed and findings were issued.

How many years do you think it would take for a school district to fulfill the agreed upon items in a Resolution Agreement or for ED OCR to investigate and complete a District Wide Compliance Review?

At the December 2010 Fox C-6 board meeting I asked the Fox C-6 school board about the credentials and if background checks had been done and who approved the salary for Jamie Critchlow when he was hired by the district in September 2009 and promoted to the Director of the Bridges program in November 2009.

I also reminded the board that Dianne Brown had blocked me from speaking to the school board in September 2008 when she informed me that the school board had already decided not to speak with me after I had already been told by board president Wes Griffith that they would. Mrs. Brown told me that just as Wes Griffith and board secretary Debby Davis had already informed me that since Wes Griffith forgot to put me on that night's agenda that I would be able to speak at the next board meeting in Closed Session. Board members Dan Smith and Ruth Ann Newman and assistant superintendent Dan Baker were all sitting at the table as Mrs. Brown informed me that the board had decided not to speak with me.

At the December 2010 board meeting, I also asked the board if they were aware of the ED OCR District Wide Compliance Review since nothing had been documented in any of the board meeting minutes that the district was undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review. Dianne Brown asked me during my Public Comments if I was speaking about the ED OCR complaint to which I answered no. I was asking about the District Wide Compliance Review since Fox C-6 was one of only 2 school districts in the United States that were undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review to determine if the district was properly following the law and providing Section 504 plans for students that qualified for Section 504 for medical disabilities.

My questions at the December 2010 board meeting were documented in the board meeting minutes as "Concerns in the district." My "Concerns in the district" as documented in the board meeting minutes weren't very informative, therefore the public was kept in the dark as to matters that should have concerned the community.

I asked the board and board secretary to update the board meeting minutes with more details, I received a response from Dianne Brown informing me that the board meeting minutes properly followed the law and that the board secretary contacted the Missouri School Board Association's legal counsel regarding my concern about the board meeting minutes.

Had there been audio recordings of board meetings back then, the public would have been able to question the board much sooner as to why the district was undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review and why the district still hadn't fulfilled the agreed upon requirements of the May 2009 Resolution Agreement.

Not informing the public about District Wide Compliance Reviews and Resolution Agreements appears to be a common practice in our state. The lack of enforcement of the law from ED OCR and USDA OCR and the lack of transparency allows school districts to keep Resolution Agreements and District Wide Compliance Reviews open for years without consequence. In many cases students graduate before school districts properly meet the requirements of Section 504 law.

Listen to my December 2010 Fox C-6 Board Meeting Public Comments

Dave Palmer is the last of the long term board members who was sitting on the Fox C-6 school board in December 2010. Dave Palmer along with the other long term board members did nothing as they were provided documentation on Section 504 law and asked to attend Section 504 meetings to understand how the district was getting around the law. As we provided the school board documentation back then, they handed it over to Dianne Brown and to the attorneys which was used during the district's Due Process Hearing in 2010.

Mr. Palmer is well known for stating that he wasn't going to speak to the public because he doesn't want to get sued for saying something wrong or having what he said misquoted. Dave Palmer's running for the school board again this April. Mr. Palmer certainly does not need another term on our school board. I can't even guess what reason he has for wanting to be on the board again. Perhaps he feels the need to pay back the district for promoting his wife to a position she should not have been promoted to in 2006 as the Director of Nursing and was given a 75% pay increase for that promotion.

I believe if there had been audio recordings of Fox C-6 school board meetings posted online and board meeting packets had been made available to the public prior to board meetings 5 or 6 years ago like they are now, the community would have been aware of the problems going on in our district much sooner. Those who did know were too afraid to speak up and voice their concerns for fear of retaliation. Everyone knows what happened to those that did speak up.

You can read eventual email response I received from former superintendent Dianne Brown from May 2011 addressing my concerns from my December 2010 public comments in the following article:

Emailing Fox C-6 School Board President Results in Superintendent Response

I've given numerous examples of times when the board made decisions in Closed Session meetings that should have been made during Public Session just like those mentioned in the St. Joseph state audit report, The most blatant and well documented one was the violation of Sunshine law at the November 5, 2013 board workshop when an attorney from Fox's former law firm recommended taking a public discussion into Closed Session.

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

Transparency is very important! The public needs to know what's going on in their school district and how their tax dollars are being spent. Since the school board represents the community, it's their responsibility to ensure that the public is kept informed by making sure that the board secretary properly and thoroughly documents their decisions and Public Comments from the community.

Having board members who are knowledgeable about Sunshine Law and are willing to stand up to district administrators and hold them accountable for their actions is vital to ensuring that our district properly follows the law and doesn't just pretend to be following the law.

Read what the state auditor's office had to say about Closed meeting minutes in the 2015 Missouri State Audit Report of the St. Joseph School District and why it's important that they are made publicly available just like the Public Session minutes are.

2015 Missouri State Audit Report of the St. Joseph School District

The following excerpt of information is from the Sunshine Law section of the 2015 Missouri State Audit Report of the St. Joseph School District

13.  Sunshine Law

The School Board did not always comply with the Sunshine Law and held numerous improper closed meetings.

13.1  Closed Meetings

The Board held approximately 40 closed meetings from January 2012 through June 2014, but did not always follow various requirements of Chapter 610, RSMo (the Sunshine Law).

• The Board approved a list of reasons for going into a closed session at an open meeting in several instances, but only discussed some of these topics in the closed meeting. For example, minutes of the February 10, 2014, open meeting indicated a closed meeting would be held to discuss legal; real state; hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting of employees; specifications for competitive bidding; sealed bids; individually identifiable personnel records, performance ratings or records pertaining to employees or applicants for employment; and, individually identifiable personnel records. However, the closed meeting minutes did not document any discussion of real estate, bidding, or sealed bids. In addition, the Board met on occasion in closed session and the only documented discussion was the approval of prior closed meeting minutes.

• The Board discussed some topics in closed meetings that are not allowable under the Sunshine Law. According to minutes of closed meetings, unallowable topics included scholarship awards, construction project updates, and department updates. The Board also discussed items in closed session that may be unallowable and did not maintain sufficient documentation to demonstrate how these issues were allowable under the Sunshine Law. Some of these issues included the creation of new or additional positions, lighting issues at an elementary school, the academic calendar, and block scheduling.

To ensure compliance with state law and the public is accurately informed, the Board should only cite reasons for going into closed session it plans to discuss, restrict discussion in closed meetings to the allowable topics listed in the Sunshine Law, and adequately demonstrate how topics comply with the Sunshine Law for discussion in closed session.

13.2   Public disclosure

The Board does not always make public the final disposition of legal matters or contracts discussed and approved in closed meetings. The Board approved the settlement of two lawsuits during the 2 school years ending June 30, 2014. The district's financial responsibility in one of these settlements, a terminated contract, was $87,500. The other resulted in a $100,000 settlement paid by the district's insurance provider to a former employee. In addition, the district agreed to pay family health insurance premiums of the former employee until she was Medicare eligible, which was approximately 17 years. The Board did not publicly disclose the final resolutions. 

The Board also voted on and approved some contracts in closed session and did not subsequently disclose those votes in an open meeting or by other means. For example, on December 21, 2012, the Board approved an amended and restated contract for the former Superintendent. Also, on February 10, 2014, the Board voted to ratify the additional duty stipends granted administrators in August 2013, and authorized the Superintendent to reissue extra duty contracts.  

Section 610.021, RSMo, requires any minutes, vote or settlement agreement relating to legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving the district or any agent or entity representing its interests or acting on its behalf or with its authority, including any insurance company acting on behalf of the district as its insured, be made public upon final disposition of the matter 

voted upon or upon the signing by the parties of the settlement agreement, including the terms of the settlements. The section also requires the Board to disclose in open session or by other means the approval of all contracts. 

Recommendations - The School Board:  

13.1  Cite specific reasons for going into closed meetings only for topics it plans to discuss, and ensure items discussed in closed meetings are allowable topics under state law and adequately demonstrated as such. 

13.2  Ensure the final disposition of legal matters discussed at closed meetings and all votes to approve contracts are made public as required by state law. 

Really? Copyright Complaint Filed Over Sunshine Requested Legal Bills Report Posted for the Public!

Yesterday morning I received an email informing me that the 2004-2010 Fox C-6 Legal Bills report that I posted in my previous article had been removed by my document hosting provider due to a copyright infringement complaint that someone filed.

Wow! That should have Fox C-6 taxpayers scratching their heads wondering who would have filed such a complaint and also wondering how a report listing of legal bills and corresponding check payments to a law firm is considered copyrighted material and can't be posted for the public to review.

Who filed the complaint is currently being investigated after I responded to the complaint. I'll post an update when I find out who filed the complaint.

Most importantly, why would someone file a copyright infringement complaint and request that a document be taken down when legal bill payments are published in our board meeting packets each month and are posted on the district website for the public to review?

It should be noted that the bills prior to May 2010 had never been posted on the district website. I had to make formal requests numerous times over the years in order to obtain them. They were just made available to me on February 3, 2015 for the first time.

It should also be noted that there weren't any notices on the legal bills listing report stating that the material was copyrighted by the school district or anyone else for that matter.

I've dealt with copyright law since the early 1980's when I first started writing software in order to protect my work when writing software applications. For someone to file a copyright infringement complaint for a report created by our school district's CFO in response to a Sunshine Request for legal bills gives the impression that someone doesn't want the public to know the details as to how much taxpayer money has been spent in legal fees by our school district in an easy to read report.

I contacted the hosting service about the document that's been temporarily removed from my account per their email. I asked that the document be restored and asking who filed the copyright infringement complaint.

It will be interesting to see who filed the complaint and their reason for asking for the document to be removed.

The document in question was referenced in the article I wrote last week which can be viewed using the link below:

Fox C-6 Legal Fees Dating Back to 2004 Provided by District

It's probably not a surprise that someone doesn't want the public to know how much has been spent in legal fees by our district considering how many years I've tried to get copies of the invoices for those legal fees. I still haven't been provided a single copy of an actual invoice via my Sunshine Law requests.

It makes things even more intriguing for everyone as to why the legal bills are such a big secret and have been kept from the public. You would certainly hope that our school board members are reviewing the invoices each month when they approve the bill payments.

I certainly hope our school board members reviewed the bills prior to approving the bill payments at the August and September 2012 board meetings that totaled more than $103,000 for just those two months of bill payments. That's a lot of money just for legal fees in just two months. However, that's also the same time period that I was sent a cease and desist letter by the school district's former legal counsel informing me that the district may take legal action against me if I didn't stop speaking to the public and to former and current school administrators about ongoing issues in our district.

It certainly makes you wonder what's up with all of those legal fees.

Camdenton School District Similarities
Everyone should read about the issues that have been occurring in the Camdenton School Districtthat are very similar to what's been occurring in our school district for years by clicking on the link below. The superintendent and law firm in Camdenton appear to use the same tactics as those of Fox's former superintendent and former law firm.

The Wake of Laker Nation

Greeville School District Similarities
You'll find another story from the Greenville School District that follows the same pattern of bullying by their school superintendent when he had a cease and desist letter sent to a patron in their district who was critical of the superintendent's ethics in the hiring of an unnamed employee. An October 2013 news article in the Southeast Missourian documents what occurred. Sending out cease and desist letters appears to be a pattern of practice used time after time to silence critics of wrongdoing in their school district. Below is a link to that article.

Cease-and-desist letter issued by Greenville School District - (Southeast Missourian)

The Greenville story is very similar to what happened here at Fox when cease and desist letters were sent to myself and others by the same law firm of Mickes Goldman O'Toole. I received a cease and desist letter in August 2012 after posting articles on this blog and emailing friends regarding my concerns about former Fox superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow's salary and my concerns about how the the 2012 bond issue money was going to be used.

Three other Fox C-6 patrons who were critical of the district were sent cease and desist letters in February 2013. They were critical about the hiring of former Fox C-6 board president Linda Nash's daughter in-law as the Food Service Director since she didn't have the credentials the district required for the position as well as being critical of Fox's former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow.

Post Dispatch Article about Fox's Cease and Desist Letters

December 2010 Board Meeting Public Comments
At the December 2010 Fox C-6 Board of Education meeting, I questioned Fox board members about Jamie Critchlow's credentials and who approved his salary amount when he was hired and promoted to the Director of the Bridges program in November 2009. If you recall, Jamie Critchlow was fired from that position in June 2014 after derogatory comments directed at myself and others were posted in an online forum were traced to the home of former Fox C-6 superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow and Jamie Critchlow.

Jamie Critchlow was originally hired by Fox C-6 as an assistant football coach and a Behavior Intervention Support Teacher (BIST) in September 2009. After just two months as a BIST teacher Mr. Critchlow was promoted to the Director of the Bridges program. Mr. Critchlow had a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in Interdisciplinary Studies in 2009 and had not taken the School Leadership Licensure Assessment test. I had been told by retired teachers that Mr. Critchlow's degree was in Ceramics. That's why I questioned his credentials at the December 2010 BOE meeting.

Jamie Critchlow's starting salary as a BIST teacher was roughly $36,000 per year. His starting salary as the Director of Bridges was more than $98,000 per year according to MO DESE's records. Jamie Critchlow's salary was $124,079 when he was fired by Fox C-6 in June 2014.

Former Fox C-6 board member Cheryl Hermann was board president when I spoke to the board at the December 2010 board meeting. She told me at the December 2010 meeting that I needed to call Central Office to get my questions answered. You can listen to my public comments at that meeting by clicking on the link below.

Listen to My Public Comments at the December 2010 Fox C-6 Board Meeting

Mr. Critchlow's quick promotion was a concern among teachers and staff in the district that were aware of the "rumors" in the district. The "rumors" were put to rest when former superintendent Dianne Brown and Jamie Critchlow both divorced their spouses and married in early 2012. It also explained the harsh email I received from Dianne Brown in May 2011 after I emailed then board president Ruth Ann Newman still trying to get answers to my questions from the December 2010 school board meeting. You can read the article I previously wrote about Dianne Brown's May 2011 email response by clicking on the link below.

Emailing Fox C-6 School Board President Results in Superintendent Response

It's amazing how long it took for the community to become aware of the problems in our school district. It's also no wonder harsh comments were traced back to the home of former superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow and to the home of assistant superintendent (now serving as Seckman Elementary principal) Dan Baker and his wife Angie Burns Baker.

It should be noted that there were harsh comments posted about me on Topix right after I spoke at the December 14, 2010 board meeting. Who could have made those comments when only 7 people attended that board meeting that night besides the board members and Central Office administrators?

St. Joseph School District Rated "Poor" in State Audit

Everyone in the Fox C-6 School District should also read the recent State Auditor's report that was released this week about the St. Joseph School District. It should be an eye opening report for the taxpayers of our school district and our school board members as to how in depth a state audit can be. There is a link to the St. Joseph School District state audit report below. The state audit report gave the St. Joseph School District a rating of "poor". Poor is the lowest rating given out by the state auditor's office.

Every Fox C-6 taxpayer needs to read the St. Joseph School District State Audit Report.

Fox C-6 is currently undergoing a state audit. It will be interesting to see how much more is uncovered when Fox's state audit is released hopefully later this year. Some of Fox's Central Office administrators made a lot of questionable purchases using their district supplied credit cards prior to having them taken away last summer.

2015 St. Joseph School District State Audit Report Summary

2015 St. Joseph School District Complete State Audit Report

Below are some of the news articles covering the recent state audit report released to the public by Missouri State Auditor Tom Schweich of the St. Joseph School District.

I highly recommend reading the comments posted to the articles below as well. One of the articles mentioned that teachers attending the meeting were afraid to speak about the audit for fear of retribution from administration.

State Auditor Gives "Poor" Rating to SJSD

Poor Audit Draws Harsh Reaction From Community

District Spending Called, 'startling,' 'staggering'

Was the Fox C-6 School Board Misled by the Bakers?

Everyone makes mistakes. What’s important is that we recognize when we make a mistake so we learn from it, thereby increasing the likelihood that we won’t repeat it. I'm not really sure that Fox C-6 Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker and his wife Fox C-6 Director of Federal Programs Angie Burns Baker learned much from their mistake.

I question whether or not the Bakers fully disclosed their online activities with the Fox C-6 Board of Education (BOE) in order to keep their jobs. It does not appear that they did.

Also, Mr. Baker didn't apologize for his transgressions as Mr. Crutchley would like you to believe. Mr. Baker didn't apologize to the people that he made derogatory comments about.

Mr. Baker read a very well crafted statement at the August 4, 2014 Fox C-6 school board meeting in which he admitted NO wrongdoing or culpability. He apologized for getting caught!

Mr. Baker was not remorseful to his victims. He was checking a box to save his job!

Without honestly taking responsibility for our mistakes, and learning from them, it’s very difficult to genuinely move forward.  I’d say that’s especially true for those who were injured by someone’s “mistake".

Dan and Angie Baker apparently made “a mistake” when they wrote derogatory posts about me and others on a public online forum. At the time the posts were made, Dan Baker was Fox C-6's Section 504 Coordinator. That's an important fact because my wife and I had been advocating for our daughter’s right to have a Section 504 plan in the district for over 4 years when online comments were being made by the Bakers.

Mr. Baker originally provided our daughter with a 504 plan in May 2008, but then revoked it a few months later. For the next 6 years, including the time period during which “the Baker household” made the derogatory posts, we continued to pursue with the District our daughter’s right to have a 504 plan.

We firmly believed the District (i.e. Mr. Baker) was not fulfilling their obligations to our daughter, and we repeatedly sought the help of our school board to rectify this mistake. When the school board refused to help us, we sought the assistance of federal agencies to investigate the District’s management or should I say mismanagement of Section 504. It was Missouri DESE's former Compliance Officer who suggested filing a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights because he believed what the district was doing was wrong.

Missouri DESE's former Compliance Officer was correct. Both the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) and the USDA's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR) have been investigating and monitoring Fox C-6 since 2008 and 2009 respectively to determine whether or not the District was fulfilling its legal obligations to our daughter and other students in the district properly.

In August 2011 Fox C-6 and Missouri DESE were notified in a Final Agency Decision from USDA OCR that they were found non-compliant with Section 504 and the ADA AA. They were told to correct the problem immediately. It took 3 years after the notification to immediately reinstate the 504 Plan for the district to properly correct the problem. In the meantime, we continued to email the federal agencies to follow up on the progress of their investigations and the progress with enforcing compliance. We also contacted our U.S. Senators and Congressman in hopes of expediting a resolution. Fox's former legal counsel also emailed our U.S. Senators in an attempt to curtail the investigations.

Persistence Leads To Backlash
Apparently, persisting in one's efforts to get your school district to do the right thing can lead to backlash from administrators who aren't properly doing their job and are being questioned in front of the school board.

What truly stands out is the great amount of effort that Dan Baker and Dianne Brown-Critchlow spent in order to avoid writing a 504 plan for our daughter, not to mention all of the time they spent posting in online forums from their homes, cell phones and school district computers.

Now that Dan Baker is no longer the Section 504 Coordinator for Fox C-6, students who were previously denied 504 Plans are now being found eligible and obtaining them.

This fact seems to document that Dan Baker wasn't properly managing and implementing Section 504 in our district for the 6 years that he was the Section 504 Coordinator, yet he continued to receive very large raises just like Dianne Brown-Critchlow and her husband received.

Did our school board not review Mr. Baker's performance as the district's Section 504 Coordinator given all of the money spent in legal fees related to Section 504 issues in our district battling the federal agencies?

Problems at Seckman Elementary School

That leads us to the next problem which involves the appointing of Dan Baker as the interim principal at Seckman Elementary School despite being named in a lawsuit for posting derogatory comments in a public online forum about myself and others.

Perhaps they posted comments because I had been questioning Mr. Baker's gross mismanagement of Section 504 in the district and had to file complaints with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) as well as the USDA's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR) as he tried to subvert Section 504 Law for the past 6+ years.

August 2011 USDA OCR Final Agency Decision
In August 2011, Fox C-6 was sent a Final Agency Decision from USDA OCR directing the District to immediately reinstate our daughter's Section 504 plan that Dan Baker removed in September 2008.

The following paragraph was included on the next to last page of the USDA's Final Agency Decision. The language in the paragraph quoted below clearly spells out in fine detail that Section 504 Law PROHIBITS any form of retaliation against any person who files a civil rights complaint.

This is an extremely important paragraph. Dan Baker and Dianne Brown-Critchlow were very familiar with the USDA's Final Agency Decision and had even forwarded it to our Fox C-6 school board members in 2011. Dianne Brown-Critchlow forwarded me the email that she sent the Fox C-6 school board in December 2011 after I questioned her and Dan Baker as to whether or not the school board was even aware of the Final Agency Decision since Dan Smith and Ruth Ann Newman knew nothing about it when they were asked about it.

Here is the paragraph from the USDA's Final Agency Decision regarding retaliation:

No person shall be subjected to reprisal or harassment because he or she filed a discrimination complaint, participated in or contributed to the identification, investigation, prosecution, or resolution of a civil rights violation in or by a recipient of Federal financial assistance from USDA; or otherwise aided or supported the enforcement of Federal or USDA civil rights laws, rules, regulations, or policies. Any individual alleging such harassment or intimidation may file a complaint with USDA.

The language in the paragraph above didn't deter some of our administrators from participating in the online harassment and posting of derogatory comments on Topix that were directed at me and others. We filed complaints regarding retaliation but without have names and proof, nothing could be done. Now we have names and well documented proof.

I wrote an article about the Dear Colleague Letter that was issued by ED OCR in April 2013 to all school districts in the country regarding Retaliation. Here is a link to that article as well:

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

My pursuit to get the Fox C-6 School District to properly comply with Section 504 Law and the ADA AA and simply do the right thing led to an onslaught of online defamatory and derogatory posts that were traced back to the Bakers and the Critchlows.


Misled By the Bakers?
On July 24, the Arnold-Imperial Leader published an article titled, Bakers will keep Fox jobs. The article explained why the Bakers were allowed to keep their jobs based on a press release sent out by the District. The information provided by the District lead everyone to believe that the Bakers only made one comment from their home computer.

(UPDATED: 01/05/2015 - I've been informed that Fox's BOE was aware of the fact that more than one comment was posted and traced to the Bakers contrary to what was published in the Arnold-Imperial Leader. Then you have to question why the information wasn't properly documented by the Arnold-Imperial Leader. Supposedly, the District informed the paper that only one comment traced to the Bakers rose to a derogatory level. What was published in the Arnold-Imperial Leader with regards to the Bakers posting of comments mislead the public.)

The Arnold-Imperial Leader article stated that:

"School officials investigated the claims made in the lawsuit and decided only one comment was posted from the Bakers' home computer and that the two could keep their jobs, following disciplinary measures, Crutchley said."

The Bakers must not have fully informed school officials about all of their online activities related to Topix. Online posts were traced back to their cellular phone's browser as well. They didn't make just a single post from their home computer as stated in the Leader. They made many posts.

Bakers will keep Fox Jobs
Arnold-Imperial Leader

I've published some of the posts traced to the Bakers that are listed as exhibits in the lawsuit. It's interesting to note the language used by our dedicated educators. It's also interesting to note the statements that were made in respect to their children and grandchildren.

I know that Dan Baker's wife's daughter teaches at Seckman Elementary were Dan Baker was recently appointed to be the interim principal.

However, I did not realize that they had grandchildren that were old enough to attend school in our district as stated in one of their online comments.

It should also be noted that the online comments linked to the Bakers spanned nearly two months in time for those comments that were documented in the exhibits. So, the statement from the Leader that "only one comment was posted from the Baker's home computer" was misleading due to the misinformation provided in Fox's Press Release regarding the board's decision that allowed the Bakers to keep their jobs.

So, did the Bakers not tell the board members about all of the online posts that they made?

I documented the derogatory comment that the Bakers made about me in an article I wrote two weeks ago:

Another Extremely Bad Decision at Fox C-6!

Here are some of the online comments posted on Topix that were traced back to a Baker owned cell phone:

Seriously wrote on 01/24/2013 at 7:16AM
The thing is no one says anything about being dissatisfied with any particular situation concerning a student. Because our children are well taken care of! Here is a thought...the main goal of the school district isn't about who did or didn't get the job they wanted. It is are our children able to succeed in the real world upon graduation? I can only speak for mine and mine graduated at the top of their class. And my grandchildren love their school and because of that I am grateful to our district employees from the bottom up.

Seriously wrote on 02/09/2013 at 7:19PM
This is the most stupid thread I have ever read. Not one thing ever gets said about students. It is all about what adult didn't get the job they wanted or who wants to make a jab because they are jealous and bitter. I support our district leaders and teachers. They get a better job done than most districts on a fraction of the cost. If you care so much about kids, step away from the keyboard and go spend some quality time with a child. When's the last time you read to a child, played catch or prayed with one? You want to see a positive change in this world, start with YOURSELF!

Haha wrote on 02/09/2013 at 9:28PM
Imagine "pulling kids into this" you big idiot it should be all about the kids and not what adult was chosen for the job and is all jealous and ticked, or the Hoosier custodian that got fired or the hag ex wife. Imagine, actually thinking about kids in a forum about children's education.

Haha wrote on 03/12/2013 at 9:23PM
If you had something worth real value to say you wouldn't find it on a public, free, anonymous forum. Really, truth be told this is nothing more than thinking out loud. Sorry but even people with screwed up views think a lie is the truth if enough (even anonymous people) agree with them. And just a word of advice to the common posters on here...you could only be backed by 2 or 3 people who are signing on in different names. No offense intended to anyone but really this is like the "National Enquirer" of the Internet.

Haha wrote on 03/12/2013 at 9:54PM
Then send help because I just found out my cousin is an alien.

It appears from one of the post's above, that the Bakers weren't fond of the ex-wife or a custodian at Fox. People are certainly entitled to their opinions. Perhaps I just expect a lot more from individuals who are touted as dedicated professional educators.

Perhaps Fox's Board of Education should have questioned the Bakers and the Critchlows as to why there were making posts on a public internet forum in the first place about school district issues. They were high ranking officials in our school district and were expected to set good example for District employees, students and the community. I think they failed severely in that regard. Especially if you read the comments that were traced back to the Critchlows residence and to school district computers.

It's needless to say that their behavior was completely unacceptable but sometimes you have to state the obvious so people actually get it!

So, should Seckman Elementary School parents and teachers be concerned with the recent appointment of Dan Baker as the interim principal at SES?

Most people in the community I've spoken with want to know why the Bakers and the Critchlows weren't fired from the get go. I've been asked that question numerous times over the last 7 months.

Quote From 2013 - "We're Not Hiding Anything!"

While searching for information from some of my older articles, I ran into the following article from March 2013. This was during the scandal of hiring former board member and board president at the time, Linda Nash's daughter in law, as Fox's Food Nutrition Director. Amongst all of that fiasco, Fox finally started posting the board packets on the district website for the community to download and review. This hadn't been done in the past even though I had been asking for them for almost 2 years. The board packets contained the bill payments that were approved by the board each month.

The first time I attended a school board meeting was in December 2010. As I watched the meeting unfold, I wondered how the school board was able to approve the bill payments without having any time to look at the bills. Especially if they just received some of the bill payments in their Late Materials at the board meeting that night.

I found out later that typically the board packets were sent to the board members the Friday before the board meeting for them to review. It included the bill payments for the month that they were going to vote to approve at the meeting the following Tuesday. However, not all of the bill payments are sent to them before the meeting. Typically there would be another round of bill payments that are presented to the board when they arrive at the meeting that night. There's really no time to for board members to review all of those payments right there at the start of the meeting. Therefore, the board is having to approve payments blindly because the information is provided to them just before the meeting.

Depending on what checks are slated in the early bill payment presented ahead of time verses what's presented at the meeting makes it pretty easy to pass off expenses that someone may not want the board to scrutinize as much. This is especially a concern after when your superintendent tells you "We're Not Hiding Anything!". That's what prompted the article I wrote in March 2013. You have to read the article to see what I'm talking about with regards to the bill payments.

Board member John Laughlin began going to the school to review bill payments after I brought up this issue a couple of years ago when I was getting charged for board packets. John also made sure that I no longer got charged for obtaining the board packets after he found out I was getting charged.

It's easy for everyone to criticize the board as a whole. But, there were 7 old school board members until John Laughlin was elected in 2011. There's no telling what Critchlow told the the newest "outside" member of the board that things were great and there's no need to question things. I'm sure that my questioning of things was easily dismissed by Critchlow. She had been doing that for years at board meetings during my Public Comments and in her email responses to myself and the board. As she recently was quoted, "Trust me".

Board Packets Posted Online - NO Bill Payments
Finally after nearly two years, the district started posting board packets on the district website but they left the bill payments out of the packets. Why did they leave out the bill payments? That was the whole point of posting the board packets in the first place. I had to pay obtain the board packets per my Sunshine requests prior to the district posting them online for free. However, the district only provided me with the board packets dating back to April 2010. The district wanted to charge me hundreds of dollars to go and research and copy the board packets prior to that date. Charging lots of money for documents is an easy way to deter someone from obtaining the information and should always throw up red flags.

Critchlow wanted to charge me $170 for the credit card statements for the 2013-2014 school year. This was her way of keeping the statements from the public. The same thing was done for the board packets prior to April 2010. Since then I even asked several times for those prior board packets to be posted to the district website and Critchlow refused. I think the community should press to get those documents posted on the district website knowing what we know now.

Prior to the April 2010 date there was most likely quite a bit spent on attorney fees with all of the time and money the district put into preparing for a Due Process Hearing that was held in May 2010. I've made a recent Sunshine request for copies of all of the invoices from the former law firm dating back to 2008. When I first requested this information a couple of years ago it was going to cost several hundred dollars to obtain. Just remember that Critchlow wasn't trying to hide anything.

Check out the article below and read the response from former board member Ruth Ann Newman as to why the district didn't publish the bill payments when the district first published the board packets on the district website in 2013. I have the exchange of emails with the board and the responses I received.

It's hard to believe Dianne Critchlow's statement of "We're Not Hiding Anything!". It's especially hard to believe after reviewing the credit card statements and finding out that she had district purchased property at her home and had to be asked to return it.

Critchlow never openly provided the credit card statements to the school board. She just asked the board to approve the charges as a whole each month by asking the board to approve the bill payments that included checks to the credit card companies. The board shouldn't have had to ask to obtain the credit card statements. Critchlow as the superintendent should have been providing them to the board each month per school board policy like they do in many other school districts.

On the flip side, our school board should have asked to see the credit card statements since many of the statements totaled between $50,000 and $300,000 or more each month. The words Due Diligence comes to mind.

It's going to take quite a while for the auditors and the district to dig through all of the charges and receipts to find out what was purchased and paid for by the district that the district might not have in it's possession. More things might still be at Critchlow's house. It was something that was easily done.

I certainly hope that the district and the state audit reviews all of the charges dating back to 2005 when Critchlow started as superintendent. We need to recover as much taxpayer money as possible.

Read the article from 2013 by clicking on the link below to see if you think former superintendent Dianne Critchlow wasn't trying to hide anything back then.

Fox C-6 Superintendent Says: "We're Not Hiding Anything!"

StopBullying.gov Website Needs to Include School Administrators!

Last night I found the following website called StopBullying.gov. It's a website created by the federal government to help parents and schools deal with bullying of students and young adults. Checking out the website reminded me of the first Public Comment made the other night at the Fox C-6 School Board meeting by Jim Osia. Jim made an excellent point when he asked the Fox C-6 School Board when they planned to put a Zero Tolerance clause for bullying into school employee contracts.

Last year, I made a similar comment when the district adopted their new Anti-Bullying policy. I said that the new Anti-Bullying policy needs to apply to school district administrators and board members as well. I consider it bullying when your school board members ignore your concerns regarding bullying that's being made by school administrators.

When I stated that the Anti-Bullying policy needed to apply to school administrators or leaders, I knew that some of the online harassment and bullying that's been made against me dating back to 2010 could only have been made by school district administrators due to the information contained in their remarks.  It took filing a lawsuit to confirm that the IP addresses from those comments were indeed linked to district administrators.

How did I know? Well, very few individuals had any knowledge of what was stated in some of the online comments. When one of the comments made by "Troop" referenced sparks would be flying soon for some which was in reference to the sending out of Cease and Desist Letters in early 2013, even the school board wasn't aware that those letters had been sent. Since they were sent by Superintendent Critchlow, that information could only have been given to "Troop" by her or possibly another administrator who Dianne confided with.

Former Fox C-6 school board member Ruth Ann Newman and former Fox C-6 school district superintendent Jim Chellew knew about the Cease and Desist letter that Dianne Critchlow sent to me in August 2012 because she copied both of them on my letter. So they were aware of what was going on.

Dan Baker "Apologizes" at School Board Meeting
At the August 4, 2014 school board meeting, Mr. Dan Baker was asked to make a statement at the start of the school board meeting by Fox C-6 School Board President John Laughlin. Mr. Baker read a prepared statement regarding his household being associated with posts linked to the recent internet scandal. I have to say that I was not impressed by his apology. But I admit I'm biased since I am the target of that post.

Dan Baker was mostly likely the person posting the comments. I don't know his wife at all and have never met her. But, Mr. Baker has been "working" with me and my wife on Section 504 issues in the district for more than 6 years now. So, he had a lot of knowledge of the issues and a lot of reasons to want to make the posts.

Mr. Baker is the reason that the National Director of the USDA's Office for Civil Rights began working on removing federal funding from the Fox C-6 School District last year for the National School Lunch Program.

Mr. Baker tried to pull a fast one on the USDA OCR National Director by changing documentation after it had been submitted it to USDA OCR to close a complaint. Of course Mr. Baker denied any wrongdoing. In an email, Mr. Baker clarified that he "accidentally" sent the wrong version of the document.

Luckily the National Director of USDA OCR FNS didn't believe Mr. Baker's story. But, it was a good try!

(Don't worry too much about Fox C-6 losing its federal funding for the National School Lunch Program. Removing federal funding is a very long and drawn out process. It takes an act of Congress for it to happen. Plus, it has never happened in the past since school districts typically comply with federal law when asked to do so. But that's not how Fox operates. They've been fighting USDA OCR for years.)

But back to Baker's online comment.  Dan may believe that his comments weren't that bad compared to those made by "Troop" and many others posted on the Topix website over the past 4 years. But, posting the comments that were made from the Baker's household while holding the position of Section 504 Coordinator for the Fox C-6 School District is extremely problematic for both Mr. Baker and the school district. Let me be clear on one very important point: Even if the comment traced to the Baker household were the ONLY comment made by a Fox school district administrator, it would be scandalous.

If our school board members were more knowledgeable about Section 504 Law, perhaps they would have terminated Mr. Baker and/or Angela Burns Baker for cause immediately after an admission was made to posting the comments that were made. But, that didn't happen. As I stated the other night at the school board meeting during my Public Comments, allowing the Bakers to keep their jobs, definitely sent the wrong message to our community. As I stated to the Board at Monday night's meeting, "Being the person who was attacked, definitely doesn't sit too well with me." since I was the person being called out in one of the comments made from the Baker's household.

Not only was I the one being targeted, but the comments were posted within hours of the January 2013 Fox C-6 school board meeting. I had just mentioned during Public Comment at the 2013 board meeting that I hoped that speaking that night would not lead to more online defamatory comments being made about myself and others for speaking that night by anonymous posters. But, someone in the Baker household took it upon themselves right after that meeting to post a comment that contained lies as well as libelous comments about me. Yes, that should be outside of Mr. Baker's "personal and professional standards" as he stated in his apology the other night. However, someone in their household did make the comments and should be held accountable and I don't mean just a "slap on the wrist".

Does posting comments such as those linked to the Baker's household violate Fox C-6's Policies and Regulations and Professional Code of Conduct?

I certainly think so. Of course I am biased. But, based on comments from others, I don't think I am alone in my opinion. Even the panelists on Donnybrook thought the Bakers should have been fired. 

The actions of Dan and/or Angela Burns Baker easily violate any employment contract that they may have had with the Fox C-6 School District. But, for those comments to come from the Fox C-6 School District's Section 504 Coordinator's home violates federal Section 504 Law. I believe that they may have also violated Missouri DESE's code of conduct for educators holding a teaching certificate in the state of Missouri.

The StopBullying.gov website has a page covering Federal Laws that apply to Bullying. The Federal Laws page instructs you to contact your school district's Section 504 Coordinator to file a complaint when bullying occurs.

So, what are you supposed to do when your school district's Section 504 Coordinator is the one doing the bullying?

Should your school board give them a slap on the wrist by docking them 2 weeks of pay and spreading the amount being docked over the next 24 pay periods?

I recommend reading about the Federal Laws that apply to Bullying at the StopBullying.gov website using the link below.

StopBullying.gov - Federal Laws that apply to Bullying

Certainly I'm biased in my opinions that Dan Baker should have been terminated for cause because I was the one that he was personally attacking online. But, I also know a lot about Section 504 Law. I have been dealing with it on a regular basis with Mr. Baker for the past 6 years. I also know that what he did by posting online comments directed at me violates Section 504 Law. It is considered retaliation due to the fact that we filed complaints with ED OCR and USDA OCR and those complaints were open at the time that his comments were made.

Dan Baker's newest contract states that, "Administrator agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws." So, if he violated Section 504 Law, would that not be cause for termination? 

Previous contracts may not have stated this directly, but they were supposed to according to district policies and since district policies also states this, it should have been covered anyway.

Fox is Looking to Reduce the Budget

Fox's 2014-2015 budget was discussed again at the August 4, 2014 Fox C-6 School Board meeting. Leah Thorsen of the Post Dispatch wrote an article about what was discussed at the August 4th board meeting and even quoted me in the article. The article said that Fox is still looking to cut another $1.1 Million dollars from the 2014-2015 budget. Terminating the Bakers would save the district more than $300,000 in salary and benefits. The district contributes an amount equal to 14.5% of their salary to the Public School Retirement System which is roughly $38,000 per year on top of their combined salary of roughly $260,000. So cutting $300,000 from the budget by terminating the Bakers would be nearly one third of what the district still needs to cut.

I've had several people ask me what the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction does for the district. I don't know the answer to that. But, perhaps our school board knows. They recently moved Mr. Baker from the position of Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education over to the Assistant Superintendent of Instruction. 

Since very few people seem to know what the position entails, it might be a position that can easily be eliminated!

New Post Dispatch Article Asking Why Fox C-6 Superintendent's Salary Nearly Doubled?

Today's St. Louis Post Dispatch has an article asking, "Why did Fox superintendent's salary nearly double?"

Below is a link to the article:

Why Did Fox Superintendent's Salary Nearly Double?

This is a question that I've been asking for quite some time but never received a response to. Perhaps if more people in the Fox C-6 community were asking this question the public would get a response.

Former Fox C-6 Superintendent Jim Chellew was quoted in the article as well as former Fox C-6 school board member Ruth Ann Newman.

Perhaps Superintendent Critchlow can write a check to the school district returning some of her pay increases like former superintendent Jim Chellew states that he did in the Post Dispatch article when he was superintendent.

There is a Fox C-6 school board meeting this evening at 5:30PM. If you plan to ask questions, you will need to turn in your Public Comments form prior to 5:15PM according to district rules. Also, you cannot mention any names or positions during your Public Comment or you will not be allowed to speak.

Perhaps the Public Comments rules need to be modified in order to keep our school board more informed about the public's concerns on administrative decisions.

Fox C-6's Revised School Board Policies - A District of Excellence?

So, why has it taken Superintendent Critchlow and the Fox C-6 School Board more than 3 years to update our school district Policies, Regulations and Forms?

That seems like a valid question. I wouldn't think that updating and revising Polices and Regulations would take more than a year. It's been 2 years since Superintendent Dianne Brown (now Critchlow) announced that the overhaul of the district policies were ready to be reviewed and were going to be placed on the district website. From my audio recording of the March 2012 board meeting, here is exactly what Superintendent Brown (Critchlow) told the public at that meeting:

"We are finally ready for the forms and manuals and policies to be reviewed.  This would be an overhaul of all of the school district policies. They will be placed, I believe tomorrow night, Debby, on the website? And, sent out to staff or we will have a place that staff can log into. We’re not sure if we can send that big of documents for download. And we’re going to leave them up until June so that staff can make recommendations and the public can make recommendations.  Then we’ll bring those recommendations back and my guess is....”

In 2012, it sounded like the policies would probably be approved sometime that fall if the district was going to "leave them up until June so the staff can make recommendations and the public can make recommendations". Those documents have been on the website now for nearly 2 years and haven't been updated during that time according to their PDF Creation Date.

However, the overhauled policies weren't originally posted on the district website like Superintendent Brown (Critchlow) said they would. I had to email the board secretary and former school board member Ruth Ann Newman asking when the revised policies would be posted for the public to review a week after the board meeting. The response I received from Superintendent Brown (Critchlow) wasn't at all what I expected considering what she said at the March 2012 board meeting. Her email stated that the draft Board Policies and Regulations were NOT for public review at this time. That's definitely not what she said at the school board meeting.

This is what Superintendent Brown (Critchlow) emailed to me on March 29, 2012 regarding the updated board policies:

"The draft of the Board Policies and Regulations are sent via email to the staff for comments (not for public review at this time in the process).  Policy review and adoption has always been handled in this manner. They then will be placed on the district web site after they have been adopted by the board."

Her email response contradicted what she said at the school board meeting. I was glad that I had an audio recorded of the meeting so I could quote back to her what she said at the meeting. Otherwise, it would have just been my word against her word as to what she actually said at the board meeting. Now you know why I record board meetings and it's probably why Superintendent Critchlow won't record board meetings like they used to in the past.

Superintendent Brown (Critchlow) sent me the following response on March 30, 2012 after I quoted to her what she said at the March 2012 school board meeting:

"Hello Rich! Debby will gather all of this information and shoot it to you electronically today. 

Please let us know if it all doesn't transmit."

Without my audio recording, there's a good chance that the public wouldn't have been able to review the revised policies for the last 2 years while the district and the board worked on making revisions.

I still had to make another request to get the documents posted onto the district website like Superintendent Brown (Critchlow) originally said they would.

I'm not really sure what Superintendent Critchlow's aversion has been for the last 4 or 5 years to posting documentation on the district website like they do in other school districts. Our school board policies state that she's responsible for keeping the board and the public informed. Making the public call and request documentation like bill payment descriptions gives the impression that she's trying to hide things from the public. Developing school district policies is a community effort. She even said at the board meeting that the public would get the chance to review them and provide recommendations. So why would she say one thing and then say something different after the fact?

With the amount of salary that Superintendent Critchlow and her assistant superintendents are getting by our school board, wouldn't you have expected a lot quicker turn around in reviewing and updating our district's Policies and Regulations?

Fox C-6 had the 4th Highest Superintendent Salary in the state of Missouri in 2013 and the 2nd Highest Average Administrator Salary in the state of Missouri in 2013 according to records found on Missouri DESE's website.

If the Fox C-6 school board is paying such high salaries, they must believe that Superintendent Critchlow and her assistants are doing a great job. Based on their salaries, they should be doing one of the best jobs in the state. So, why would it take so long to update and revise our district's policies?

After 3+ years of work on revising and updating Fox's School Board Policies and Regulations, why would the latest revision still have someone listed as a point of contact who retired from the district in 2008?

Shouldn't someone have noticed this mistake after 3 years of reviewing and updating the documents?

You can download and review the latest revision of Fox's School Board Policies from the Missouri Consultants for Education website here:

Direct link to Fox C-6's revised Board Policies/Regulations/Forms on the
 Missouri Consultants for Education Website

When the first draft was posted on the district's website in March 2012, I emailed the district and gave them a list of contacts that I found in the Policies and Regulations that had been retired from the district for years that needed to be updated. I also supplied several grammatical and typographical corrections as well. Many of those items have been corrected. But, it's now been 2 years since I notified the district about retirees being listed as contacts and they're still in the latest revision. It makes you wonder if anyone has ever fully read our Policies and Regulations.

So what are we actually getting for Superintendent Critchlow's $256,131 salary?

I think that's a really good question and one that everyone in our community should be asking our school board since the board is responsible for setting her salary.

Her salary doesn't include her other benefits and the additional 14.5% that the taxpayers put into her retirement account each year. If you are paying someone that much money to lead your school district, shouldn't they be making sure that people are doing their jobs and and checking their work? After all, Fox is a District of Excellence!

I'm not really sure how our school board has been able to justify Superintendent Critchlow's raises year after year when there are things that just never get done. I've asked them but I've never gotten a response. Superintendent Critchlow usually has an excuse as to why Fox can't do what they do in other districts. But when does it end and the Fox C-6 taxpayers start receiving the benefits that taxpayers are getting in other school districts?

I think the majority of people in our community are in agreement that Superintendent Critchlow's salary is outrageous and that she is way overpaid. My father always tells me that it's the school board's fault for paying her too much!

I think that her over the top salary has caused her to have an over the top attitude towards anyone questioning her salary, her conduct or the job that she's been doing as a school district superintendent. It's also created a lot of resentment and morale problems within the district for employees as well as the community. It's hard to believe that our Fox C-6 School Board members can't see that this is a problem or that they haven't had any complaints from people in the community.

If Fox was ranked as high as Lindbergh in academic performance or if Fox had the ACT Scores and the same high Percentage of Students Taking the ACT like Rockwood or Parkway, then there might be a reason to possibly pay her more than $200,000 per year. But, when speaking with people in the community, all I've heard is complaint after complaint about how high her salary is.

Perhaps, our school board doesn't realize that Fox's demographics, annual budget and academic performance don't warrant the salary increases that they have given Superintendent Brown / Critchlow since she became superintendent in 2005.

I've written numerous articles over the last several years concerning Superintendent Critchlow's salary. I've compared her salary to other superintendents across the state and provided demographic comparisons for those other district's and communities as well.

Superintendent Critchlow may not think that her pay is out of line. But people in the community talk quite a bit about how much she's getting paid with taxpayer dollars. Our school district is not a "For Profit" corporation. It's a publicly funded entity. Therefore, the public has every right to question our school board as to how much they are paying her and they deserve to have the school board respond and not Superintendent Critchlow or Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman.

The community expects Superintendent Critchlow to do the job that our school board policies document that she is supposed to be doing. The community also expects the school board to do it's job and provide proper oversight of our school district and be held accountable for their work. If the board just "rubber stamps" everything and they don't ask questions then we get into the situation that we're in now where Superintendent Critchlow is just raking in the money and not getting a lot done.

Perhaps, everyone in our community should start calling the anonymous hot line to report to the school board what they think about Superintendent Critchlow's salary and how much they've increased it over the years. If the community was given the chance to speak anonymously without retribution and retaliation and without fear of being sent Cease and Desist letters, they might speak out more often.

If you read the recent state audit of the Hickman Mills School District, you will get a sense of understanding as to why this occurs. An article in the Kansas City Star said, "That's what happens when not enough people are watching." It also occurs because people don't speak up when they see problems.

Speaking to our school board for 3 minutes a month doesn't mean that they're going to listen or respond. They just say, "Thank you!"

Superintendent Critchlow or now Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman responds for our school board even on matters that only our school board can answer. So, without more voices from the community, everyone will have to continue to watch our school board overpay Superintendent Critchlow for not doing the job that she is supposed to be doing per our school board policies.

According to Superintendent Critchlow and her supporters, the district is doing great and there aren't any problems. According to a recent letter from one supporter, 99.9% of the people think things are great. My father recently told me that I'm not the only one complaining as Superintendent Critchlow would like everyone to believe. He called her comments "propaganda" to try and discredit me.

My father recently heard enough complaints from some of his friends at a trivia night that it was the first time I really heard him voice his concerns about the district. He was really concerned that the school board wasn't asking questions about bill payments especially if there weren't any descriptions on the bill payments. He said if the school board isn't asking questions then they should be voted out. I told him that there are a couple of board members that have been helpful with improving transparency and that they shouldn't be voted out. It's just a matter of time before we get enough responsible board members on our school board that don't have spouses or daughter in laws in supervisory positions to make a difference.

Superintendent Critchlow isn't going to allow the community to know what questions I bring to our school board when I speak at school board meetings. She's not going to document Public Comments in board meeting minutes with enough information to let you know. My Public Comments are documented as "Concerns within the district." or commented on this or commented on that.

Since the school board votes to approve the board meeting minutes each month, it doesn't appear that they are following the school board's Code of Ethics policy that states, "As member of the school Board, I shall: Maintain the public trust through full and open communication."

The board is responsible for approving the generically written minutes for the Public Comments that our board secretary writes each month documenting what I said at the meeting. However, if someone comes and praises the district, there will be quite a bit more detail for those Public Comments. Their letters will even get included in the board meeting packets. My letters to the board have never been included even though they were handed to the board and requested to be included as a matter of public record. Superintendent Critchlow is purposely failing to include them. That's how she can give the appearance that she's doing a great job and that everything is great within our district.

I have even emailed and asked for board minutes to be corrected to include more details after they were posted the month after a meeting. Superintendent Critchlow responded and informed me that the Missouri School Board Association told the board secretary that the board meeting minutes follow state law and won't be changed. It sounds to me like Superintendent Critchlow isn't doing her job of keeping the pubic fully informed.

If you want to see changes occur, it's time for you to start contacting your school board and showing up at school board meetings and start asking questions. After all, it's your school district and the Fox C-6 School Board represents you as a taxpayer.

Please be sure and tell your friends and family what's been going on with the leadership in our school district so they can contact our school board members as well. Your voice can make a difference!

Why Did Fox C-6 Stop Recording School Board Meetings?

I told my parents I had an audio recording of the recent June 2013 school board meeting. I wanted them to hear what Superintendent Dianne Critchlow's response was to my Public Comments and the fact that she kept me from responding to her statements. This is how our Superintendent handles things which allows her to throw out information that is false or misleading in order to keep the truth from the public.

After I played the audio of my public comments and Superintendent Critchlow's response for my parents, I played some of the audio from David "SuperDave" Day's Blog Talk Radio Show so they could hear his impression of the school board meeting. I told me parents that I didn't see the "arrogant looks on Ms. Critchlow's face" or the "ridiculous looks" that Super Dave said she was making as I spoke at the board meeting. I wasn't looking at our Superintendent as I was speaking. I was reading from my notes as quick as I could. You only get 3 minutes to address to board during Public Comments. According to board policy 0403, "A period of thirty minutes will be allotted to residents of the School District and staff at the beginning of the meeting to give the Board the opportunity to listen to citizens. The Board is very interested in citizen viewpoints and problems." With 30 minutes allotted for Public Comments and only 1 or 2 people speak at most board meetings, you would think the 3 minutes could be increased to allow for more comments to be made. Our board policy states that the Board is very interested in citizen viewpoints and problems. For some reason, I just don't get the feeling that they care to really hear about those viewpoints and problems or do anything about them.

Super Dave's BlogTalk Radio Show Review of the
June 2013 Fox C-6 School Board Meeting

I told my father that I always record school board meetings I attend because the minutes aren't always accurate or lack detail. Therefore, the public doesn't know what really happened at the board meeting or what was really discussed or commented on to the board. The public only gets our Superintendent's version of what occurred at the meeting. That's when my father told me that he used to audio record all school board meetings when he was an assistant superintendent and while he was on the school board at Fox. He said he kept the recordings for at least a year before getting rid of them. I found that very interesting considering the fact that I have been asking our school board to audio or video record Fox's board meetings for more than 2 years now. I've never received a response to that question from our board. Nor, have I seen any effort made towards posting recordings of board meetings on the district website.

On May 17, 2011, I sent an email to then board president Ruth Ann Newman asking for a response to the questions I asked at the April 2011 board meeting as well as questions I asked at the December 2010 board meeting. School board policy states that "All questions will be responded to by an appropriate person within the week whenever possible."

Apparently, our school board doesn't follow this policy. I received an arrogant email response that same day from Superintendent Critchlow (Brown at the time) regarding my concerns. One of my concerns was how poorly my Public Comments were documented in the December 2010 board meeting minutes. Critchlow responded to this concern with the following, “The Board secretary contacted MSBA's legal counsel the following day after the April meeting. They informed her that the district was in compliance in the manner in which the BOE minutes are reported.”

According to our Superintendent, someone checked on my concern but then didn't bother to respond to my concern until I emailed nearly a month later asking for a response. Certainly the manner in the which the BOE minutes are reported would comply with the law because they are posted for the public on the district website. However, I doubt the public would agree that documenting a Public Comment as "Concerns within the district." doesn't meet the requirements of our board policy that states, "The minutes of all Board meetings shall be accurate, complete and meet all legal requirements." It raises questions such as, what were my concerns? The district's response in reviewing their minutes would have to be "Concerns within the district." because that is how they documented it. Does that sound "accurate" and "complete"? I don't think so. That's why our board meetings need to be audio or video recorded.

The public needs to know what the concerns are of citizens in our school district and not just what our Superintendent wants to provide to the public. The minutes as they were documented for the December 2010 board meeting gives the appearance that the school is trying to hide citizen's concerns from the public. It's not just our Superintendent's fault because the school board approves the minutes each month at the beginning of the board meeting. So, they are aware of what was written in the meeting minutes before they approve them.


Why and When Did Fox Stop Recording School Board Meetings?
I've been asking our school board to audio or video record the board meetings for at least 2 years now and publish them on the district website like they do in other school districts. I've never received a response to that question from our school board. Is that because our Superintendent doesn't want that to happen? The public doesn't even know that I asked the school board this question because it was never documented in the board meeting minutes.

I've provided transcripts of portions of our board meetings from my audio recordings to our board and Superintendent when things weren't done as they were stated they would at board meetings. If there isn't a recording of a board meeting, there's no way to hold our Superintendent or our school board accountable for what was said at the meeting. That's why the taxpaying public should demand that the district record and publish these recordings on the district website. If other school districts can do this and the city of Arnold and Jefferson County Council can do this, then Fox can do it as well. Having an audio recording of the meeting makes it difficult for our Superintendent to give just her version of what occurred at the board meeting.

Contact Your School Board Members
Contact your school board members and tell them that you would like our school district to start video or audio recording school board meetings and publishing them on the district website. That's the only way you are going to get an accurate account of our school board meetings.

Who knows? Maybe Fox is recording our school board meetings. My father said he used to record all of the meetings when he was an assistant superintendent for the district. Perhaps they just don't want the public to have the recordings. No one has answered my questions as to why we can't record our board meetings and publish them on the district website. Mehlville records their meetings. Parkway records their meetings. Francis Howell records their meetings. Why can't Fox?

Perhaps it's because a district attorney once told a parent advocate that she didn't want them recording their conference call with the school because, "Tape recordings are notoriously unreliable". Really? How is an audio recording "notoriously unreliable"? The school district records and transcribes Due Process Hearings. Are those audio recordings "notoriously unreliable"?

School District Wants A Double Standard
Dan Baker, Gee Palmer and Luann Domek audio recorded their phone call to a doctor without informing the doctor that they were recording the call. Was that a private conversation? The district attorney deemed that audio recording reliable enough to submit as evidence in a Due Process Hearing. Perhaps the district just doesn't want to be recorded. However, it's OK for the district to record their conversations with others and not inform them.

Superintendent Critchlow recently proposed the possibility of making a change to our school board policies at the May 2013 school board meeting to prohibit the public from recording private conversations. Her proposed policy change gives the appearance that the district wants a double standard. It's alright for the district to record private conversations but it's NOT alright for the parents or citizens to record private conversations or meetings. Our Superintendent knows that Missouri is a "one party" consent state. That means that if you are a party to the conversation, you don't have to inform the other party that you are recording the conversation.

Perhaps audio recordings from private citizens wanting to accurately document meetings and conversations is causing a problem for our Superintendent and district administrators. It seems that audio recordings sometimes contradict the district's version of what happened. Maybe it would be a good idea for our Superintendent and administrators to always the truth when informing the board and the public on what is going on in our school district. Is the district truly in compliance and properly following the law? It reflects poorly on them when audio recordings and documentation shows otherwise.

Requesting Corrections To Board Minutes
When I asked for corrections on board meeting minutes in the past from my recordings, our school board secretary Debbie Davis responded via email with the following statement, "The minutes that were transcribed are reflective of what I heard at the meeting.  The minutes are not a verbatim recording of the meeting."

Our school board meeting minutes should be accurate and complete as required by our school board policies. With all the problems going on in our school district, you need to know what's really happening in our school district and not just what our Superintendent and board members want you to know?

Fox C-6 Nepotism Problems in the News Again!

The Fox C-6 School District made it into the news again thanks to the nepotism problem that has become so well known across the state. This time Elliott Davis from Fox 2 News contacted Missouri Governor Jay Nixon and Missouri House Speaker Tim Jones from Eureka Missouri about changing nepotism laws in our state that currently allow School Boards to hire school board member's relatives.

You can find the news story here:

You Paid For It: State May Revise Nepotism Laws

Fox C-6 School Board president Dan E. Smith sent a written statement to Elliott Davis regarding Fox School District's policy on nepotism. I downloaded the statement from the Fox 2 News website which is a Word document and posted it below.

Statement from the Fox School District on Nepotism Policy 

Dear Mr. Davis,

The Fox C-6 BOE and administration are in the process of reviewing all of the district policies and regulations, which include the policy on nepotism.  Once the policies and regulations review is complete and approved by the BOE I will be happy to discuss the matter with you further.  However we have not completed the process, so an interview at this time would not be beneficial.  The process should be completed by the end of August, and at that time I would be more than happy to sit with you and discuss any issues concerning our school district. 

Sincerely,

Dan E. Smith

President, Fox C-6 BOE

I'm surprised that Mr. Smith even responded to Elliott Davis. Since our school board members were all given individual email addresses in February of this year, Mr. Smith hasn't replied to any of my emails sent to his new email address. In fact, I received a read receipt response from Mr. Smith last month stating that my email to him was deleted without being read. Not reading emails from the citizens you were elected to represent clearly demonstrates that our school board is NOT properly representing our community. Is this type of individual you want representing you as a school board president? I recommend emailing or calling Dan Smith and asking him why he doesn't read his emails.

Dan Smith our current board president, Linda Nash our former board president and former board member Pete Nicholas are all close neighbors. Dan Smith and Pete Nicholas both voted to hire Linda Nash's daughter-in-law Kelly Nash in November 2012 as the Director of Food Service by our school board. Superintendent Dianne Critchlow and Assistant Superintendent Todd Scott defended their recommendation to hire Kelly Nash despite her lack of qualifications and education on You Paid For It and in the Leader newspaper. Kelly Nash was hired over several other candidates that had the required credentials the school district was looking for. Mr. Scott defended his recommendation by stating it was her management experience and enthusiasm that stood out and that she could earn her degree and obtain her credentials over the next two years in order to be qualified for the job. It's a fact that it takes more than 4 years to obtain your degree and become a registered dietitian. I find it interesting that everyone has been touting Kelly Nash's management experience as her primary job while the district website has Kelly Nash listed as Director of Nutrition Services. Kelly Nash is not a registered dietitian and does not have the credentials or education in this area. She has a high school diploma and 17 years experience working at McDonalds. I recommend looking up and reading the job expectations of an assistant manager at McDonalds and compare it to what she was hired to do for our school district. If Kelly Nash wasn't qualified for the job, she SHOULD NOT have been interviewed. Kelly Nash should resign from her position and her mother-in-law Linda Nash should resign from the school board. Linda Nash has violated the trust of our community and the employees of the Fox C-6 School District. Stepping out of the room during a vote or discussion doesn't give the appearance of our board behaving in an Ethical manner. It's time our school district started having annual Ethics Training and Ethics Recommitment.

Hiring former school board president Linda Nash's daughter-in-law woke up our community as to what has been going on in our school district since Dianne Critchlow was promoted to Superintendent. Our community showed it's disdain for our school board's behavior when it decided this past April that it was time for Pete Nicholas and Ruth Ann Newman to be voted out of office. Our school board needs more oversight from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MO DESE). The MO DESE Area Supervisor is over our school board but basically only acts as a liason. He doesn't enforce any rules, regulations or ensuring that our school board follows its own policies. This is a serious problem in our state and needs to be resolved in order to hold the school districts in our state more accountable for their actions. The other major hire unethical hire that was made in our school district was in 2006 when Dave Palmer was Fox's board president and his wife Gee Palmer was promoted to the district head nurse position and given a 75% pay increase. There were at least 9 or 10 nurses with more years of service and experience in our school district when Gee Palmer was hired. It is time for Dave Palmer who is currently our school board vice president and his wife Gee Palmer to resign from their positions.

How Many Years Does It Take To Update Our Policies?

I'm not at all reassured by Mr. Smith's response to Elliott Davis that our school district is working on addressing the nepotism problem in our school district. Our school district and school board have been reviewing our district policies and regulations since March of 2012. According to Superintendent Dianne Critchlow at the March 2012 board meeting, the district had completely overhauled the district policies and regulations and posted them on the district website for the staff to review and provide feedback before they were adopted by the school board. Our Superintendent stated that they would be on the website until June 2012. It's now almost June 2013 and our school board and administrators still haven't completed their review of our district policies and regulations. How long does it take to accomplish this task?

It's been 4 years since the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR) informed Fox C-6 that our district needed to revise their school board policies and regulations to comply with Federal Laws. If they haven't been able to accomplish that task in 4 years, how long do you think it will take to change our policies that won't allow them to hire their family members? ED OCR has given our district multiple deadlines over the past 4 years specifying exactly what needs to be corrected. Our district has yet to make those corrections. Does that give you any confidence in their abilities to review and update our policies? The most recent letter from ED OCR informed the district that they still hadn't complied was sent to the district on April 25, 2013. The latest monitoring letter from ED OCR was originally due to be sent out in August 2012 and was delayed until November 2012 and then delayed to January 2013 and then delayed to March 2013 and then delayed to on or before April 22, 2013. It appears that ED OCR has a problem with meeting deadlines as well. The latest letter states that our district now has until June of 2013 to make the changes to their policies and regulations and submit those changes to ED OCR. Obviously they won't meet that deadline if Dan Smith says they are hoping to complete their review by the end of August 2013!

Our school board members swore to make sure that our school district follows state and federal laws when they took their oath of office. If a federal agency informs our school district that our school board policies and regulations must be updated in order to comply with federal law, shouldn't our school board be asking our Superintendent why she hasn't updated our policies and regulations to comply with federal laws for the past 4 years? If our Superintendent can't do her job, then she needs to be replaced.

Catching Our Superintendent In A Lie

At the March 2012 board meeting during the public session, Dianne Critchlow stated that the district would post the DRAFT copy of the updated board policies and regulation on the district website for the staff and public to download and review. However, a week after the documents were supposed to be posted on the district website, they still weren't there. I emailed our board president and board secretary asking when the documents would be posted on the district website. Our Superintendent responded to my email. She told me that the district wouldn't be posting the DRAFT copy of the policies and regulations on the website for the public. She said that the district doesn't post new policies and regulations until after the school board approves and adopts them. However, that's not what she stated at the board meeting. After I provided her a transcript from my audio recording of the March 2012 meeting of what she said, she recanted her statements about not posting a DRAFT copy of the policies and regulations on the district website. You can now download the DRAFT copy of the policies from the district website here:

Fox C-6 Board of Education 2012 DRAFT Copy of Updated Policies and Regulations 

It is up to you to make sure that our school board is held accountable for their actions and their decisions. MO DESE currently absolves themselves of this duty. It is also up to you to make sure that our school board listens to the community. Please email your school board members if you want to make a positive change in our school district and let them know what you think. Our school board doesn't think there are any problems in our school district because they never get any complaints. Everyone who works for the district is afraid to speak up because they know they will be retaliated against. It is time for the community to improve our school district and its reputation by taking an active role in holding our school board members and central office administrators accountable.

You can find our school board member's individual email addresses here:

Fox C-6 School Board Email Addresses