Why Doesn't Fox C-6 Want YOU To Record Your Phone Calls with the District?

Never mind that some Fox C-6 administrators have recorded phone calls without informing the other party. The District just doesn't want YOU recording your phone calls with the district.

So for some Fox C-6 administrators, it's do as I say, not as I do!

According to school district policy, the district also doesn't want YOU recording IEP or Section 504 meetings concerning your own children. Why is that?

Well, the following conversation between an advocacy group and Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker and one of the school district's attorneys will provide you with some of the reasons why the school district doesn't want YOU to record phone calls with the district or IEP or Section 504 meetings for that matter.

I asked the advocacy group that recorded the start of their call if I could publish their audio recording because I thought it was important for the public to hear. They gave me their permission in hopes that it would help educate the public and the Fox C-6 community as to how our district conducts business.

Listen to Why Fox C-6 Doesn't Want You to Record Phone Calls

(2 min 12 seconds)

So, did you know that "Tape recordings are notoriously unreliable."?

Did you also know that "There's no law that would give you the right to tape record."?

That's why YOU shouldn't be recording meetings and phone calls. Again, never mind if some district administrators record their phone calls.

As a parent, why would you want to record your phone calls or meetings with the district?

You're probably aware of all of the laws and policies regarding IDEA or Section 504 that apply to your child. If you don't know, the school district and/or one of their attorneys will provide you with that information during your meeting or phone call. You'll have no problem remembering all of them after your call. Right?

Should you need to review what was said during your meeting?

Perhaps you might want to look up some of the jargon and laws discussed during your meeting. Or, you might want to verify the district's documentation of what they say occurred during your IEP or Section 504 meeting or phone conversation just to make sure that it accurately reflects what was said and agreed upon at the meeting. Without an audio recording, you can't do that. It will then be your word, against the district's word.

Who do you think our school board will agree with if you take your matter to the school board?

That's why I always recommend recording school board meetings, phone calls and Section 504 meetings before the district changes their policy for Section 504 meetings.


Why Audio Recording School Board Meetings Is Important
For a good example of how well the district documents meetings, just read Fox's school board meeting minutes for Public Comments. Public Comments are documented by the school board secretary who just happens to be Superintendent Critchlow's secretary/administrative assistant as well.

School board meeting minutes of Public Comments don't have any real detail in them unless they are from someone praising the district. Otherwise, the minutes are documented something like the following, "Concerns within the district." or "commented on board meeting minutes" or "commented on school calendar", etc.

Apparently, the public doesn't need the details of what was said. They just need to know who said it and that something was said. According to a September 17, 2013 email from Dianne Critchlow responding to my comments and questions email to the school board, she stated that:

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

Critchlow's response above easily explains why board meetings are documented as they are. Since Debby Davis, the school board secretary, is also Dianne Critchlow's administrative assistant, it makes it very convenient to filter out what the "board secretary" saw during the meeting. And, since the district hasn't been audio or video recording school board meetings, it's very easy to document the meeting as desired with no proof of what actually occurred during the meeting other than, "an account of the meeting through the board secretaries eyes".

It's too bad that Fox's school board meetings aren't audio or video recorded like they do in other school districts. I've been requesting that Fox audio record school board meetings for years. Fox used to audio record board meetings. They just don't do it anymore. Just like the district doesn't provide payment descriptions anymore in their bill payments like they used to do.

In that same email September 17, 2013, Critchlow explained the following history of audio recording Fox C-6 school board meetings. First, it should be noted that Dianne Brown (Critchlow) took over as superintendent of the Fox C-6 School District on July 1, 2005.  The last time that a Fox C-6 board meeting was recorded was June 2005 as noted in her September 17, 2013 email:

"The board meetings were recorded in 1996. Then it stopped, reason unknown. It began again in 2001. The last recording 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."

The reason that the audio recordings began again in 2001 was because my father was on the school board and he made sure the board meetings were audio recorded like he did when he was assistant superintendent for the district. My father said that he recorded the board meetings because if there was any question as to what occurred at the meeting, they could pull out the audio recording and confirm what was discussed. He said that they kept the audio recordings of board meetings for one year. My father served on the board for only one year replacing Ron Clark from April 2001 until April 2002.

So, is it just a coincidence that the recording of school board meetings stopped when Dianne Brown (Critchlow) became superintendent of Fox C-6?

Or, did Critchlow simply forget to record the board meetings for the next 9 years?

Or, did the school board forget to remind Critchlow to record them?

By not audio recording board meetings, Critchlow was able to document board meeting minutes as desired with nothing to verify what was discussed other than what the board secretary noted during the meeting. Note that the school board secretary was also Critchlow's administrative assistant.

Board meeting minutes were intentionally left vague. I asked to have them updated several times to included more details but was rebuffed by Critchlow. It was quite obvious that the community was being kept in the dark and had no way of knowing what was brought to the attention of the school board during Public Comments. Thus, making it very easy to hide citizens concerns from the community.

You would think that with the $22 Million Dollar that the district received from the passage of the No Tax Increase Bond Issue in 2012, that the district would be able to afford a few thousand dollars to install what was needed to audio or video record school board meetings. The City of Arnold and the Jefferson County council does it as a service to the public.

I can assure you that Critchlow was not clambering to audio or video record board meetings. I used my audio recordings of board meetings to contradict Critchlow's email responses of what she said occurred at the board meetings. That's why there has been so much resistance to recording the meetings.


Back to Recording Phone Calls
Getting back to what the district attorney had to say about recording the phone call. The district attorney gave several reasons why she didn't want the advocacy group to record their phone call. Some of her reasons seemed rather odd given the fact that Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker recorded a phone call and submitted it as an exhibit during our Due Process Hearing with the district.

This was the same attorney that told the advocacy group that, "There's no law that would give you the right to tape record." So, how could Mr. Baker record a phone call if the attorney said, "There's no law that would give you the right to tape record."? It's all a bit confusing isn't it?

The advocacy group that provided me the recording had contacted me prior to their conference call with the district, that had occurred several years ago to see if I had any pointers for them knowing that I had been dealing with the district for a few years. My recommendation to them was to record their phone call because what the district documents won't necessarily match what was discussed during their call. I told them that Missouri is a "One Party Consent" state and that they DID NOT have to inform the district that they were recording the call because they were a party to the conversation. Mr. Baker didn't inform the caller when he record his call.

The Phone Call

If you listened to the call above, you hear the advocacy group tell the district that they may want to record the teleconference if it was alright with everyone. That's when the attorney said, "No it is not." The attorney then asked Mr. Baker if the district's policies prohibit or allow such recordings. After the attorney gave several reasons as to why she didn't want them recording, she said, "There's no law that would give you the right to tape record." That's when the advocacy group stopped their recording.

To listen to the recording click on the link below:

Listen to Why Fox C-6 Doesn't Want You to Record Phone Calls

(2 min 12 seconds)

How are "Tape recordings notoriously unreliable"?

Reporters use tape or digital recordings all the time to get statements from politicians and witnesses and when conducting interviews. Perhaps the attorney meant that "tape recordings" are unreliable because the tape could reach the end and stop while in the middle of a recording. I'm not sure. Certainly stopping in the middle of a recording would make them unreliable. But how many people use actual "tape" recorders today?

I don't believe that the district's attorney was trying to give any real reasons as to why tape recordings are unreliable. I believe she was just throwing out reasons hoping that one of them would stick and keep them from recording the phone call. From the pause in the conversation, it seems that when the attorney told them that, "There's no law that would give you the right to tape record." that they decided that they better not record because it may be against the law.

I'm not sure what kind of recording device Mr. Baker used when he recorded his phone call. But, Mr. Baker and the district's attorney found his recording reliable enough to submit it as an exhibit in our Due Process Hearing. But, wait, if "There's no law that would give you the right to tape record.", why would Mr. Baker do something that he wasn't allowed to do?

Why would the same attorney be OK with Mr. Baker doing something that she told the advocacy group that, "There's no law that would give you the right to tape record."?

Perhaps at Fox, it's do as I say not as I do!

By telling people that they can't record, it makes it easier for the district to keep anyone from being able to refute the district's documentation or question them on what was discussed or agreed upon during a phone call or a meeting. You never know when something might be said about a law, regulation or policy that might not be completely accurate.

Just so you know, Missouri is what is known as a "One Party Consent" state when it comes comes to recording telephone conversations. You can read more about Missouri's Recording Law here: (http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/missouri-recording-law).

According to Missouri law, Mr. Baker did not have to inform the other party that he was recording their phone conversation because he was a party to the call. Therefore, Mr. Baker didn't break any laws by not informing them that he was recording their call. It makes you question the ethics of some of our school district leaders when you hear about things like this. happening

District leadership is always reminding everyone, everywhere, that Fox is a National District of Character.

Is this leadership by example?

Why Does Fox C-6 Have a School Board?

Why do we elect school board members to watch over our school district and maintain the public trust if our Superintendent is going to undermine that public trust?

Is Superintendent Critchlow supposed to respond to the community or is the school board supposed to respond to the community?

I think it says a lot to the Fox C-6 community when Superintendent Critchlow informs you via an email from her Assistant Superintendent that the school district / school board won't respond to your questions posed during Public Comments anymore with anything other than a "thank you" unless you speak to a district employee first.

Below is a portion of the email that Mr. Arbeitman sent me the day after I spoke at the February 2014 board meeting. Mr. Arbeitman's email was only sent to me and copied to Superintendent Critchlow and board secretary Debby Davis (Critchlow's administrative assistant). None of the board members were included in the email unless they were blind copied even though Mr. Arbeitman appears to be speaking for the board.

In order to better meet your needs, thoughts, and questions, we would like to be more proactive with your monthly public comments rather than reactive. That said, I am requesting that if you know what your questions, opinions, thoughts, or desires are prior to our board meetings, that you to please call me in advance so that we can better serve you and your comments. This will in no way stop you or prevent you from making monthly public comments, but rather it will allow more validity and affirmation for our board of education that you are following the proper chain of command as per board policy. If you choose not to contact me in advance, all further responses from your public comments will be a “thank you” response and that we look forward to responding to you in the future when you are willing to communicate with district employees first. At this time, your request for more detailed credit card bill descriptions, the district budget posted online, and more detailed descriptions of monthly payments are being requested from only one individual and we can make those available to you upon request. The board appreciates your comments and they will continue to be taken under consideration.

So, it appears from Mr. Arbeitman's email that I am being treated differently than other people who come and speak at school board meetings and have their questions answered without first having to speak with Mr. Arbeitman. School board policy DOES NOT state that a person has to contact a district employee prior to making a Public Comment in order to get a response. If it is a student matter at a building, then a person is asked to go through the chain of command from the teacher to the principal to the Superintendent before speaking to the board. However, my questions can only be answered by the school board. I cannot be required to call Mr. Arbeitman in order to ask the school board a question. The school district doesn't want me asking the board questions that they should be asking the district.

Perhaps the board is asking questions about Bill Payments. If they are, they aren't asking these questions during the public portion of our board meetings. I've been to the board meetings. The board simply approves the payments and abstains when needed.

From the public's perspective during the open session, it doesn't appear that the board is asking any questions about bill payments. They shouldn't be discussing bill payments during Closed Session. Bill payments is not a matter for Closed Sessions. It is a public matter.

Apparently asking our elected school board members at a school board meeting as to how they are able to approve bill payments without knowing what the payments are for doesn't sit well with Superintendent Critchlow. At the February 18, 2014 school board meeting I asked the board how can they approve bill payments when they aren't provided descriptions for those payments in their board packets?

Descriptions for bill payments used to be provided to board members each month in their board packets prior to the district switching to the new school software this year. During my Public Comment, I also asked our board members how they have been able to approve paying nearly $2 Million dollars in credit card bills so far this year when they aren't provided the credit card statements to document where the money was spent? If they knew, they didn't answer my question. I waited for a response. All they said was "thank you". (See below as to how much money was paid to Credit Card companies in January and February 2014.)

Should the community expect our school board to follow district policy under the Code of Ethics section which states, "As a member of the school Board, I shall: Insist that school funds be spent prudently and effectively to provide maximum educational benefits."?

How can school board members insist that school funds are being spent prudently and effectively if they don't know what our tax dollars are being spent on?

Perhaps the community needs to request a state audit of the school district.

Paying out nearly $2 Million dollars in credit card bills without oversight by our school board should raise some "red flags" for the community or any auditor for that matter. It's an easy way for someone to abuse taxpayer dollars when there's very little oversight.

What's the purpose of having a school board if only the superintendent's office is going to respond to Public Comment? It defeats the purpose of having a school board and violates school board policy which states that As a member of the school Board, I shall: Maintain the public trust through full and open communication. Is only receiving responses from our Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent on board matters "full and open communication"?

The response from the school district regarding my Public Comments reads almost like a Cease and Desist letter. Perhaps Superintendent Critchlow doesn't want the public to know how their tax dollars are being spent.

According to the district's response letter, only one person in the district is concerned about having descriptions on bill payments or having credit card statements to document the nearly $2 Million dollars the district has spent so far this year on credit cards. Since no one else is concerned, there's no reason to provide the information to the public like they do in other school districts. The district says they will provide me the information upon request. We will have to see if the district is going to charge me to obtain that information when it is requested as a further deterrent to making the information available to the public.

Would you be concerned if you saw a bill payment to THE BRIDAL SHOPPE for $24,723 from your school district?

Apparently Superintendent Critchlow looked up the check in question after reading my Twitter post last week about the check to The Bridal Shoppe. She told me at the school board meeting that the check to The Bridal Shoppe was for choir robes. I told her that if there had been descriptions on the bill payments, then the check might not have been questioned. She told me that I could call the district anytime if I have a question about a payment. She also informed me at the board meeting that the check to her husband that I mentioned on Twitter was for Professional Development.

Perhaps school board members are calling the school each month asking them what each of the questionable payments are for since they don't have any description or account codes to explain what the payments are for in the board packets (see below). It seems like the district is making it more difficult for our school board to do their job by not providing the descriptions with the bill payments like they used to do in the past.

So you can see how the district is handling things, I've included the email that I received from Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitman the day after I spoke at the school board meeting below. Below the district's response, I've posted some sample check payments with amounts from the board meeting packets. Below the check payments, I have listed some of the items from our school board policies Code of Ethics that our board members are supposed to follow.

February 19, 2014 response email from Assistant Superintendent Andy Arbeitmen to my Public Comments at the February 18, 2014 board meeting:

Thank you again for your time and public comments at our board meeting last night. With regard to your requests to;

-include more information in our board packets online
-more detailed credit card bills
-the district budget online
-more descriptions of payments
-the statement according to your calculations the district has approximately $2,000,000 in credit card bills to date

The district actually has $1,993,799 in credit card bills to date and a lot of schools utilize credit cards/purchasing cards to pay bills for added cash back rebates. This allows for more value of the school district dollar. Most of the credit card bills during the current year are electric bills district-wide, monthly copier costs, and as much of our office/teacher types of supplies when the credit card was still allowed for those types of charges. We have received approximately $35,000 in rebates to date.

In order to better meet your needs, thoughts, and questions, we would like to be more proactive with your monthly public comments rather than reactive. That said, I am requesting that if you know what your questions, opinions, thoughts, or desires are prior to our board meetings, that you to please call me in advance so that we can better serve you and your comments. This will in no way stop you or prevent you from making monthly public comments, but rather it will allow more validity and affirmation for our board of education that you are following the proper chain of command as per board policy. If you choose not to contact me in advance, all further responses from your public comments will be a “thank you” response and that we look forward to responding to you in the future when you are willing to communicate with district employees first. At this time, your request for more detailed credit card bill descriptions, the district budget posted online, and more detailed descriptions of monthly payments are being requested from only one individual and we can make those available to you upon request. The board appreciates your comments and they will continue to be taken under consideration.

Finally, you added a comment about administrative salaries that was not on your public comment request sheet. I will be happy to look into this for you upon receiving a return phone call. My number is listed below. I look forward to your call.

Andy Arbeitman
Assistant Superintendent of Instruction

Sample Payments from Check Register
Below are some sample entries from the Check Register listings found in the January and February 2014 school board meeting packets from the district website that the board approved payments for. As you can see the Transaction Description only lists the PAYEE Name. It does not provide any type of description as to what the payment is for. The Check # and Check Date have been left off this list for readability. You can download the board meeting packets from the district website that contain these checks by clicking on the link below. The February 18th board packet was updated on February 20th to include another $1,747,606.45 in payments that was included in the board members late packet just prior to the board meeting for approval.

2013-2014 Board Meeting Packets

• CARD SERVICES - $85,252.99
• CARD SERVICES - $81,808.52
• CARD SERVICES - $74,379.38
• SAMS CLUB DISCOVER - $26,998.43
• SAMS CLUB DISCOVER - $30,099.44
• SAMS CLUB DISCOVER - $26,072.46
• AMERICAN EXPRESS - $52,543.60
• AMERICAN EXPRESS - $12,127.42
• AMERICAN EXPRESS - $22,141.69
• THE BRIDAL SHOPPE - $24,734.00
• THE ELECTION AUTHORITY FUND - $78,555.00
• MICKES GOLDMAN O'TOOLE, LLC - $4,802.00
• MICKES GOLDMAN O'TOOLE, LLC - $3,494.50
• MICKES GOLDMAN O'TOOLE, LLC - $7,953.50
• PUBLIC SCHOOL RETIREMENT - $1,434,314.66
• PUBLIC SCHOOL RETIREMENT - $1,441,290.46
• LINDBERGH SCHOOL DISTRICT - $14,250.00
• TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC - $22,465.00
• TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC - $134,151.17
• Critchlow, Dianne P. - $50.06
• DUNCAN BRAD - $2,485.00
• DUNCAN BRAD - $2,720.00
• CC DILLON COMPANY - $33,203.29
• K & K CAR REPAIR - $50,425.31
• EXQUISITE CATERING - $3,977.50
• DETOUR GRILL & BAR - $2,456.55
• VIG SOLUTIONS - $82,560
• JEFFCO TRAVEL SERVICES - $31,970.00
• PONDEROSA STEAKHOUSE - $239.70
• AMEREN UE - $140,855.64
• SOUTHWEST AIRLINES - $9,562.80

School Board Code of Ethics

Below are a few of the important points from the School Board's Code of Ethics (Policy 0333 in the current version or Policy 0340 in the updated version) that are in Fox's school district policies.

As a member of the school Board, I shall:

• Endeavor to understand the present and future educational needs of the community.
• Maintain the public trust through full and open communication.
• Insist that school funds be spent prudently and effectively to provide maximum educational benefits.
• Recognize that the public schools are agencies of the state for betterment of the entire community.
• Encourage citizens to participate through channels in shaping the purposes and policies of the local school system.
• Accept my policy-making responsibilities and require the Superintendent to administer the school in accordance with those policies.
• Delegate to the Superintendent of schools and other school employees authority in keeping with their responsibilities.
• Demand that the schools be operated by the best trained technical and professional personnel it is possible to procure.
• Employ only such qualified employees as are properly recommended by the Superintendent of schools.
• Insist that the Superintendent be responsible for keeping the Board properly informed on school matters at all times.
• Make my decisions only after judicious consideration of the evidence and viewpoints of competent and/or interested individuals.

How closely are our school board members following the Code of Ethics?

A Little Digital Archaeology Documents Fox's Spending Spree!

How would you like to become a Digital Archaeologist and peer into the past of the Fox C-6 School District from the comfort of your home? It might not be ancient history. But, it's a historical record that allows you to look back into what's been happening in the Fox C-6 School District over the past 16 years. It's a window into our district's past that not too many people know about and it's an interesting one at that.

For example, you can go back in time and read articles that were published on Fox's website or view pictures of past administrators or school board members or old board meeting minutes as far back as 2001 simply by using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. The Wayback Machine is a digital archive or snapshot of websites at the time the snapshot was taken. It's your portal to the past. It allows you to see a snapshot in time. You can find information that would have been difficult or maybe impossible to find or too expensive to obtain using Sunshine Law requests. Some of the information might even shock you. Wait till you find out how much our district our district was spending each year when Superintendent Critchlow became Superintendent compared to what we are spending now.

The Wayback Machine gives you the ability to travel back in time just like Google Earth gives you the ability to view older satellite imagery allowing you to see how things have changed over time in your neighborhood or just about anywhere on the planet.

I've already posted quite a few interesting links to older Fox C-6 website pages on the Fox C-6 Watchdog Twitter page which you can find here:

https://www.twitter.com/FoxC6Watchdogs

Traveling Back In Time

The Wayback Machine is a website much like Google's search engine that allows you to look up and review snapshots of websites by typing in the domain name for the website into the Wayback Machine. In order to see previous snapshots of Fox's website you'll need to go to the Internet Archive's website (http://web.archive.org) and type in Fox's web address or URL which is: www.fox.k12.mo.us. Or you can click on the link below to be taken directly to the Wayback Machine's historical record of the Fox C-6 website.

Fox C-6's Website on the Wayback Machine

Once you arrive at the Wayback Machine, you'll see a timeline at the top of the page which shows vertical lines on the timeline for each of the snapshots taken of Fox's website. The very first snapshot was taken in 1998 and the most recent one in 2014. In order to view one of the snapshots simply click on one of the vertical lines on the timeline and the Wayback Machine will transport you back in time to an archived version of the district's website. Not all of the links, images or documents may have been captured from that time. However, there's a lot of information that has. It allows you to review what happened back then and compare it to what's happening now in our district. It gives you an easy way to see if the district's been doing what it said it would do. Has Fox been a good steward of our taxpayer dollars? Or, have they been able to find ways to increase spending without anyone really noticing that the district has nearly doubled the amount of money being spent each year over the last 8 years?

2005 - Fox Approves $88 Million Budget
2013 - Fox Approves $137 Million Budget

Using the Wayback Machine to pull up snapshots of Fox's website from 2005, you will find an article written by Kim Robertson for The Leader titled "Fox Approves $88 Million budget" which talks about the board approving the 2005-2006 budget for $88 Million dollars. The budget that was just approved last year for the 2013-2014 school was approved for $137 Million dollars. That's quite an increase in just 8 years given the fact that the school district's student count has remained roughly the same over the past 8 years. The district's student count for this year was in the 11,000's as it was back in 2005. It's scary to think that the cost of education has increased that much over the last 8 years. 

So, how has Fox been able to increase it's amount of spending so much in 8 years?

According to records obtained from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's website (MO DESE), Fox had the 2nd Highest Average Administrator Salary for the entire state of Missouri last year. Fox also had the 4th Highest Paid Superintendent Salary in the entire state of Missouri. But at the same time, Fox's average teacher salary was the 2nd Lowest Amount of the 9 District's of Distinction that Superintendent Critchlow compared our district to in her annual State of the District address to the board last fall. There are a lot more teachers than there are administrators in the school district, but over time Fox has increased the number of administrators in the district significantly while the number of students remained nearly the same.

Board Members Are Elected Officials and Don't Get Paid

School board members are elected officials and they don't get paid for their work in overseeing the district. This could also be one of the reasons why so many things have been getting the "rubber stamp" of approval from our school board over the years. It takes a lot of time to review board packets and look at the thousands of checks that the district writes each year. That is a lot of work and over time I believe the board has just come to trust that Superintendent Critchlow and her assistants are doing what they are supposed to do without question. That can lead to problems like we have now.

It also helps the superintendent to have happy school board members. It makes them much more willing to go along with her decisions. One great way to help influence board member decisions is to make sure that the board members feel like they are doing a great job for our district and for our kids. She tells the community repeatedly that they are doing a great job and thanks them at all of the board meetings. There's no better way to say thank you to a school board member than the promotion of their spouse or the hiring of their daughter in law to a high paying position in the school district. School board members aren't allowed to vote on decisions where there might be a conflict of interest. So, they step out of the room when votes are taken that involve their spouses or family members. This way everyone in the community knows that the decision made by the board does not give even the slightest hint that there was any possible conflict of interest.

Board Members With Benefits

In 2006 while Mr. Dave Palmer was the president of the Fox C-6 School Board, his wife was promoted to the district head nurse position. She received a 75% pay increase for that promotion. However, her new promotion required her to work more hours. In the past, head nurses only worked on a 9 month contract. Gee Palmer's new contract was a 12 month contract instead of a 9 month contract which made up for that 75% pay increase. The 25% increase in contract length was able to justify the 75% increase in pay.

Also, let's not forget that back in 2012 while Linda Nash was the president of the Fox C-6 School Board, her daughter in law was hired to be the new Food Nutrition Director. That position paid $65,000 per year and was able to be filled by a person with a high school diploma because she had worked at McDonald's for 17 years and had become an assistant manager. Since she didn't have the degree or the certifications that the district was looking for at the time, Superintendent Critchlow and Assistant Superintendent Todd Scott were willing to give her 2 years to obtain her degree and certification because Linda Nash's daughter in law was very enthusiastic about the job. However, in order to help her out with her new job duties the district had to promote to more people in the district to cover what was used to handled by one assistant in the past. So, there was a little more expenditure than expected due to the lack of experience in running a public school district's food nutrition program.

More interesting things to see on the Wayback Machine for Fox?

In Praise of the Board of Education

It was interesting to read former Fox C-6 Superintendent Jim Chellew's 2004 article titled "In Praise of the Board of Eduction". In his article, he mentioned that "Board members are some of the most accessible elected officials." Really? I'll have to disagree with Mr. Chellew on this point. Superintendent Critchlow tends to control access to our school board. A person isn't allowed to mention names during Public Comments at school board meetings. She's told the board not to speak with people. She's sent out Cease and Desist letters to individuals who try to bring things to the school board's attention. I have spoken at many school board meetings over the past several years and have sent emails and letters to our board and hardly if ever receive a reply. It doesn't appear to me that our school board is very accessible. 

So, I find Mr. Chellew's article quite humorous after trying to work with our school board over the years. I know it's the school superintendent's job to promote their school district and tell the public what a great job the district is doing in educating our kids. But, telling the public that the board is accessible when the public knows otherwise is sad.

Brown Hired as New Fox Super

Another very interesting article is the November 2004 announcement of Dianne Brown being chosen as the next Fox C-6 School Superintendent. The 2004 article titled "Brown hired as new Fox super" was written by Kim Robertson for The Leader newspaper. The article states that "The school board advertised the position only within the district, and Brown was the only candidate. The school board interviewed her Monday and voted unanimously to hire her. Chellew said he had hoped Brown would get the job."

Superintendent Salaries Then and Now

The above article also mentions that Superintendent Brown (now Critchlow) would be paid at least $135,217 for the 2005-2006 school year. Her salary as superintendent back then pales in comparison to the $256,131 that she is now being paid for the 2013-2014 school year.

Some More Interesting Links from the Wayback Machine

2007 Photo of Fox C-6 Central Office Administrators

July 2001 Fox C-6 School Board Meeting Minutes - No Tax Increase Bond Issue and Dianne Brown appointed as Section 504 Coordinator

Photo of Fox C-6's 2005-2006 Board of Education

2005 Version of Fox C-6's Board Policies and Regulations

So check out the Wayback Machine and see what else has gone on in our school district over the years. You might be surprised at what you can find. It might even make for a good research paper for some of our students. It's similar to digging up the time capsule that was buried under the flag pole next to the administration office back in 1976. It can reveal a lot about our district's past. Hopefully the information can help steer our district down a better path in the future.

There's So Much To Catch Up On at Fox C-6!

A lot has been happening in the Fox C-6 School District since I last had time to write a blog post. My last post was about the announcement that Fox C-6 Superintendent Dianne Critchlow would be retiring in 2015. This was announced at the November 2013 board meeting. Just yesterday the 2014 Fox C-6 School Board candidates were announced by the district. Between all of that time, there have been a few interesting exchanges of emails with the Fox C-6 school board. Well, I wrote to the board, but the board didn't respond. Retiring Superintendent Dianne Critchlow and Fox's new assistant superintendent Andy Arbeitman responded. Superintendent Critchlow has assigned Mr. Arbeitman the task of responding to all school board meeting Public Comments. It's apparently best for the district to respond to questions rather than allow the school board to do so. Certainly paying for another superintendent to handle her communications with the public is a good idea. Ducking and dodging the media just doesn't look good for the district.

The last couple of months have been a very busy time and I found it much quicker to provide information to the community using Twitter: (https://www.twitter.com/FoxC6Watchdogs).

So, if you haven't been following my Twitter posts, you've been missing out on a lot of information. PLEASE NOTE: You don't have to have a Twitter account in order to read what gets posted on the Fox C-6 Watchdog's twitter page. All you need to do is click on the link above to go to the Fox C-6 Watchdog's Twitter web page to read the posts.

Recently on the Twitter page I provided some of the documentation that Superintendent Critchlow has been keeping from the public for nearly 5 years. You can obtain these documents from the federal agencies via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. It's been nearly 5 years since the district signed a Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (ED OCR). It's been nearly 4 years since the district was informed it would be undergoing a District Wide Compliance Review by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights which was still open as of last year.

The monitoring letters to the district that are posted on the Twitter feed are a very interesting read. The letters to the district document how after 3 1/2 years our district was still being asked by ED OCR to update their school board policies and regulations as well as student handbooks to comply with Federal Law. Three and a half years seems like an awfully long time to update some documentation. But, then again, it's been nearly 2 years since Superintendent Critchlow informed the public at the March 2012 school board meeting that the district published the "draft" of the updated board policies and regulations for review. Those documents have yet to be approved and adopted by our school board.

There are also links to letters from the USDA to the district informing them in August 2011 that Fox C-6 and Missouri DESE were found non-compliant with Federal law and USDA Guidelines and Regulations. At the time, Superintendent Critchlow forwarded the letter to the board. She informed them that the district attorney found some mistakes in the USDA's Final Agency Decision. The district's attorney filed an appeal letter with the USDA but their appeal was denied. That's why they call it a Final Agency Decision. But, it did give the district another year long delay in having to respond to the USDA.

It took more than 2 years for the district to finally comply with the USDA Final Agency Decision. Surprisingly though, after the USDA accepted the district's documentation in September 2013 and closed the complaint, the district changed the documentation. When the National Director of the USDA's Office for Civil Rights (USDA OCR) found out about the change, he contacted and questioned the district about that change. Assistant Superintendent Dan Baker informed the USDA OCR National Director and the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) via email that the updated documentation was sent out by mistake by the district. Mr. Baker told them that the district had "two different working documents" and that "with all the communication that was going on between the different parties, the incorrect version was mistakenly sent". Really? Sounds believable doesn't it?

Apparently, the USDA OCR National Director took Mr. Baker's explanation for changing the documentation after the fact as a way of trying to "subvert" the complaint process. Does changing documentation after the fact, make you question the ethics of our school district leadership? How much effort and risk are they willing to take to get around the law?

Mr. Baker originally offered to answer questions regarding the changes to the documentation. However, after being contacted by USDA OCR, Mr. Baker responded to USDA OCR, the USDOJ and the school board stating that, "upon the advice of legal counsel the District will no longer respond in writing to your inquiries. If you would like to discuss these matters, please contact me at 636.296.8000 to schedule an appointment so that the appropriate people can be made available to answer your questions.  Thank you. " It's certainly an interesting response given the fact that the district has been doing everything "above board" for years.

As taxpayers, it's good to know that our district is being advised by district attorneys paid by taxpayer dollars on these matters. The district attorney and Mr. Baker have both spoken with the USDA OCR National Director on this matter. It's interesting to note that the National Director of the USDA OCR is an attorney as well. Interesting, isn't it?

So check out those documents and other tidbits of information on the Fox C-6 Watchdogs Twitter page.

2014 Fox C-6 School Board Election

School board elections are just around the corner and candidate names were released yesterday by the school district.

Below are the 2014 Fox C-6 School Board Candidates for the April election:

Vernon Sullivan

John Laughlin (I)

Mark Jones

Chris Hastings

Dawn Mullins

Robert (Bob) Gruenewald

Notably missing from this list of candidates is Linda Nash and Dave Palmer. They both have had family members promoted to high paid positions within the district while they were school board presidents. I'm glad to see that they aren't running for school board again. I'm sure it was a win-win for Linda Nash and Dave Palmer as well as Superintendent Critchlow while Mrs. Nash and Mr. Palmer were on the school board. It wasn't so much of a win for taxpayers though. Linda Nash's daughter-in-law was hired as the Food Nutrition Services Director to a $65,000 per year job in 2012. She didn't even have the education or credentials that the district was looking for. Luckily the district is giving her 2 years to obtain her degree in Food Nutrition. The only problem is that the degree is a 4+ year program. So, that's not going to happen.

Dave Palmer's wife Gee Palmer was promoted to the District Head Nurse position in 2006 and was given a 75% pay increase for an extra 3 months of work per year on her contract. The hiring of board president's family members were smart moves by Superintendent Critchlow. There's a good chance that Critchlow got some "brownie points" for those decisions. I'm certain Superintendent Critchlow recommended those hires because she was doing "What's best for the kids!".

Dave Palmer's wife was promoted at the end of Superintendent Critchlow's first year as the Fox C-6 Superintendent when he was the board president. Everyone in the community is now very aware that Superintendent Critchlow's salary has sky rocketed since her first year as superintendent. In 2006, she only made $137,589. For the 2013-2014 school year her salary is $256,131. I've discussed her salary issues before in the articles below.

SUPER SALARIES!! Superintendent Critchlow's Salaryfor 2013-2014 is $256,131!

Also check out my August 2012 article on Superintendent Critchlow's salary here:

Fox C-6 Superintendent Salary

2014 Is An Important School Board Election

The 2014 school board election will be a very important election for our community. The next Fox C-6 School Board will be responsible for finding and choosing our next Superintendent. Our community, parents, teachers and school staff certainly deserve much better than what it has endured for the last 9 years. It's the community's responsibility to make sure that your school board listens to you. Currently the school board has been told to pretty much keep quite. They don't respond to letters, emails or Public Comments. When a Superintendent instructs school board members not to speak to individuals in the community and sends out Cease and Desist Letters, you know there is a problem. It's easy to understand why she doesn't want the board to get the full picture of what's been going on behind the scenes in our district. The behind the scenes don't look as incredible as she portrays them to be. So, keeping the information from the school board  and the public is important for her reputation. So, if you don't want more of the same, contact your school board.

It's all about public perception!

If Superintendent Critchlow says things are great, they must be! Right?

Superintendent Critchlow has taken the approach of keeping information out of board meeting minutes, board packets and Public Comments. Her explanation as to why things aren't documented with details as to what people's "concerns within the district" are is because state law doesn't require the district document things verbatim from Public Comments. I've written about this problem many times over the last several years. Since you don't hear about any problems there mustn't be any? Right?

The same problem applies to leaving letters and emails addressed to the Fox C-6 School Board out of board meeting packets that ask questions of the board and provide documentation to the board on issues that should be looked into by the board. For some reason those documents don't get included in the board packets even after writing and asking the board secretary to include them. However, letters of praise for Superintendent Critchlow can be found in the school board packets. The letters of praise seem to have a common theme among them. They sound as if they were written by a superintendent. Certainly it's just a coincidence!

The January 2014 school board packet included one such letter to Superintendent Critchlow. The author of the letter stated that 99.9% of the citizens in our district "are very pleased with everything".

99.9% seems maybe a little high for the percentage of people in our community that are happy about paying Superintendent Critchlow $256,131 per year. I wonder where she got her facts and figures?

You can read the letter to Superintendent Critchlow dated December 16, 2013 here:

Superintendent Critchlow is doing an "outstanding job"!

It's pretty entertaining at times to watch how our district leadership conducts business. I know that the letter to Superintendent Critchlow also said that, "Fox has always been very fiscally responsible and not one to just "jump on the bandwagon" of any new educational approach." So, I'm glad the author of the letter reassured us with her statements on fiscal responsibility. I wasn't so sure of that when I found out at the March 2013 board meeting that the district was going to have to spend an additional $52,000 to build a storage building at Fox High School to store the equipment that used to get stored under the old bleachers. District administrators didn't realize that the new bleachers didn't have any storage space below them because of the truss design. Luckily the district was able to sell the old bleachers to another school district for $30,000 to help offset the cost of the new $320,000 bleachers and the $52,000 storage building. You can read more about that in my March 2013 post here:

Please Vote April 2nd and Make A Positive Change
In Our District

For the latest information on what's happening in the Fox C-6 District that Superintendent Critchlow doesn't want you to know, follow Fox C-6 Watchdogs on Twitter (https:www.twitter.com/FoxC6Watchdogs) or check out the Fox C-6 Watchdogs blog right here (https://FoxC6Watchdogs.blogspot.com).

Superintendent Critchlow to Retire in October 2015!

At the November 19, 2013 Fox C-6 School Board Meeting, Mr. Todd Scott announced that Superintendent Dianne Critchlow would be retiring in October 2015.

Mr. Scott stated that the information was in the late materials presented at the school board meeting that evening.

At the November 19, 2013 board meeting, I made a public comment expressing my concerns to the school board regarding the recent November 5th board workshop in which our school board violated Missouri Sunshine Law by taking an open meeting agenda item that was being discussed into Closed Session.

At the beginning of my public comment, I gave an apology to the board stating that my Tuesday November 19th email was not intended to be a personal attack against anyone. However, Superintendent Critchlow interpreted my email as a personal attack against her and the district. My email presented some areas of concern to the board. Apparently, Superintendent Critchlow does not respond well to anyone who points out areas of concern or provides non-glowing comments about the district.

It's human nature to want to point out the positive. However, at some point in time we must all weigh our obligation to provide a complete disclosure of the facts, imperfect as those facts may be, especially when our employer is the public. Public entities are held to a higher standard of accountability for a reason. Missouri DESE sets that standard and our teachers and administrators work hard to achieve that standard. However, there are areas of concern that deserve attention.

For example, Superintendent Critchlow told the board at the September school board meeting that Fox C-6 had the highest MSIP 5 score out all of those in attendance at meeting of Jefferson County schools. That is as long as you don't count the Festus school district which had a higher score than Fox. Was Festus not in attendance?

Fox's Percentage of Graduates Taking the ACT
Another area of concern which I pointed out in my email is the fact that the Percentage of Graduates taking the ACT test at Fox is only 56% which is relatively low compared to the state average of 75% and to Rockwood and Parkway which each have 96%.

When I point out concerns to our school board, our Superintendent responds with claims that I am making personal attacks against her and the school district. My pointing out of facts are not intended to be a personal attack. Shouldn't these areas of concern be a concern for everyone?

Is it misleading by not providing information to the public or to the school board?

Or is it merely accentuating the positive?

Should our Superintendent provide the public and the board with a complete and accurate picture of our District regarding college admissions testing?

Wouldn't it be more productive if we, as a community, would be given information about our relatively low number of students taking the ACT and simply say, “this is an area in which we need to improve”?

It’s a shame that our Superintendent does not seem to trust the public with all the facts, and only highlights those facts that are positive. Only by recognizing the negative and owning it are we actually able to truly eliminate the concerns.

Superintendent Critchlow responded to my concerns regarding the ACT data with the following statement which she copied to myself and the school board:

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.

Rather than being concerned with the low number of students taking the ACT, our Superintendent appears to try and discredit my information. If Superintendent salary is based upon school district performance against other districts, one would hope that our school board looks at the complete picture.

You can see a comparison of some of the "facts" and statistics of the Top 25 School Districts in the state ranked by Superintendent Salary to see how Fox compares to those other districts in my previous article here:

Fox C-6 Superintendent Was 4th Highest Paid Superintendent In Missouri for 2013

School Board Approval of Audit Report for June 30, 2013
A representative from the Daniel Jones and Associates accounting firm presented the annual audit report to the school district for approval. The annual audit done by the Daniel Jones and Associates firm is nowhere near as in depth as when the state auditor reviews a school district like the one recently done for the Rockwood school district.

It should be noted that the audit report was not posted on the district website and it was not included in the school board meeting packets for the public to review.

Not posting the information for the public doesn't give the appearance of being openly transparent. This should raise some red flags for the public. It has been more than 10 years since Fox has had a state audit done. It takes a petition to get a state audit done. So, it's time for Fox C-6 to have a state audit done. It's definitely needed given the lack of oversight from our board over the last 8 or 9 years and given some of the decisions that they have made since that time.

It's also odd that only our superintendent responds to requests to have the school budget and other financial information published on the district website. And, she has refused to publish the school budget and has refused to publish prior years of board meeting packets even though they already exist. Superintendent Critchlow has only given excuses as to why these documents can't be published on the website. Perhaps if more people requested them, the district would realize that it would be much more efficient to publish them on the website rather than individually having to respond to each and every request.

After the representative from the accounting firm presented the report, board president Dan Smith asked if there were any questions. Steve Holloway spoke up and asked that the board be given more time to review the report. Mr. Holloway commented that the audit report was 60 pages long and that they had just received it a week ago and so he would like to defer approving the report to have more time to review it. It was good to see a board member wanting to review an item more in depth. John Laughlin seconded the motion to defer the report instead of just rubber stamping it.

Here is a transcript from this portion of the meeting after the representative said a few words about the report from the Daniel Jones and Associates company:

Dan Smith - Board President 

"Anyone have any questions or comments for the report?"

Cheryl Herman 

"I appreciate you coming. It makes me feel better that someone else on the outside look at the books and look at everything to make sure that it's going like it's supposed to. Thank you." 

Dan Smith  

"Anyone else?" 

Finance Director 

"I would just like to add one thing. He's really summarizing the process. We spend up to 2 or 3 weeks getting information. He's here for about 7 days and um, it just makes it a nice neat document but there's a lot of work that goes into this. We really do appreciate their help on this." 

Dan Smith 

"Anyone else?" 

Steve Holloway 

"So and, hold on. Sorry. So, so we're actually voting to receive this? Like. So, with it being, I mean we've had it for about a week. Is there anyway that we can defer this to vote on it until, uh, next month and maybe talk about this at one of our workshops? Go over what the audit means and some of the details in it and things like that?" 

Superintendent Dianne Critchlow 

"I think it has to. Does it have to be approved by December 31st?" 

Finance Director 

"Yes."

Finance Director 

"We also have to do a federal clearing house submission which is dated at the time. Our time starts once it's approved."

Superintendent Dianne Critchlow 

"So, if they approved it on December 17th, is that enough time?"

Finance Director 

"Sure."

Superintendent Dianne Critchlow 

"We could do this. I know we don't have a workshop planned for December." 

Steve Holloway 

"Oh that's right we don't. I guess we could go. Has, has anybody else had a chance to read this? I mean it's like 60 plus pages. Have you guys read through this?"

At this point Dave Palmer asked a question about the items on Page 14 concerning the fund balances and was responded to to by the district's director of finance filling in for Mark McCutchen.

After Mr. Palmer's question, Board President Dan Smith made the following comment telling the board that they should just go ahead and approve the audit because he looked over the report and it looked fine to him and because the audit company as been doing it for years and years.

Dan Smith - Board President 

"I have had the chance to look over this and, you know, Daniel Jones and Associates have, have done this for us for a number of, number of years. And uh, I mean if the board decides they want to defer this until the next meeting that's fine but. and I said, I've looked over it and it looks, it looks good to me. And, you know that if the numbers look good and like I said, these guys have looked at our district. It's not that their first time in the uh ball game here, with us. So, I mean they have audited us year after year after year. Know our numbers. Know where the numbers are coming from. So, I would, just as soon go ahead and do it tonight but if the, if the board decides they want to defer this till the next meeting."

Steve Holloway 

"I'll make a motion to defer if we want to."

Dan Smith 

"We have a motion to defer until the next meeting. Do we have a second?"

John Laughlin 

"I'll second that."

Dan Smith 

"OK we have a motion and a second. Any comments? Other comments?"

John Laughlin 

"Yeah, I have a comment, there's no specific reason you can't wait till the 17th. I just don't understand why we can't have 30 days to look at it. It just seems pretty easy. No sorts of specific reason for having a (inaudible)."

Linda Nash 

"I would agree with that. I also think that, um, we could even though we don't have a workshop. Uh, if, if as long as we don't find anything obviously we can vote on it on the 17th. But. we can still have it as a topic in a workshop even after it's approved."

Steve Holloway 

"That's true."

Dan Smith 

"Anyone else? OK. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor? (yes) Any opposed? (none) OK. Motion carries."

Jamie Critchlow Is Not A Principal
Another note of interest from the meeting was the introduction of Mr. Jamie Critchlow as the principal of the Bridges program by assistant superintendent Tim Crutchley. According to Missouri DESE records and in speaking with Missouri DESE certification in the past, Mr. Jamie Critchlow has NOT earned an Administrative Certificate to have bestowed upon him the title of school principal. This has been looked into before by Missouri DESE Area Supervisor Dr. Tim Ricker when Jamie Critchlow's email address had the title of Principal of Bridges which was subsequently corrected to the title of Director.

According to Missouri DESE records as of November 20, 2013, Mr. Jamie Critchlow only possesses an INITIAL PC which was issued on January 13, 2011 and expires on January 13, 2015.

Mr. Critchlow took the Praxis tests in 2010 for the following courses to obtain his Initial Professional Certificate in the following two areas of study:

• Principles of Learning & Teaching (7 - 12)
• Social Studies: Content Knowledge

This concern was brought to the attention of the Fox C-6 School Board at the December 2010 school board meeting when I asked the school board how an individual had been hired into a director's position without proper certification. Mr. Critchlow was hired as a teacher in September of 2009 and promoted to the Director of Bridges in November 2009. That original promotion after only working for the district for two months raised is salary from in the $30,000 range to $98,569. That was quite a promotion considering he didn't obtain his Initial Professional Certification until January 2011.

Teacher Certification information can be found on the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary (DESE) website here where you can personally verify the information:

https://k12apps.dese.mo.gov/WebApps/HQT/CredentialListerChecker.aspx

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."

Fox C-6 Watchdogs Is Now on Twitter!

Fox C-6 Watchdogs is now posting on Twitter as well!

Follow us on Twitter at: https://www.twitter.com/FoxC6Watchdogs

Fox C-6 Watchdogs follows several Educational and STEM related sites. Parents, educators and students will find a lot of educational posts and links to Educational and STEM related articles and information.