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.

Dear Colleague Letter On Retaliation Law To School Districts From ED OCR

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

On Friday November 15, 2013, I emailed Superintendent Dianne Critchlow and Fox C-6 school board to ask if the school board was still planning on hosting the open discussion session with the public prior to the November 19, 2013 board meeting like they do in the Rockwood school district.

I sent my email as a reply to Superintendent Critchlow's October 4, 2013 email in which she told me that the Fox C-6 school board would begin hosting listening sessions beginning in November before each board meeting (see email below).

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

I sent my November 15th email to the board after reading the November 5th board workshop / meeting minutes that were included on page 38 of the November 19th board meeting packet. The board meeting packet was posted on the district's website on Tuesday November 12th. From the workshop minutes, it appeared as if the district was no longer planning on hosting listening sessions with the community. 

So, I sent the following email to the Fox C-6 school board and Superintendent Critchlow on Friday November 15th:

Does the school board still plan on hosting a listening session at the November 19^th 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

Here is the response I received within a couple of hours from Superintendent Critchlow regarding the school district's decision on hosting public discussions with the school board:

Mr. Simpson, 

I believe that you were at the workshop on Tuesday, Nov. 5^th 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

So, the Fox C-6 school board is now unwilling to provide the same type of open communication with the public as they are now providing the public in the Rockwood school district.

The Fox C-6 community should be extremely concerned with the fact that our school board doesn't respond to emails and that they don't respond to Public Comments at board meetings contrary to what Superintendent Critchlow stated at the board workshop. The public is currently allowed 3 minutes to speak to the board at a school board meeting. Superintendent Critchlow told the board at the November 5th workshop that "every single person that's made a comment has received feedback" is NOT a true statement.

Furthermore, the community should be even more concerned with the fact that our school board violated Missouri Sunshine Law by taking the public discussion about Board Meetings into Closed Session at the November 5th board workshop at the suggestion of school district attorney Ernie Trakas as documented by Superintendent Critchlow's email to me on November 15th. Mr. Trakas did so after board president Dan Smith suggested that maybe the school board could respond to the public at the next school board meeting. Mr. Smith made this suggestion shortly after Superintendent Critchlow had just finished telling the school board that she has always provided feedback to every single person who has made Public Comments within a week as documented in our board policies. Mr. Smith's statements were a direct contradiction of what Superintendent Critchlow just stated otherwise there would be no reason to respond to the public at the next meeting.

The two newest board members may not know that Superintendent Critchlow's statement wasn't true regarding always responding to the public within a week. However, the other board members know that it's not true as they've received numerous emails from me over the past several years requesting responses from them after I've spoken at school board meetings. I never received a response from them. Even recently, I had to send another email asking that if Mr. Smith would not respond to my emails if another board member could and Cheryl Herman responded to let me know she received it. Mr. Smith has never replied to my emails.

I have emailed the board sometimes weeks and months after asking questions of the board and still no one on the board responded. Occasionally, Superintendent Critchlow would respond to some of the questions. However, she was very selective on what she responded to. The questions that I asked were directed to our school board and not our superintendent. The school board is elected to represent the public, not the superintendent.

This is the very reason that it is time for our community to speak up and start asking our school board questions and demand that they start looking for a new superintendent who can tell the truth and is willing to be transparent and open with the community. Right now Superintendent Critchlow is running our school district and our school board. The school board is supposed to hold our superintendent accountable for her actions and they are not doing their job.

I certainly hope that everyone in our community contacts our school board members and asks them why they violated Missouri Sunshine Law and why they are unwilling as a whole to host open discussions with the community.

Mr. John Laughlin, Mr. Steve Holloway and Ms. Cheryl Herman appear to be willing to speak with the community openly after listening to them speak at the November 5th board workshop. However, I don't believe that Mr. Dave Palmer, Mr. Dan Smith, Ms. Linda Nash or Mr. Dan Kroupa share the same sentiment based upon their comments at the workshop.

Below is an excerpt of the transcript from my audio recording of the November 5th workshop from when Mr. Dave Palmer spoke at the board workshop. These were his comments right after school district attorney Ernie Trakas told the board that he felt that community listening times were a bad idea.

Dave Palmer - Board Vice President
"I can tell you going to the MSBA meeting. They uh, when we were up there and we were doing the votes. They only allow 3 minutes. That's what they uh, recommend. They don't. They don't change it. Uh, I can tell you that there was plenty of times when the people that were trying to articulate their thoughts across appropriately stated and it worked. Uh, I agree with Ernie. I just think for (inaudible) purposes, it's not to the board's and the school district's benefit. If somebody wants to talk to you, let them talk to you. But, even then you need to be careful, I believe what you're talking about because you never know what subject you're broaching and I'm not sayin people will do this but there's always gonna be somebody out there that might possibly be upset enough to take somebody personally to court over something they stated. 

Uh. And I don't think, you, or me, or us as a board should put the district in that position. That's just my candid thoughts. It's not that I don't want to hear people. I'll listen to em. I'm probably not going to respond to em. I'm thinking about what they say. But I'm not gonna to take the chance on them saying "He said this" and it gettin twisted. I'm not doin it. I grew up with a brother that's a judge. I'm not doin it."

(laughter) 

Dan Smith - Board President"OK. So, I would take it, uh, Dave, uh, that you were leaning towards not doing this at this time."

Dave Palmer - Board Vice President 

"Yeah I mean, I just. If they want to talk to me personally, I'll listen to em. I think we should. I think we owe that to them. I'm just sayin if you listen to somebody be careful what you say to em. How you respond. I pretty much when I listen to somebody on certain subjects, I'm pretty much closed lip. Not because I'm afraid, cause I don't want anything to get misconstrued, even accidentally. Not that somebody's going to do it on purpose. Maybe I misstated. You know misstate something that I've, it's possible, you know. If I'm not answerin, I didn't say it. You know and then I can take everything they said; all the information I can get from you guys and administration and I can come to a better decision at that point."

Did Fox C-6 Violate Sunshine Law at Board Workshop?

The Fox C-6 school board held a board workshop on Tuesday November 5, 2013. There were only 3 people in attendance at the meeting besides the board members and school administrators. It was an interesting meeting as Superintendent Critchlow used the opportunity to "go on record" stating all of the things that she says she does that she doesn't really do with regards to responding to people that speak during Public Comments. I should know as I've spoken at several board meetings over the past 3 years and it has been extremely rare that I have received feedback and that feedback was not from the board.

Why won't the school board respond to questions that can only be answered by the board?

Below is one of the statements Superintendent Critchlow made at the board workshop which simply isn't true with regards to her stating that she has gotten back to "every single person that's made a comment has received feedback". Maybe she considers a glaring look "feedback".

Numerous times over the past 3 years I had to email the board weeks after speaking at board meetings asking for a response from the board. My emails quoted board Policy #0403 which states that the board will respond to all public comments within a week. On occasion I received an email response from Superintendent Critchlow with a reply to some of my questions while other questions were simply ignored. The short of it being that her statement below about getting back to every single person is False. However, her statement that she probably failed to tell the board is True. Cheryl Herman spoke about not knowing if the district ever responded to people during the workshop.

Listen to Superintendent Critchlow's Comments
on Public Comment

"I can go on record saying that every single person that's made a comment has received feedback. It may not always be the feedback they want to hear. ... But, never is there a public comment, unless they're really just not asking anything and just stating a comment. But, if they ever want answers, they get them! We have a policy that says we'll get back to them within a week. The only thing that we probably fail to do all the time is to tell you."

The most important thing you need to know right now about the board workshop meeting is that in my opinion, our school board violated Missouri Sunshine Law by taking an open meeting agenda item discussion on "Board Meetings" into closed session.

School district attorney Ernie Trakas was one of the 3 people in attendance at the meeting. Early in the meeting he spoke to the board about why they shouldn't have open discussion sessions with the public prior to board meetings like I suggested they do a couple of months ago. They do this now at Rockwood. You can hear Superintendent Critchlow mention that I suggested this idea to the board in the audio below.

Mr. Trakas's main concern on that topic was that there would be no contemporaneous record of the open discussion and that "it could lead to very interesting publicity". There would be a "contemporaneous record" if our school board meetings were video or audio recorded. This is why I record all meetings that I attend so there is an accurate record of what was said at the meeting since Mr. Trakas alluded to the problem of accuracy. This is why Fox should record all meetings like they do in other districts and Fox used to do in the past. I believe meetings aren't recorded anymore to allow our administrators the freedom to deny what was said in the board meeting as Superintendent Critchlow did in March 2012 about posting the board policies on the district website. Once I emailed her what she said at the meeting, she posted the updated board policies on the district website as she said she would at the board meeting.

So, did Mr. Trakas help our school board violate Missouri Sunshine Law?

He told Superintendent Critchlow and the board that "If we're going to discuss this, it needs to be discussed in Closed Session." after Superintendent Critchlow asked Mr. Trakas to respond to board president Dan Smith's idea about responding to the public at the next board meeting with answers from questions from the previous board meeting. NOTE: The board doesn't respond to Public Comments at board meetings.

Dan Smith tossed out this idea right after Superintendent Critchlow had just finished telling the board and those in attendance, that she's always responded to all public comments with feedback. She said that maybe the public just didn't like the feedback that they were given as to why the public asked the questions again and again. Critchlow even mentioned the board Policy 0403 that I have quoted many times in my emails to the board asking for answers weeks after making public comments. Board Policy 0403 states that the board will respond to all public comments within a week. That doesn't happen. I've brought this to their attention many times because I've never received a response from the board. I've only received responses from Superintendent Critchlow or one of the other administrators even though my questions were directed to the board.

Below is the audio recording and transcription from my audio recording of the November 5th board workshop when district attorney Ernie Trakas tells Superintendent Critchlow and the board that if they are going to discuss responding to the public at a board meeting that they need to discuss that in Closed Session.

According to Missouri Sunshine Law, Closed Meetings are only used to discuss issues such as Litigation, Personnel matters and Real Estate transactions. According to Missouri Sunshine law Section 610.022.3 requires that the meeting be closed only to the extent necessary to discuss the specific announced exception. No other business should be discussed during the closed meeting. The discussion of board meetings which includes the topic of responding to the public was listed under the board workshop agenda as part of the Open Meeting.

The only items listed on the board workshop agenda for Closed Sessions were 610.021.1 Litigation, 610.021.3 Personnel, 610.021.9 Negotiations and 610.021.13 Personnel Records. Therefore, I believe that Fox violated Missouri Sunshine Law by taking what was being discussed in the public into Closed Session.

Public Discussion Taken To Closed Session

Here is a transcribed portion of the audio leading up to board president Dan Smith adjourning the meeting to closed session after he suggested giving responses to the public at the next board meeting:

Listen to the Audio Recording of this Discussion

Board President Dan Smith 

"Here's an idea, I'm just gonna throw this out. What if at the next board meeting we give a response after one of the administrators has had some time to research the question, gotten the information, gotten the answers maybe it's been run through, then we can give the public some answers."

Superintendent Critchlow 

"From the previous one?"

Board President Dan Smith 

"From the previous meeting."

Superintendent Critchlow 

"Oh! (surprised response followed by a long pause) Ernie?" (nervous laughter)

Ernie Trakas (School district attorney)

"You're now, um, in my opinion anyway, if we're going to discuss this, it needs to be discussed in Closed Session."

Board President Dan Smith 

"Alright. Alright. Then I make a motion to adjourn."

At this point the board adjourned to Closed Session after Mr. Smith was told by the board secretary to read the agenda items for Closed Session. Discussing board meetings was not on the list of items to be discussed in Closed Session.

So, what reason did the attorney have for taking the Open Meeting discussion about Board Meetings into closed session?

It seems very clear from Mr. Trakas's statement, that he felt that the topic that Mr. Smith just brought up, needed "to be discussed in Closed Session" and that would violate Missouri Sunshine Law. The district attorney was responding to Superintendent Critchlow's request for counsel on Mr. Smith's statement on responding to the public at the next board meeting.

At the beginning of the board workshop, the district attorney expressed his concerns to the board about having open discussions with the public prior to board meetings. I want to commend board members Steve Holloway, John Laughlin and Cheryl Herman who all expressed their desire for wanting to speak and meet with the public prior to board meetings which I will cover in more detail in another article. It's important for the public to know what the school district attorney's opinion is on having listening sessions for the public with the board.

Early in the meeting, board president Dan Smith asked the Fox C-6 legal counsel Ernie Trakas for his input about the open session discussions prior to board meetings. Here is what Mr. Trakas had to say on that subject.

Listen to Ernie Trakas Speak About Open Discussions

"And I'm going to speak candidly. That is what I would hope you expect. In my opinion, there's no upside to this. For perhaps 3 or 4 reasons. 

One. 

Your policy already provides an ample and sufficiently comprehensive and coordinated method for Public Comment. 

Two. 

This board listening period, inevitably is going to be monopolized by a handful of people, almost every time. So that means that your goal, which is admirable, will never be accomplished. One, two, three people will constantly buttonhole board members and will turn it into what I believe ultimately will be a gripe session. 

Most important! 

Third and most important to me, the absence of a contemporaneous record poses significant problems. Not so much what you relate but what the person you spoke with relates to others in the media what you said. I guarantee you as I'm standing here tonight. It will never be accurate. So, for those reasons, I just don't see an upside to it. Um. Whatever another school district may do, good for them. But, um, for my money, the downside risk far outweighs any upside gain. 

Look, if nothing else, it's certainly going to um, it certainly has the potential for interesting publicity. Um. If not flat out inaccurate because there's an absence of a contemporaneous record. There's also no opportunity for you as a board member for any type of input from the administration for background or other information that may be important for you to understand what it is this person's talking about. So for all those reasons I just don't see it as a good idea."