Showing posts with label Sunshine Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sunshine Law. Show all posts

Saturday, September 11, 2021

Post Dispatch Article Documented in Fox C-6 Legal Bills as "Press Release"

At the August 23, 2012 REACH Open House at Clyde Hamrick, I had a discussion with one of Fox’s former administrators about some of the issues going on in our district.

Our discussion occurred just days after I had received a cease and desist letter from Fox's law firm threatening me with legal action if I didn’t stop talking to administrators and former administrators as well as school board members at Fox about Section 504 issues and other issues such as in person and online bullying.

The former administrator's response really hit a nerve. Especially since I had just received the cease and desist letter days before which I mentioned during our discussion as well.

The discussion also inspired me to write an article about a Dear Colleague letter on Retaliation Law issued by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in 2013.

The former administrator told me:
"You should pick your battles and I don't think this is one of them you should fight. You've got to think about your parents. This is your home. You don't need to be doing battle here. You should let someone else do it. It's because of who you are and who your family is as to why you shouldn't fight this battle."

I took that as a challenge. The cease and desist letter also fueled my efforts to bring about change in our school district. And, it reminded me of when our former superintendent, Dianne Brown (Critchlow) called my dad into her office to talk about our complaint.

Bullying In the St. Louis Post Dispatch
I was already determined to bring about changes at Fox after Fox and their law firm had an article published in the Post Dispatch in August 2010.

The article's intent was to bully us for filing a complaint with ED OCR. The online title of the article was not the same as the print article. The online article title referenced the 504 Plan as a "Special Status".

The article incited online comments directed at me and my family, including death threats which the Post Dispatch refused to remove from their website. I forwarded the comments to ED OCR and USDA OCR since they were clearly harassing and retaliation for filing complaints with ED OCR and USDA OCR.

The article mentioned the cost of legal fees. The article failed to mention the fact that when the district removes a 504 Plan, your only options, if you disagree with the school's decision are to file for Due Process, file a civil suit against the district in a court of law or file a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights. The article also failed to mention the fact that we were going to withdraw from the Due Process Hearing so Fox's attorneys decided to file Due Process against us so Fox could settle the disagreement.

PD Article Failed To Document District Wide Compliance Review Investigation
The 2010 Post Dispatch article failed to note important information that they showed us during our interview such as their discovery of the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review investigation of Fox.
Then there was the privacy issue with Missouri DESE
When I was first contacted by the Post Dispatch to interview me for an article, I asked the reporter how she had gotten my name. It immediately threw up red flags considering we were preparing for a Due Process Hearing with Fox. The timing was not a coincidence.

The reporter explained to me that the Post Dispatch made a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request with ED OCR to see if there had been any complaints filed against any school districts in our state for students with life threatening food allergies. I'm sure that's something that reporters do all the time. She told me that our complaint was the only one. First, I told the reporter that any complaint filed by a parent or advocate with ED OCR is redacted and would not have identified us.

I also told the reporter that there were other complaints filed against other districts in our state filed with ED OCR by families with life threatening food allergies. Our complaint was not the only one as the reporter had claimed.
Post Dispatch Sunshine Request Leads To Contact Information
The Post Dispatch reporter went on to explain that they found our name after they made a Sunshine Request with Missouri DESE to find out if there were any emails related to the complaint. The reporter explained that our names were contained in emails between Missouri DESE and Fox but that our daughter’s name had been redacted out of the emails.

Missouri DESE failed to protect our identity. Or, maybe it was just really good investigative reporting by the Post Dispatch. It could also be that this was the fight that I shouldn't fight and that was the reason why.

Fox's Legal Bills Documented the Post Dispatch Article as a "press release"
So when I finally received copies of legal bills from the district in 2014 and I saw the bill from 2010 from the law firm that referenced the “press release”, it confirmed how and why the article was written.

I found other articles over the years about parents who had filed complaints filed with ED OCR in other school districts. The same tactic was used against them by the same law firm in order to bully and retaliate against them as well.

The following article from 2013, was written prior to the tracing of IP addresses to Fox C-6 administrator's homes and cell phones. It covers the Dear Colleague Letter sent out to all school districts in the U.S. in 2013.

For some reason, the Kansas City U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has had a lot of trouble recognizing retaliation against parents in our region. It makes a person wonder just how much documentation is needed before it's considered retaliation. Perhaps online defamatory comments traced to administrator homes and cease and desist letters by the school district's law firm isn't enough documentation.

Or, perhaps the KC ED OCR office just didn't have time to read the Dear Colleague Letter regarding harassment and retaliation due to the backlog of complaints in their office.


Thursday, May 18, 2017

What Was In The Jefferson County Sheriff's Report Related to the Fox C-6 Audit?

Is anyone interested in reading the report prepared by Jefferson County Sheriff's Office related to the findings of the May 2016 Missouri State Auditor's report?

Obtaining a copy of that report has proven to be a bit of a challenge.

I thought the community might find it interesting as to what it takes to obtain copies of public records such as the Jefferson County Sheriff's Report. My initial requests were made at the end of January, 2017 with exchanges going through mid February, 2017.

Probably the most interesting thing you may discover in reading this article, is the fact that Jefferson County informed me that they no longer have a copy of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office report. The reactions I receive when I tell people about the county's response regarding my Sunshine Law requests is priceless.

I made a Sunshine Law request to the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's Office asking for a copy of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office report as well as a copy of the FBI report. My Sunshine Law requests to both the Jefferson County and St. Charles County offices asked that the fees be waived for the reports per Missouri Sunshine Law, since these reports were of public interest.

Since the reports generated during the investigation of the 2016 Missouri State Auditor's findings were created with taxpayer dollars, you may find it interesting that my request to waive fees for the reports were denied. Charging to obtain copies of reports is a very simple way to keep the public from obtaining the information.

Wanting to charge me for the reports reminds me of the time when Fox C-6 asked me to pay $170 for copies of the credit card statements that should have been included in the school board meeting packets each month.

I also wonder why the local news media hasn't filed any Sunshine Law requests for these reports since the reports may help the community understand why no charges were filed after the release of the May 2016 Missouri State Auditor's report.

JEFFERSON COUNTY FIRST RESPONSE
From my initial Sunshine Law request I received the following response:

"I have received your Sunshine Law request in email format from our Prosecuting Attorney, Forrest Wegge.

Please consider this electronic e-mail our initial 3-day response as required under law to your Sunshine Law request dated February 6, 2017.

It is my understanding that the file your are requesting information from is not currently in the possession of Mr. Wegge, or his office here in Hillsboro, Missouri.

As you are probably aware, a special prosecutor was appointed to this case. I believe this case file is still in that individual's possession.

After I have made contact with the special prosecutor, I will further advise you regarding the anticipated time it will take to complete production as well as the costs or other issues prior to proceeding any further as you requested.

Jefferson County will not waive fees/costs in answering this request. Please be advised that there may be Federal Law protections that prohibit Jefferson County from disclosing any requested "FBI" reports.

I expect to have further response to you within the next 7 to 10 days."


JEFFERSON COUNTY SECOND RESPONSE
After making a Sunshine Law request to the St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney's Office I received the following response from a Jefferson County counselor:

"It has come to my attention, from speaking with an assistant county counselor of St. Charles County, that you have made a similar Sunshine Law request with the Prosecutor's Office of St. Charles County, Missouri.

I have been informed that they have provided you documents and responses to your requests for files that may be protected or be work product. 

I have reached out to the Jefferson County Prosecutor's Office and have been informed that it does not have any of the requested documentation that your are requesting in your Sunshine Law request - the entire file is in the possession of the St. Charles Prosecutor's Office. 

Therefore, Jefferson County does not have any documents to provide you pursuant to your Sunshine Law Request."

ST. CHARLES COUNTY RESPONSE
I also submitted a Sunshine Request to the St. Charles Prosecuting Attorney's Office. The Public Information Officer from the St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney's Office sent me the following response:

"Please be advised that the Federal Bureau of Investigation report, and pages from that report which are contained in the Jefferson County Sheriff’s report, are exempt from disclosure by Section 610.021(14), RSMo (Supp. 2014) (exempting “records which are protected from disclosure by law”), in conjunction with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(7)(C). Furthermore, your request for disclosure of records which are the property of the Federal Bureau of Investigation must be directed to the United States Department of Justice pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Part 16, Subpart B, Sections 16.21, et seq.
  
Additionally, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s report contains social security numbers which are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 610.035, RSMo (2000). The social security numbers will therefore have to be redacted from the report. We estimate the staff time to redact social security numbers at 2 hours at $38.04 per hour.
  
We also estimate that the non-exempt documents will total approximately 3,850 pages, which can be provided at $0.10 per page plus staff time of 4 hours at $38.04 per hour, for a total of $537.16.

We presume, however, that like your previous request, you desire electronic copies of these documents. We can provide the non-exempt documents on CD-DVD at a cost of $10.00 for the medium as well as estimated staff time of 4 hours to transfer the documents to the medium at a cost of $38.04 per hour for a total of $162.16. 

We require payment of estimated costs prior to commencement of document copying. Please specify whether you desire paper copies at an estimated cost of $613.24 or electronic copies and the appropriate medium at an estimated cost of $238.24, and remit the corresponding amount to this Office. If actual costs exceed the estimate we shall invoice you for the difference. Conversely if actual costs are below the estimate we shall refund the difference."

Charging for reports that the public might be interested in reviewing is certainly a good way to keep those reports out of the public's view. It's similar to what I ran up against in February 2014 when I requested copies of the credit card statements from Fox C-6.

Below are links to a couple of articles I wrote in August 2014. The first article documented what Fox's school district policy was at the time when former superintendent Dianne Critchlow and others were using school district credit cards to make purchases.

The second article documented why it took so long to obtain the school district credit card statements to review after I had asked the Fox C-6 School Board if they had been receiving and reviewing the credit card statements in their board packets each month.


Below is the school district policy that was in place when former superintendent Critchlow and others were using school district credit cards as documented in the article above.
Policy 3125 – Credit Cards (05/97) 
School district credit cards will only be issued to employees upon the approval of the Board of Education. Use of the credit card will be limited to the purchase of instructional materials, items related to the improvement of instruction or materials related to capital improvements or supplies.

The next article documents the amount of push back I received in my efforts to obtain copies of the school district credit card statements after asking our school board members at the February 2014 school board meeting if they had been reviewing the credit card statements:


The documentation above leads to the next link which was a letter to the Fox C-6 community from the school district dated May 25, 2016. It was provided to the community after the release of the May 2016 Missouri State Auditor's report which gave the district a rating of "POOR".

The following statement really stands out in the letter to the community:

"The District, and its current administration, wish to see full restitution for any resources that were misused under previous policies and regulations." 

It's been nearly a year since the district issued the statement above and it doesn't appear that there has been much, if any effort, into seeking "full restitution for any resources that were misused under previous policies and regulations".


In April, prior to the elections I emailed the Fox C-6 school board members asking them what their plans were in recovering taxpayer monies that were documented in the May 2016 Missouri State Auditor's report as being misused or improperly obtained. I didn't receive any written responses from the board in response to my questions.

The community is going to have to make a concerted effort to voice your concerns and frustration to the Fox C-6 school board in order to recover the taxpayer dollars that were referenced in the 2016 Missouri State Auditor's report.

Last month the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Arnold-Imperial Leader published articles about the recent release of a Follow Up report from Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway. Both articles referenced many of the items documented in the original State Auditor's report.

The articles have everyone in the community and outside the community talking again ad asking why there weren't any charges filed in this case.

Asking why no charges were filed in this case is certainly a valid question and one that taxpayers should be allowed to ask without fear of retribution or fear of being sued by our former superintendent. A Google search will provide you with many articles documenting how other school districts across the country recovered taxpayer dollars when faced with similar circumstances.





Sunday, March 22, 2015

Invoices for Legal Services at Fox C-6 Still Difficult to Obtain!

This past Wednesday I testified in front of the Senate Education Committee in Jefferson City in support of a Senate Bill related to the amount of money that school districts are doling out in legal fees in our state.

I was invited to come and speak in front of the Senate Education Committee because of all the information that I've documented on this blog over the past several years including the amount of money spent in legal fees by the district. I still don't know exactly what the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees were spent on because the District still hasn't provided copies of the invoices for legal fees in more than 5 years of requests.

I was also asked to share our experience about having Fox's former law firm file for Due Process against us. The district filed for Due Process against us because the attorneys wanted to make sure that things were settled once and for all. There was no reason to file for Due Process against us. The district had already made their decision. We had to file Due Process in order to challenge the district's decision.

This practice of filing Due Process against parents by law firms has been occurring across our state for quite some time.

The school district of the parents that were responsible for sponsoring the senate bill had their district file for Due Process against their child AFTER they had withdrawn their child from the school district. The district wanted to document that their decision not to provide special services to the child was correct. That should certainly raised some red flags!

The school district filed an insurance claim for $30,000 with Missouri United School Insurance Council (MUSIC) in to pay for the Due Process that was filed against their child. The district's legal counsel were the ones benefiting from the Due Process. The parents have spent more than $10,000 in legal fees related to their case. You should note who sits on MUSIC's Board of Directors.

This was the same tactic that Fox's former legal counsel used when they filed for Due Process against us when they learned from ED OCR that we were we were considering dropping our request for Due Process. We decided to drop our request for Due Process after learning that the hearing office chosen to hear our case was a former law associate of the district's legal counsel. There was no way that we were going to get a "fair and impartial" hearing. There was the appearance of a fair and impartial hearing. It was a very nicely played "smoke and mirrors" of a Due Process Hearing.

Traveling to Jefferson City also gave me the opportunity to see invoices for legal services that were billed to another school district by the same law firm that represent Fox C-6 until last year after the internet scandal became public.

The parent from another school district had been provided with 88 pages of invoices for FREE after making a Sunshine Request for the invoices which spanned roughly a two year period. None of the pages in invoices for legal services were redacted. They were public records!

The really interesting thing about the invoices was the amount of detail that they contained. The invoices contained time on task billed in tenths of an hour as well as the hourly rates that each of the attorneys and law clerks charged the school district. Those rates varied between $130 and $285 per hour.

I was told that the detail contained in the invoices for legal services is what led to the resignation ("early retirement") of the superintendent and CFO in their school district.

Could having all of that detail in the invoices for legal fees be why it's been so difficult to obtain copies of the invoices for legal fees from the Fox C-6 School District?

I've made numerous Sunshine Requests to Fox over the past 5+ years for the invoices for legal fees and I still haven't been provided with a single copy of an invoice in all of that time.

I most recently made request for copies of the invoices for legal fees on September 12, 2014 along with a request for other documents. I received a response letter on September 18, 2014 from Fox's former custodian of records Deborah Davis telling me that my Sunshine Request would take more then 3 days to fill.

It's now been more than 6 months and I still haven't received any copies of the invoices for legal fees. I received several other documents from my request and even documents from other requests sent since then. However, those invoices for legal fees have yet to be provided. Why is that?


Here is the list of documents that I requested via Sunshine Law on September 12, 2014:

Documents Requested:
  • Electronic copies of all Fox C-6 DISCOVER credit card statements for the 2005-2006 to 2012-2013 school years to present.
  • Electronic copies of all Fox C-6 AMERICAN EXPRESS credit card statements for the 2005-2006 to 2012-2013 school years.
  • Electronic copies of all Fox C-6 VISA credit card statements for the 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 school years to present.
  • Electronic copies of all receipts that were purchased using Petty Cash since the 2005-2006 school year to present for personal related items for Dianne Brown-Critchlow.
  • Electronic copies of all invoices from the Mickes Goldman O'Toole law firm for the 2007-2008 school years to present. When redacting the invoices from the law firm please ensure that only names are redacted and that the descriptions or purpose of the legal fees incurred remain on the invoices. I previously made a similar request years ago and was informed that the district did not receive detailed billing.
  • Electronic copies of any and all receipts associated with purchases made by former Superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow using ANY district credit card since it has been determined that she borrowed or used credit cards assigned to other people within the district.
  • Electronic list of all items recovered to date from former Superintendent Dianne Brown-Critchlow.
After not receiving copies of the invoices for legal fees for more than 3 months, I sent a follow up on January 7, 2015 asking about the invoices for legal fees.

Fox's CFO John Brazeal responded to my request the very same day. Below is an excerpt of Mr. Brazeal's response to my request for copies of the invoices:

Record Request: 
The data to supply your request for “legal fees paid by year” was compiled by taking information from the ASBR reports filed with DESE. These annual reports are available online. Minimal time was required to compile that information for you. 
A request for copies of MGO legal invoices back to 2008 creates a time consuming task. As evidenced by the passage of time, we have been unable to fill your request. This is due to several factors, which include being able to locate old invoices (if they even exist) while simultaneously tending to the document production demands of the state audit and many other Sunshine requests, let alone the daily workload of an organization under stress. 
Which brings me to my point: As you know, there is law and policy regarding Sunshine requests. Policy (in conformance with law) provides that we respond appropriately to record requests in a timely manner, allows for charges related to copying and research time, and allows for charges to be waived when requests are in the public interest. I believe I have provided you many records in a timely manner and up until now, all were provided without charge. The “legal fees paid by year” was provided without charge because it was already available online, but still I spent the time to collect the data. Whether you realize this fact or not, your many requests absorb a significant amount of staff time to fulfill. 
Believe it or not, not all your requests rise to the level of public interest, in my opinion. Some requests appear to have more of a personal interest, which is the purpose of the charge for production when such requests become voluminous. At the moment, I am not seeing the public interest in compiling “legal fees paid by month” for three years in the distant past when “legal fees paid by year” is readily accessible. And to some extent, I am not seeing the public interest in legal invoices from years distant past. Please share your thoughts on the basis of public interest for your request. After I have had an opportunity to consider you input, I will respond with a determination on whether charges will apply. 
I have previously written to you my view of transparency in the public interest. I retain that viewpoint.

Transparency is something that is still a work in progress at Fox. I think it's reasonable for the public to know why the district spent more than $659,000 in legal fees between 2007 and 2013.

I also think it's reasonable for copies of those invoices to be provided to the public because they explain why the district spent so much money in legal fees. They are public records and if they can provide them to parents/patrons in other school districts, it seems reasonable that they would be able to provide them to the public in our school district.

Below is a compilation of the amount of money paid to Fox's former law firm between 2004 and 2013. The information was compiled from data sent to me by CFO John Brazeal for the 2004-2010 school years. The totals for legal fees from 2010 to 2013 was obtained from board packets and the bill payments posted in the board packets.

Fox C-6 Legal Bills 2004-2013
2004-2005 -   $21,906.50
2005-2006 -   $39,218.86
2006-2007 -   $45,929.39
2007-2008 -   $74,560.41
2008-2009 - $109,116.49
2009-2010 -   $71,083.37
2010-2011 - $100,342.74
2011-2012 -   $81,029.43
2012-2013 - $148,903.30

Sunday, February 22, 2015

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.


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:


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.


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.


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. 

Friday, August 8, 2014

What Do Fox C-6 School Board Policies Say About Using School District Credit Cards?

So what do Fox C-6 School Board policies say about using school district credit cards?

Fox's policy for Credit Cards is Policy #3125. It's a very short policy and states the following:
Policy 3125 – Credit Cards (05/97) 
School district credit cards will only be issued to employees upon the approval of the Board of Education. Use of the credit card will be limited to the purchase of instructional materials, items related to the improvement of instruction or materials related to capital improvements or supplies.
Fast food restaurants and bars and grills are probably NOT considered "instructional materials". It appears that Superintendent Critchlow's use of her district supplied credit card violates current school board policy.

Policy #3125 was adopted in May 1997. Apparently she was not aware of what our school district policies are on the use of school district credit cards after reviewing Fox's 2013-2014 VISA Credit Card statements.

Don't Forget!

I have already covered issues related to Bill Payments and Credit Card Payments many times over the last couple of years. Below are a couple of articles related to this topic. I even covered board Policy #3106 which covers Fraud Prevention and Corruption.

Here are a couple of earlier articles covering some of these topics:





Here are links to some of Fox's policies on Financial Management and Credit Card usage:






Download the entire 2014 Fox C-6 School Board Policies in a single document using the link below:
2014 Fox C-6 School Board Policies, Regulations and Forms

Monday, July 28, 2014

How the Fox C-6 School Board Handled Questions and Suggestions?

How does your school board handle Questions and Suggestions?

Do they respond?

Below is a compilation of emails I sent to our school board members last fall along with the responses I received if a response was sent. This doesn't include questions I may have asked during Public Comments unless they were mentioned in my emails. The emails below provide you with an idea of what I have been asking our school board to do for several years. The responses did not come from our school board. My requests or suggestions were denied by Superintendent Critchlow or it was recommended by the district's legal counsel that the district not do things such as hosting open discussions with the public.

You may wonder why Superintendent Critchlow was the only person to provide responses to my questions and requests. You may also sense some hostility in her responses to answering questions that the school board should have been answering, especially with regards to doing her job as a superintendent. It's the superintendent's job to keep the school board and public informed.

It took years to get individual email addresses for our school board members posted on the district website. It also took years to get school board packets and financial data published on the district website so the public could review the same information provided to our school board members just like other school districts have been doing for years.

It was almost as if Critchlow didn't want the public to know what was going on in our school district. Did her actions violate school board policy?

The real question is why hasn't the school board been able to stand up to Superintendent Critchlow and demand answers and demand that the data is published on our district website?

Due to the recent change in leadership, things have changed. The school board is running our school board meetings as they should be. Dr. Rizzi no longer states before Public Comments that you cannot mention names or positions during your Public Comments. Our new Chief Financial Officer John Brazeal told me that he is very interested in improving transparency and keeping the community informed about the district's financial picture. Yesterday he responded to my email request for legal fees dating back to the 2007-2008 school year. Mr. Brazeal also informed me that he plans to "have multiple years of audited statements uploaded to the website disclosing past financial activity."

As you read through the exchange of emails below, you will see that Superintendent Critchlow flat out refused to publish financial data and told me that I could make Sunshine Requests for that data. I was also told, I would have to pay for data many times that should have already been published on the district website like credit card statements. Credit card statements should have been included in school board packets each month for board members to review. They do it in other school districts.

Years of emails and Public Comments thoroughly document refusal after refusal or excuse after excuse as to why our district couldn't post data for the public. Perhaps if our community would have been kept apprised more on our financial situation, the district might not have gotten into the financial crisis that it's currently in.

The last email in this exchange of emails has Superintendent Critchlow washing her hands of communicating with me and passing that job off to Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman. Since then, that job was passed off to Dr. Rizzi.

For the amount of money that the taxpayers of the Fox C-6 School District (52%) and the taxpayers of the state of the state of Missouri (41%) were paying to support our superintendent's salary and the salaries of our administrators, she should have been willing and able to provide the information being requested, that so many other school districts have been providing to their taxpayers for years. But in doing so, it would have empowered the community to ask questions about what was going on in the Fox C-6 School District, thus ending her reign of control.


Now the public is asking questions and looking for answers!



Fall 2013 Emails Sent to the Fox C-6 School Board
and Responses from the District
=================================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2013 7:35 AM
To: John Laughlin
Subject: Administrator Salary Schedules
Importance: High

John,

Did you ever receive the Administrator Salary Schedule for 2013-2014?

I'm sure you would have in order to approve it. The one that was included in the board meeting packets for the public didn't have any amounts in the schedule. It had "X"s for the amounts.

I also made a request to Debbie Davis to provide the 2013-2014 Budget on the district website at the June board meeting but nothing has been posted. 

I think the real issue for our district is the lack of transparency. We also have a real issue of sweeping the problems under the rug and hiding them from the public like in the board meeting minutes when recording Public Comments topics. Dr. Rizzi stated at the August 2013 board meeting in response to my concern that Fox follows the law and that all the district has to record is a Motion, a Second and a Vote. Well, that's not true. The minutes are supposed to be a "journal" of the meeting. I know why things are left out of the minutes but the public doesn't. Doing this doesn't provide a good example of a National District of Character.

For an example of incredible transparency, you can take a look at Wake County Public Schools in North Carolina. This is the school district that Dianne Critchlow spoke about at the August board meeting where kids can earn their associates degree and high school diploma at the same time.

The Wake County Public Schools has 75,000 students, 170 schools, a budget of $1.3 BILLION Dollars and 864 square miles. Compare those numbers to Fox.

Their superintendent's salary for 2012-2013 was $250,000.

Here is Wake County Public Schools Finance page on their website. 

The Wake County school's finance page has budget reports dating back to 2007 on their website as well as their 2013-2014 budget.

The Fox C-6 community needs this type of information available to them so they can help keep our salary schedule in line with the community's expectations. Almost anyone that finds out that Fox's superintendent makes over $250,000 reacts in total shock. Who would have thought that we would be able to be handing out pay raises as high as 17% since she started as superintendent. Her salary is quite out of touch with reality. Even when comparing our administrative salaries in general, Fox had the 2nd highest Average Salary for Administrators in the state. Dianne Critchlow's salary was the 4th highest in the state. When you compare the demographics of our school district, it doesn't make much sense. I understand the whole Public School Retirement System issue that the average of the highest 3 consecutive years of of pay is averaged for computing retirement amounts. This means that Dianne Critchlow will be a huge burden on  the system for many years to come pulling in over $15,000 per month in retirement thanks to the generous pay raises she has received over the years.

Fox still doesn't have a Project Lead The Way program for science and engineering and only 56% of the graduates students at Fox are taking the ACT test. Fox is in the bottom 25% of the state in Percentage of Graduates taking the ACT. Dianne fails to mention that fact in her presentation each year. Compare that to Rockwood and Parkway where 95% to 96% of their graduates take the test. Rockwood and Parkway pays for each of their students to take the test one time. The cost of the test is $35. 

I was also quite disappointed with the fact that no one spoke up when Dianne stated that Fox had The Highest Score in Jefferson County on the MSIP 5 test. She also said that other districts in the county had scores in the 70's and 80's. Neither of those statements were true. Honesty, Trustworthy and Integrity are emblazoned as watermarks on many of the documents from Fox. However, Superintendent Critchlow doesn't set a very good example for those traits even during board meetings. 

There are so many things wrong with this picture. Things really need to change. The school board needs to start listening to and communicating with the community. Our district needs an advisory committee like they now have at Rockwood and other school districts in order to get things turned around and going in the right direction. It's very disappointing and embarrassing to see what has happened over the years since Dianne was appointed as Superintendent of Fox C-6.


Thanks,

Rich Simpson

================================================================
From: John Laughlin
Date: September 8, 2013 12:30:34 PM CDT
To: Richard Simpson
Subject: RE: Administrator Salary Schedules

Thanks for the info

John Laughlin, CTS


================================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:22 AM
To: Smith, Dan - Board Vice President; Kroupa, Dan - Director; Hermann, Cheryl - Director; Nash, Linda - Board President; Laughlin, John - Director; Holloway, Steve - Director; Palmer, David - Director
Cc: Davis, Debby - CO Secretary; Superintendent; Rizzi, Dr. Lorenzo - CO Admin
Subject: Questions, Concerns and Suggestions for the Fox C-6 School Board
Importance: High

Dear Fox C-6 School Board,

Thank you for your service to our community. As you are aware, I have presented several concerns to the board over the past several years. Some issues have been addressed but many have not. One of those concerns was one that I addressed at the August 2013 school board meeting again regarding what is recorded in board meeting minutes for Public Comments. Dr. Rizzi responded with a statement that wasn't completely accurate regarding what is required by state law for board meeting minutes.

Missouri Sunshine Law states as shown below states that a "journal or minutes" shall be taken and retained by the public governmental body, including but not limited to a record of any votes taken at such meeting. It is not accurate to state that board meeting minutes are only required to reflect a motion, a second and a vote. The board minutes shall be a journal of what occurred at the meeting. Leaving information out of school board meeting minutes gives the appearance that the district or the board is trying to hide things from the public. It reflects poorly on the board when you approve board meeting minutes knowing that there is information that has not been documented.

A journal or minutes of open and closed meetings shall be taken and retained by the public governmental body, including but not limited to a record of any votes taken at such meeting. The minutes shall include the date, time, place, members present, members absent and a record of any votes taken. When a roll call vote is taken, the minutes shall attribute each “yea” and “nay” vote or abstinence if not voting to the name of the individual member of the public governmental body.

The board has been asked several times to audio or video record Fox C-6 board meetings like they do in other districts. This would preclude any problems or concerns with the way the board meeting minutes are being documented. Many other school districts, the City of Arnold and the Jefferson County council video record their meetings.

Why doesn't Fox audio or video record its school board meetings and post them for the public to view or listen to like they do in other districts?

My father told me that he audio recorded all board meetings when he worked for the district and when he was on the school board.

When did the school district stop audio recording school board meetings?

Another ongoing issue is about concerns being brought to the school board that are not addressed. Several people have informed me that they have emailed our board president Mr. Dan Smith and have not received a response or even an acknowledgement, myself included. Our school district is a community effort. The community elected you to represent us and deserves a response.

The Rockwood School District has gone through similar issues. Rockwood has a group of concerned citizens that have been bringing about positive changes in their district. One of those recent changes is more community involvement. As I mentioned to several board members prior to the August 2013 board meeting, Rockwood now sets aside 30 minutes prior to some of their board meetings for open discussion with the community. Fox should have the same type of meetings if it wants to regain respect and trust from the community.

Mr. Dan Smith stated at one of the recent board meetings that he would like to see more people in our community get involved with the school district. In order to get involved, the school board and the board president will need to respond to the community. Our board policies state that someone will respond to Public Comments within a week whenever possible. It appears that this policy is rarely followed. Perhaps, open discussions with the community could correct this problem. 

Below are some links regarding Listening Times and Community Conversations from the Rockwood School District website:

Board listening times information for the Rockwood School District:

Rockwood School District Community Conversations:

Another item to note on the Rockwood School District website is a web page that documents how to file a Sunshine Law Request with the school district. The webpage also lists Sunshine Requests received by the district, who made the request and a downloadable copy of the documents provided per the request in PDF format as a service to the community. As a school board, you should also want this same type of information for the Fox C-6 community as well. Please consider this as a formal request for a similar webpage on the Fox C-6 website. This would include the requests that I have made in the past for board meeting packets and information such as administrative salary schedules.

Transparency and open government is a very important part of building a strong school district. Below is a link to Rockwood's website for Public Records as well as a few examples of some of the documents on the page.

Rockwood School District Request for Public Records page:

Rockwood School Board Responsibilities and Training Information:

At the June 2013 board meeting I asked Debby Davis to post the 2014 Fiscal Year school budget on the district website that was provided to the board in their late materials for approval. The 2014 budget still hasn't been posted to the district website or added to the board meeting packets. The August 2013 board meeting packet was updated on the district website to include the checks that were provided in the boards late materials for approval at the board meeting that were not in the original board packet. However, the 2012-2013 board meeting packets have not been updated as of yet. Please update the 2012-2013 board meeting packets to include the missing checks that are currently posted on the district website. There are several hundred checks possibly more than a thousand that are not accounted for in the 2012-2013 board packets.

Another current concern is that the board packets contain a new Bill Payments report that doesn't include a description as to what the checks are for. The new check register report only provides the payee name. This will cause people to question why district employees such as Brad Duncan or Kelly Nash are receiving checks for several thousand dollars. Without descriptions such as on the old check register, this could become a problem and a cause for concern.

It would also be helpful if a file naming convention was used to name files that are being published in the new Document Containers on the district website so they are displayed in date order. Currently they are displayed in alphabetic order. The previous district website had the documents manually placed in date in order. A suggested naming convention would be to start the name of the document with a numeric year, month, day (for example: ”2013-09-17 Fox C-6 Board Meeting Packet-website.pdf”).

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.


Richard Simpson


================================================================
From: Critchlow, Dr. Dianne
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:02 AM
To: Rich Simpson; Smith, Dan - Board Vice President; Kroupa, Dan - Director; Hermann, Cheryl - Director; Nash, Linda - Board President; Laughlin, John - Director; Holloway, Steve - Director; Palmer, David - Director
Cc: Davis, Debby  CO Secretary; Superintendent; Rizzi, Dr. Lorenzo - CO Admin; Administrators - CO
Subject: RE: Questions, Concerns and Suggestions for the Fox C-6 School Board

Mr. Simpson,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.  I have looked at some of the sites from Rockwood School District and do think you have shared some good ideas.  I would like to explore these links in some more depth and share with my administrative team and the BOE.  Thank you for sharing.

In regards to the request of the 2014 Budget, Debby does not recall you asking for the budget at the June meeting, but will provide you with a copy tonight. 

If you asked in your public comment, you did not share a copy of your comment so she did not have any recollection nor did she receive a Sunshine Law Request.

The checks for Ms. Nash were the start up cash for all 19 buildings to make change for lunches for the first day of school.  Mr. Duncan’s check was the startup money for the concession stands for the fall games.

Dr. Rizzi’s statement regarding recording for Public Comments came from the council of Missouri School Board Association(MSBA). They indicated that if the date and time were on the agenda, that would suffice.

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

The board meetings were audio recorded in 1996. Then it stopped, reason unknown. It began again in 2001.  The last recoding was June 2005 per the direction of the Superintendent Jim Chellew.

As far as videotaping the board meetings, the district has never accomplished this task due to the small technology staff.  It would be up to the board as a whole, if they wish to do so.  I do believe this was explained to you when it was first asked.

In regards to your last paragraph, the new Tyler SIS system will assist the Debby in file naming.  Our last system she had to do so manually.  She has not received the training,  but is scheduled to do so. However, thank you for your suggestion but she will find a system that works best for her and our new system.

Items that are presented in the original board packet are not added to the website after each meeting.  These are late materials. It is not normally Debby’s practice to go back and change them due to time constraints.  However, it is recorded in the attachments and you can request to view them at any time.  We simply just do not have the staff to accommodate all requests and suggestions.  I wish we did, but we try to put all our dollars into the classrooms for the students.

I believe I have addressed every issue that you have brought forward.

Mr. Simspon, as we have always stated, our door is always open for you to schedule a meeting with anyone in our office to address any area of concern.  Please provide a list of the concerns that you believe have not been addressed and we will gladly provide a response.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Dr. Dianne Critchlow


================================================================
From: Richard Simpson
Date: 10/01/2013 8:04 AM
To: Smith, Dan - Board Vice President; Nash, Linda - Board President; Hermann, Cheryl - Director; Kroupa, Dan - Director; Palmer, David - Director; Laughlin, John - Director; Holloway, Steve - Director
Subject: Some Issues, Concerns and Suggestions for the Fox C-6 School Board to consider for discussion during their workshop 

Dear Fox C-6 School Board,

Please review the following concerns and suggestions as items of discussion in your school board workshop this evening. If they cannot be addressed or discussed this evening, hopefully they can be addressed directly or in a future meeting or workshop. I previously emailed the school board on September 17, 2013 with some issues and concerns. The only response I received was from Superintendent Critchlow to my concerns. I did receive a PDF copy of the 2013-2014 School Budget yesterday from board secretary Debbie Davis. As I mention below, Fox C-6 needs to develop or perhaps it already has a protocol for addressing concerns from citizens in the community. If the district already has a protocol perhaps the board is not aware of it or it simply isn't being followed. Rockwood has a protocol regarding this topic which I point out below and also pointed out in my September 17 email to the board.


Thank you,

Rich Simpson


Topics and Concerns for the Fox C-6 School Board:

  • Please address the problem with respect to responding to emails from citizens in the community. It is disrespectful that Mr. Dan Smith our school board president does not respond to or acknowledge emails from citizens in the community. Fox C-6 needs to develop a protocol similar to what Rockwood has adopted that covers how its school board responds to the community. Fox already has school board policy in place stating that Public Comments will be responded to within a week of a board meeting when possible but this policy is not followed. This protocol should address emails or letters to the board. I provided a link to Rockwood's protocol in my September 17th email to the board. The document is located on Rockwood's district website on the Sunshine Law Request page. Mr. Smith stated at the end of one of the board meetings this year that he would like to see more citizens in the community involved in the school district. If Mr. Smith expects citizens to become involved, then Mr. Smith should be expected to respond to their requests for information or suggestions as the president of the school board. The school board has been elected by the community to represent the community. In order for the school board to represent the community, the school board needs to respond to their constituents.
  • Superintendent salary and administrative salaries in general. The recent Leader newspaper article regarding school district administrative pay was definitely a wake up call for the community to see Superintendent Critchlow's salary. It is unrealistic that Fox's Superintendent would have the 4th Highest Superintendent Salary in the state of Missouri for last year. It's also unrealistic that Fox C-6 would have the 2nd Highest Average Administrator Salary in the state of Missouri for last year as well. Based upon comments and feedback from people in our community, they had no idea how much our superintendent was getting paid. Many of them thought she was making around $150,000 to $175,000. They certainly didn't think that our superintendent would be making $256,131. Many have commented that her salary should be reduced so the district can hire more teachers or staff especially if she is going to make statements such as "we try to put all our dollars into the classrooms for the students"and "We simply just do not have the staff to accommodate all requests and suggestions." as she responded to me in her email. Having given her a salary that is so out of line with our demographics causes a lot of resentment in both the community and school district personnel. It would be interesting to see what the community really thinks about the salaries in our district by having the school board conduct a survey of the community.
  • The salary concerns also apply to a couple of school board member's family members that were promoted or hired by the district into positions where more qualified candidates were passed over in favor of their spouse or family member. This has reflected poorly on those school board members that were on the board when these decisions occurred. Obviously, the community expressed enough concern for the that the school board modified their policies so this would not happen again in the future. However, there are currently board members spouses and family members in supervisory roles that are being overpaid and not meeting the expectations of those positions.
  • The school board should do a survey of the community like they did in Lindbergh for feedback as to how they and the district is doing on topics such as the website and salaries for the administrators and how they are doing in general as a school board. It might be an eye opening experience for the school board.
  • Please ensure that Late Materials are also published on the school district website on the same day as school board meetings. This information should also be provided to the public so the public can review them and ask questions during Public Comments prior to board members voting on those items. This is covered in our school board policies as well. All materials that the school board receives that is public information needs to be made available to the public as well.
  • Please ensure that School Budgets are posted on the district website for the public similar to the examples I provided in my September 17th email.
  • It is unacceptable for the school board to accept excuses from Superintendent Critchlow as to why things can't be accomplished in our school district when they are being done in other school districts in the area and across the state. Superintendent Critchlow responded to my email sent to the board stating that "We simply just do not have the staff to accommodate all requests and suggestions." in respect to providing the late materials updates on the website or into the board meeting packets after the board meeting. It is her job to ensure that these materials are provided to the public. You need to hold her accountable and make sure she is doing her job. Providing year after year pay raises while making excuses for not being able to accomplish things does not look good to the public.
  • In speaking with an accountant friend of mine and former state auditor, he stated that writing checks to individuals for startup cash lunches and concessions stands would throw up a big red flag during and audit. His recommendation during an audit would be that those checks be written to the banking institution for cash and then dispersed to the schools.
  • Board member Cheryl Herman teased at the August board meeting about having an App for access to the new Tyler SIS system. The Tyler SIS system should include some sort of App or mobile access to the website for the price paid by the district.
  • School board meetings need to be video and/or audio recorded so that board meetings can be accurately documented. I have asked this question several times of the school board and have never received a response as to why board meetings cannot be recorded until Superintendent Critchlow responded to my September 17th email. This is done in other school districts and the City of Arnold and Jefferson County Council are able to accomplish this feat with much less technology staff than Fox has.
  • I have had responses from both Superintendent Critchlow and Dr. Rizzi stating that board meeting minutes meet state law. It would be helpful for the school board and district staff to read the state law to see that the minutes are to be a journal of what was discussed at the meeting. It is understood that board meeting minutes are not a verbatim of the meeting. However, any topics that are presented to the school board are to be documented in the minutes. When topics are left out of the minutes, it leads the public to believe that the school district is hiding or covering up concerns that our Superintendent or the school board does not want the public to know about.
  • Public Comments should lengthened to 5 minutes noting that the district sets aside 30 minutes to address issues but has rarely had more than 1 or 2 speakers at a board meeting.
  • Public Comments rules regarding speaking of positions or names needs to be removed for addressing issues with the superintendent. The superintendent is hired and fired by the community and school board and citizens will be allowed to voice their concerns with issues regarding the superintendent.
  • The public should be allowed to respond to comments made by our superintendent or assistant superintendents to citizens after making a public comment. It was quite disrespectful of Superintendent Critchlow not to allow me to respond to her false and misleading accusations at the August 2013 school board meeting.  Those actions do not meet with the character traits our district promotes.
  • Shortage of books in middle school and high school. This was addressed by Superintendent Critchlow to the news channel 5 reporter last year however, her answer was not factual. You would need to ask teachers and principals why there are not enough books for ALL of their students. This question was also addressed to me by Ms. Pelster in an email when I brought this topic up in an email to the board and at the December 2012 board meeting. In her email she responded to the book shortage stating that, "Teachers do not give out textbooks because we do not have enough; they don't give them out because they are just a resource for the class. This cuts down on students lugging around heavy books every day that may or may not be used." Ms. Pelster acknowledged the fact that there aren't enough books for teachers to hand them out for all students. Several parents have already informed me this year that students are having to share books in some middle school and high school classes because there aren't enough books for the entire class. If they are using the books and they are having to share them, the parents seem to believe there is a book shortage.
  • Ridgewood football field bleachers need to be demolished or replaced. They are currently a safety hazard and an eye sore. It probably would have been much more cost effective to move a section of the old Fox High football bleachers to Ridgewood rather than selling them as scrap to another district.
  • Please download and print the school lunch menus from the district website to see what the parent was speaking about at the August board meeting with respect to the font size and the layout of the menus. Please visit other school district websites such as Lindbergh, Windsor and Rockwood and review their lunch menus as a comparison.
  • Please takes some time to review the links on the individual school websites for our district. Also, please update the school board member page to reduce both the file size and the resolution of the photos for school board members. This same problem occurred when the district moved to the Edline system a couple of years ago and I brought it to the board's attention.


================================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:29 AM
To: Smith, Dan - Board Vice President
Cc: Nash, Linda - Board President; Hermann, Cheryl - Director; Kroupa, Dan - Director; Palmer, David - Director; Laughlin, John - Director; Holloway, Steve - Director
Subject: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board

Mr. Smith,

Please confirm receipt of my email dated Tuesday October 1, 2013 which was sent to all Fox C-6 school board members using the email addresses provided on the Fox C-6 school district website.

Did you receive my email?

My email listed issues, concerns and suggestions for the Fox C-6 school board to review and consider for discussion at the school board workshop or at the next school board meeting.

There are questions from previous emails to the board that have gone unanswered for a couple of years.

When will you be able to respond to those questions?

What is the school board's policy or protocol for responding to emails from citizens in the community who you represent?

Can you please explain why you haven’t responded to emails sent to you or the school board or to questions presented during Public Comments from citizens in the community?

The National School Board Association and the Missouri School Board Association websites as well as many other organizations explain what the role of a school board is and what its responsibilities are to the community and the school district. One organization explained the role of the school board as follows:

As elected officials, school board members represent the educational values and priorities of the members of their communities, including students, school system employees, parents, business leaders, civic leaders and taxpayers. School boards provide a forum for community members to be heard, key issues to be debated and public votes to take place. In principle, school boards provide stewardship and direction for public education in a community.

Additionally, a school board is responsible for hiring, evaluating and, if necessary, dismissing the superintendent. As part of this process, a school board enters into a contract with a superintendent that includes explicit goals and performance standards for the superintendent along with the criteria to be used in evaluating the superintendent’s performance.

As the Fox C-6 School Board President, please provide a copy of the goals and performance standards and other criteria that the Fox C-6 school board uses to evaluate our superintendent(s) and school administrators. Please explain how their performance evaluations relate to the salary schedule?

As an education advocate and concerned citizen, I look forward to your response.

If Mr. Smith is unable to respond, will another school board member please respond to my questions?


Thank you,

Rich Simpson


================================================================
From: Hermann, Cheryl - Director
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 8:33 AM
To: Rich Simpson
Cc: Critchlow, Dr. Dianne
Subject: RE: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board

Hi Mr Simpson,

I just wanted to tell you that I received this email, have read it, and will take it into consideration.

Cheryl Hermann, M.Ed.
Fox School District School Board Director


================================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 8:04 AM
To: Hermann, Cheryl - Director
Cc: Critchlow, Dr. Dianne; Smith, Dan - Board Vice President; Kroupa, Dan - Director; Palmer, David - Director; Laughlin, John - Director; Nash, Linda - Board President; Holloway, Steve - Director
xSubject: RE: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board

Mrs. Herman,

Thank you for your response.

It's quite disappointing to think that our school board president cannot or will not respond to citizens in the community. Mr. Smith stated at the end of a school board meeting this year that he wished more people in the community would get involved in their school district. I'm sure the community would like to see his thoughts reciprocated as well.

School board policy states that "The Board is very interested in citizens concerns and viewpoints." Given the lack of response from our school board over the last several years, the words in our school board policy really don’t seem to have that much meaning. I certainly hope those words begin to have more meaning to the community in the near future.

Hopefully, the board workshops can provide more interaction between the community and the school board and allow for more "concerns within the district" to be heard and responded to by our school board.

It's difficult to make improvements or solve problems if no one is willing to acknowledge that there is a problem. It’s even more difficult if no one even acknowledges that they received your emails. I really do hope that everyone on the school board gets a chance to read the protocol for communicating with the public from the Rockwood School District.


Thank you,

Rich Simpson


================================================================
From: Critchlow, Dr. Dianne 
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 8:31 AM
To: Rich Simpson
Subject: RE: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board

Mr. Simpson.

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

Have a great day!
Dianne


================================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Date: October 9, 2013 8:03:37 AM CDT
To: "Cheryl Hermann", "Dan E. Smith", "Dan Kroupa", "David Palmer", "John Laughlin", "Linda S. Nash", "Steve Holloway", "Davis, Debby - CO Secretary"
Cc: "'Critchlow, Dr. Dianne'"
Subject: School District Board Packets, Late Materials and Documents on the District Website

Mr. Smith,

As the school board president of the Fox C-6 School District, it is your job to ensure that the school district superintendent keeps the school board and the public informed on district business. Over the past several years, I have made numerous requests for documents to be published on the district website so the public has easy access to the documents. Other school districts do this. Fox should be able to do this as well. Superintendent Critchlow replied to my September 17, 2013 email stating that “the district does not have the staff to accommodate all requests and suggestions” in reference to my request to update the documents on the district website to include checks that were provided in later materials but not posted on the district website. My requests to publish documents onto the district website and keep them up to date is part of the district’s duty of keeping the public informed.

I ask that you please include this letter to the school board in the October 15th board meeting minutes so the public is aware that this request has been made of you and the school board.

I would also like to thank the school district for providing board meeting packets on the district website prior to board meetings over the past several months. This has been very helpful.

In the spirit of keeping the public fully informed and providing the community with the ability to ask questions and provide input to the school board prior to board member votes, all public materials that are made available to the school board prior to board meetings must be made available on the district website prior to the start of board meetings and workshops. This would include documents that are provided as Late Materials.

If the public has access to the wireless network in the Service Center, please publish directions on how to access the wireless network so documents that are available on the district website can be downloaded just prior to or during school board meetings.

As I stated in my September 17, 2013 email to the school board and also discussed with Ms. Debbie Davis at the September 2013 school board meeting, printing documents directly to PDF that will be published on the district website will save time as well as reduce the size of the documents significantly. It will also improve the readability of the documents. Documents with small fonts that are scanned at resolutions less then 200dpi are sometimes illegible. Ms. Davis recently emailed me a copy of the 2013-2014 school budget that was scanned as well as provided me a hard copy of the document at the September 2013 board meeting. The size of the document was over 10MB. Printing the budget directly to PDF will produce a much smaller document and will make it much more readable.

Please note that I also spoke with Mr. McCutchen about including a description field on the check registers as well as noting that in my previous email. Providing a description field should cut down on questions as to why individuals are being paid separate checks above beyond their normal salary. I also noted that printing checks directly to individuals for cash for change for the cafeterias and concessions stands should be avoided as it would be frowned upon by state auditors.

As board president, please ensure that by close of business on Friday October 11, 2013 that the following documents are published on the district website and made available to the community. 
  • Late Materials Packets that were not originally provided in the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. This would include checks that are missing from the currently published board meeting packets that are on the district website. There are numerous checks missing that were included in late packets for the 2012-2013 school year as well as the checks that were included in the late packet materials at the September 2013 board meeting.
  • Please publish the 2013-2013 as well as the 2012-2013 and 2011-2012 School District budgets on the district website.
  • Please, republish an updated copy of the Budget and Expense for all of the projects and expenses from the recent Bond Issue. The Bond Issue Budget was published just a couple of weeks prior to the bond issue election last year after I made a request to publish the documents on the district website. Within days of passing the bond issue, that document was removed. I emailed a request to have them republished on the district website shortly after they were removed but they were never republished. There are signs throughout the district touting the progress as promised at each of the schools. Providing the budget information for those projects on the district website will allow the community to see how their taxpayer dollars were spent.
  • Please begin publishing "draft" copies of board meetings on the district website by the close of business the week of a school board meeting.

Please ensure that the following documents are published on the district website by the close of business Friday October 25, 2013.
  • School Board Meeting Packets dating back to the 2008-2009 school year. These packets are missing from the district website and would match the current board meeting minutes that are currently listed on the district website. The new copiers and scanners should be able to quickly scan these to PDF if they have not already been scanned. The district has already provided me with board meeting packets dating back to April 2010. The district charged me to scan some of those packets and supply them via my Sunshine Law requests. The board meeting packets that are currently published on the district website include the yellow page notice for board member action. Those pages were missing from the documents that were previously supplied to me via Sunshine request. Please provide those pages when publishing the prior year board packets onto the district website.

Thank you,

Rich Simpson


================================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Date: October 14, 2013 7:40:44 AM CDT
To: "Cheryl Hermann", "Dan E. Smith", "Dan Kroupa", "David Palmer", "John Laughlin", "Linda S. Nash", "Steve Holloway", "'Davis, Debby - CO Secretary'"
Cc: "'Critchlow, Dr. Dianne'"
Subject: Request for Board Meeting Minutes Correction and Board Response

Dear Fox C-6 School Board,

Attached, please find the copy of the statement I read aloud at the September 17, 2013 School Board meeting during Public Comment.  Please review my statement as it contains a specific request I made to you regarding my parental rights under Section 504:

            “Therefore, I formally request that the District immediately issue a “Notice of 504 Action” to accurately reflect that the District now acknowledges this student is eligible under and protected by Section 504.  Please reflect my request to the Board in the minutes.”

As of today, I have not received the “Notice” from the Board nor from Mr. Baker.  I therefore renew my request for such “notice” as afforded to me under Section 504 and reflected in our school board policy #2110.  

Similarly, I also requested that the meeting minutes reflect my request to the School Board for “notice”.  The board packets that were posted online on Thursday (October 10, 2013) with the minutes of the September 17 board meeting do not reflect my request to you for “notice”.  Please revise the school board minutes to accurately reflect my request for “notice”.  If you refuse to do so, please provide me with the specific policy that is the basis for denying my request.

Lastly, as I provided a copy of the USDA letter to each individual School Board Member that letter should also be part of the board packets the same as any other letter received by the school board.  Since it was provided as part of a public school board meeting, please add that September 12, 2013 letter from David Youngblood, Civil Rights Director, USDA to the board packets as part of public record.

Thank you,

Rich Simpson


================================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Date: November 4, 2013 7:21:05 AM CST
To: "'Smith, Dan - Board Vice President'"
Cc: "Cheryl Hermann", "Dan Kroupa", "David Palmer", "John Laughlin", "Linda S. Nash", "Steve Holloway", "'Davis, Debby - CO Secretary'" , "'Critchlow, Dr. Dianne'"
Subject: Formal Request for Topics of Discussion at Fox C-6 Board Workshop or November School Board Meeting

Mr. Smith,

I would like to request for a topic of discussion at tomorrow’s board workshop or at the November school board meeting regarding several issues that have been ongoing for quite some time.
First, I would like the board to discuss with the public or respond to the issues that I brought up at the October board meeting regarding lack of response from our school board. I haven’t received a single email response from you. I did receive this message last night from you which may have been an automated reply. I received 2 more of the same messages last month. Perhaps you can explain what your responsibilities are as a school board president to the community. Perhaps, you can explain what Policy #0403 really means in terms of responding to the public.

I would also like the board to respond to my questions regarding the publishing of school district budgets as well as prior years of board meeting packets on the district website. It’s very important for the community that our school district and school board is transparent. Hiding information from the public does just doesn’t seem to be a good way of building trust within our community.
Hopefully this will give the school board an opportunity to provide the public with information as to how our school board and the school district wants to work with our community.
I’m looking forward to your response.

Thank you,
Rich Simpson

_____________________________________________
From: Smith, Dan - Board Vice President
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 9:07 PM
To:
 Rich Simpson

Subject: Not read: RE: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board
Your message was deleted without being read on Monday, November 04, 2013 3:07:19 AM UTC.


================================================================
From: "Critchlow, Dr. Dianne"
Date: November 7, 2013 10:58:02 AM CST
To: Rich Simpson
Cc: Administrators - CO
Subject: Second time I have responded!!!

Mr. Simpson,

Once again, here are the answers to all the questions you asked.  So I did answer you – please read below, obviously you had forgotten.  You were incorrect the other night when you stated that I did not answer you and everyone in the room knows that because they were all copied on this email back in September.

If you would like the budget, you can request a copy from our office.  They are not on the web site.

The bills will be presented as they have been since the new system has been in place.   

As responded to several times before, the district will not go back and put old board packets on the website.  The current packets are on there now and will continue to be, but we will not be posting all old packets as you requested.  You can obtained these from our office per a sunshine law request.

All responses have been handled.  If there is something that has not been then let me know. As I asked below and never heard from you so it is easy to assume that all questions were answered.

From this point on, you will receive a response from Mr. Arbeitman within a week after the board meeting if you make a public comment that warrants an answer to something.  

Many times you just attack and really do not ask questions, so expect no response to your attacks.  

As you have been invited numerous times to come to our office and speak to any of us at any time, the offer still stands.


================================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 6:28 AM
To: Critchlow, Dr. Dianne; Smith, Dan - Board President
Cc: Hermann, Cheryl - Director; Kroupa, Dan - Director; Palmer, David - Board Vice President; Laughlin, John - Director; Nash, Linda - Director; Holloway, Steve - Director; Davis, Debby - CO Secretary
Subject: RE: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board

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

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


Thank you,

Rich Simpson


================================================================
From: Critchlow, Dr. Dianne
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 8:00 AM
To: Rich Simpson; Administrators - CO; 'Cheryl Hermann'; Critchlow, Dr. Dianne; Dan Kroupa; Dan Smith; Davis, Debby - CO Secretary; Laughlin, John; Linda Nash; Dave Palmer; Steve Holloway
Subject: RE: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board

Mr. Simpson,

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

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

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

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

Dianne


================================================================
From: Rich Simpson
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:09 AM
To: Critchlow, Dr. Dianne; Administrators - CO; 'Cheryl Hermann'; 'Dan Kroupa'; 'Dan Smith'; Davis, Debby - CO Secretary; Laughlin, John; Linda Nash; Dave Palmer; Steve Holloway
Subject: RE: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board

I'm quite disappointed in the school board's decision to not have open discussions with the school community prior to school board meetings like they do in the Rockwood school district. I think it's very important that our school board has the opportunity to hear from more people in community. Cheryl Herman stated at the board workshop that she would like to hear from more people in the community. Reality is, that many people are too afraid to come and speak in front of the school board because they know that they will be attacked for doing so if they say something critical about the school district or our superintendent. That's just how things are done at this point in time. It serves as a reminder of the lack of respect that our school leadership has for the community and their concerns.

You really should hear what people are talking about in the community. What are their concerns? Well, a lot of what you might overhear is discussion about how high Superintendent Critchlow's salary is. The vast majority of the community was in shock when they found out how much she was making when it was published in the Leader newspaper article. The salary schedules for this year were never published in the board meeting packets. There was a salary schedule but it was filled with X’s rather than real numbers.

Many people ask me who sets her salary? They also ask me, what can we do about her salary because they feel it is way too much? I tell them that they need to contact their school board. The school board sets her salary. I tell them to go to school board meetings and call or email our school board members. I also tell them that I email the school board somewhat often but I never get a response. Well, with the exception of Cheryl Herman who finally answered after I had to ask if ANYONE could reply to my email so I even knew if they were receiving them.

I've also had a lot of people approach me at school functions and in the community over the last several weeks and applaud me for my comments in my letters to the editor in the Leader newspaper. This is in stark contrast to what Dianne stated at the board workshop when she said that she is having to field phone calls from people that are upset because people are attacking the district in the newspaper. I did write another letter to the editor about Project Lead the Way, Khan Academy and TED Talks in hopes of providing educational information to the community but it never got published. That’s quite a shame that something helpful for the community gets filtered like that by the newspaper.

Everyone has their own opinion on how things are going in our school district. Apparently, we have a difference of opinion. I do a lot of research looking to see how other school districts operate to find ways of improving things here at Fox. But, my findings are usually taken as an attack by Superintendent Critchlow. She's told me in the past that I'm always comparing Fox to other districts. Well, she does the same thing. She just doesn't provide all of the information to do a complete and thorough apples to apples comparison. She only provides the facts that she wants the board to see to make herself look good. So, we may differ in that area as well. That’s why she never mentions the fact in her presentation that only 56% of Fox graduates take the ACT compared to the state average of 75% and Rockwood and Parkway that has 96%. That information is never shown in her annual presentation. Many people are also shocked to learn that the percentage of students taking the ACT is so low. In fact Fox is almost in the bottom 25% of state in this category. Every child should be given the opportunity to take the ACT like they do at Parkway and Rockwood.

I did want to mention that I had concerns about the fact that the school board tabled the topic about discussing board meetings at the recent board workshop and took it into Closed Session at the suggestion of the district attorney. This was done after Dan Smith suggested to the board that maybe they could provide feedback to the public at the next school board meeting from questions at the last school board meeting. Mr. Smith said this shortly after Dianne had just finished telling the board that she has provided feedback to everyone that's ever spoken at a school board meeting within a week which is what school board policy dictates. However, everyone on the school board should know that her statement wasn't true. I've sent the board numerous emails asking for answers from questions posed at school board meetings and in emails over the past several years with no response from the board. Dianne did say that she may have fail to always tell you when she has responds but that's because many times she simply didn't respond. I’m still working on gathering all of the questions that I have posed in emails and at board meetings over the last several years that have that have gone unanswered.

I’m really concerned with the fact that the board tabled the open meeting agenda item covering Board Meetings at the November 5th board workshop and took it into Closed Session. In doing so, the district violated Missouri Sunshine Law.


Thank you for reading.

Rich Simpson


================================================================
From: "Critchlow, Dr. Dianne"
Date: November 19, 2013 7:44:56 AM CST
To: Rich Simpson, Administrators - CO, 'Cheryl Hermann', 'Dan Kroupa', 'Dan Smith', 'Davis, Debby - CO Secretary', 'Laughlin, John', 'Linda Nash', 'Dave Palmer', 'Steve Holloway'
Subject: RE: Questions for the Fox C-6 School Board

Mr. Simpson,

Good morning! Once again you and I will agree to disagree. I am certain your probably have some good ideas about educating our students.  However, it seems to get lost because you personally would rather attack me.  However, I do not take it personally.

Project Lead the way is a goal of the districts and is currently being researched in depth by our career readiness director. We would love for you to come in and discuss this issue.  In addition, come in and talk to Dr. Rizzi about your thoughts on ACT. He will provide you with accurate data on the ACT and the Fox school district.

Many times I have invited you to come in and speak to me or my assistants.  You never take us up on our offer.  Obviously, I am not the person you wish to address so meet with any of my assistants. The offer still stands.

I think everyone would benefit if all energies are focused on doing “what’s best for kids.” Personal attacks benefit no one.

Lastly, every district has room for improvement but the data does not lie.  We have not received Missouri’s highest honor “ Distinction in Performance” every year it has been given because “ She only provides the facts that she wants the board to see to make herself look good.”  Our teachers and staff work very hard to achieve these great results and simply do not deserve this attack. The data speaks for itself.

Consider this a response! Also,  consider this my last response to you. I will no longer communicate when you personally attack. I also feel that my stepping aside will possibly open the lines of communication with this office.

Again, if you would like to focus your energies in a productive way on benefiting our students or district, we would welcome your insight.  Anyone in this office would meet with you at any point.

As I stated in my last email.  Mr. Arbeitman will contact you with your responses to public comments after meeting if it warrants a response.  Personal attacks will not be responded to. He will only respond to direct questions. 

Have a great day!

Dianne