One very notable point in the March 2018 Resolution agreement is this statement on the first page of the Resolution Agreement:
"As part of its ongoing efforts to comply with Section 504 and Title II, the District agrees to review and, as needed, amend its Section 504 Manual and Section 504 process to ensure that the Manual and process conform with the requirements set out in the Section 504 and Title II regulations, and are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008."
The statement, "As part of its ongoing efforts to comply with Section 504 and Title II" is a very important statement. It's been more than 10 years since Fox signed the May 2009 Resolution Agreement in which Fox agreed to update its Section 504 Manual and 504 process. However, Fox never fulfilled that part of the agreement. As part of the March 2018 Resolution Agreement, Fox is still working on updating its Section 504 Manual and Section 504 process. How can that be when ED OCR states that they do "vigorous enforcement of civil rights"? Obviously there's a systemic problem at ED OCR regarding enforcement of agreements.
Another item to point out from the March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter is the following statement:
“Since the time OCR opened this compliance review in 2010, the District has worked to improve its process for identifying and evaluating students who may be eligible for Section 504 services and protections.”
That statement from the 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter does not accurately reflect the responses from the district. The statement ignores the fact that the district’s legal counsel refused to update school documents and policies for nearly 4 years as documented by ED OCR in their monitoring letters sent to the district between 2009 and 2013. An article I wrote in July 2013, documents those letters as well as the letters sent to ED OCR from the district’s legal counsel informing ED OCR why they refused to make changes to district policies and documentation that they originally agreed to update.
Press Release In Legal Bills
According to the legal bills from Fox's former law firm (Mickes, Goldman, O'Toole) that I obtained via a Sunshine Request from the district, I discover that the district’s former law firm billed time to review my July 2013 article. The legal bills also documented the many times that Fox's legal counsel helped the district over the years respond to my Public Comments, emails and Sunshine Requests. The legal bills covered May 2010 through June 2014. Legals bills weren't provided for any of the time dating back to 2008 when the attorneys first got involved. My interest in getting copies of legal bills was to determine how many tens of thousands of dollars or more were spent in fighting a Section 504 plan for a student in the district.
The "press release" as noted in the legal bills was for charges in helping to get a story into the Post Dispatch.
The news article ("press release") appeared in the Post Dispatch in August 2010. Comments posted to the online article contained many bullying and threatening comments directed at our family for pursuing a Section 504 plan. The online comments from the Post Dispatch article were forward to both ED OCR and USDA OCR due to the retaliatory nature of those comments. Comments in the Post Dispatch back then were made anonymously and couldn't be traced. However, some of those who commented were identifiable by their remarks.
Fox's former law firm (Mickes Goldman O'Toole) used the media in many of their school district cases to bully parents. I followed several of their cases across the state over the years and searched for articles related to those cases. Similar comments were posted on those articles as well that were directed at families who pursued Section 504 plans for their children.
If it hadn’t been for my constant follow up with ED OCR over the years checking on the progress of the May 2009 Resolution Agreement and the May 2010 District Wide Compliance Review, the District Wide Compliance Review probably would have never been completed or closed by ED OCR.
Law Firm Video Told Educators Not To Provide 504 Plans
It also helped that I found a video on the Doster Mickes law firm's website in August 2008 of an attorney giving a presentation at the 2005 Missouri School Law Seminar. The attorney told educators in our state that they should not provide students with food allergies a Section 504 plan even though they may qualify for one.
I knew the family who the attorney was referring to in her presentation. I knew the family because an advocate who had helped us, had also helped them. Their child’s 504 plan was taken away as well during a Due Process Hearing in front of the school board. I contacted the family about the video I had found and they confirmed that the attorney in the video was referring to their case. The family was very upset to learn that their case was being touted by the law firm.
Video Leads to Statewide Training By USDA OCR
In September 2008, I forwarded a link to the video from the 2005 Missouri School Law Seminar that I had found to both ED OCR and USDA OCR because I knew it wasn't right for attorneys to tell school districts to say deny a Section 504 plan if a student was qualified for one.
Providing that video to the USDA OCR office led to statewide training by USDA OCR for all Food Nutrition Directors in the state of Missouri. Fox didn't attend the statewide training.
My July 2013 article documented the fact that I spoke at the June 2013 Fox C-6 school board meeting during Public Comments and asked the school board about the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review and the May 2009 Resolution Agreement.
My Public Comments at the June 2013 school board meeting were documented in the board meeting minutes as, “discussed Board policies and regulations”. School board meeting minutes weren't well documented for a reason and that's why I had been asking for years for Fox's board meetings to be audio and/or video recorded. Not recording school board meetings allowed administration to keep the public in the dark regarding any concerns in the district because, concerns were poorly documented or not documented at all.
My response to Mr. Brazeal also pointed out the numerous times I had contacted ED OCR for 9 years asking them when they planned to complete the March 2010 District Wide Compliance Review or enforce the May 2009 Resolution Agreement. I was informed repeatedly by ED OCR that they were working on it and that they hoped to get it completed soon or in the next several months.
So, the real “story” is, why did it take ED OCR nearly a decade to enforce the May 2009 Resolution Agreement that the district didn’t fulfill?
Monitoring Letters Sent to Fox
Fox agreed to update board policies and 504 manuals, etc. in 2009. That didn’t happen. The District was sent numerous monitoring letters documenting that fact. So, now in March 2018 the District signed a new Resolution Agreement which closed the District Wide Compliance Review before it was completed and gave the district another window of several years to complete and fulfill that agreement while being “monitored” by ED OCR.
The end of the March 8, 2018 Resolution Agreement contains the following 3 paragraphs that outlines that OCR will be monitoring the agreement and that OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings to enforce the specific terms of the agreement. However, similar language was also included in the May 2009 Resolution Agreement as well but ED OCR never initiated enforcement or judicial proceedings after years of not meeting the terms of the agreement.
"The District understands that OCR will not close the monitoring of this Agreement until OCR determines that the District has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with: the regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(j), and 104.35 through 104.37; and the regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 and 35.130, which were at issue in this case.
The District understands that by signing this Agreement, it agrees to provide data and other information in a timely manner in accordance with the reporting requirements of this Agreement and that all actions taken to comply with the requirements of the Agreement are subject to OCR’s review and approval. Further, the District understands that during the monitoring of this Agreement, if necessary, OCR may visit the District, interview staff and students, and request such additional reports or data as are necessary for OCR to determine whether the District has fulfilled the terms of this Agreement and is in compliance with: the regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(j), 104.35 through 104.37; and the regulation implementing Title II at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 and 35.130, which were at issue in this case.
The District understands and acknowledges that OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or judicial proceedings, including to enforce the specific terms and obligations of this Agreement. Before initiating administrative enforcement (34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10) or judicial proceedings, including to enforce this Agreement, OCR shall give the District written notice of the alleged breach and sixty (60) calendar days to cure the alleged breach."
The March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review Letter to Fox C-6 is an 11 page letter which details some of the things discovered during their interviews with the district during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years.
The March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review Letter contains the following paragraph:
"Recipients of federal funds are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by federal civil rights law. Complaints alleging such retaliation may be filed with OCR. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if released."
Retaliation Violates Section 504
I have pointed the fact that retaliation or bullying is a violation of Section 504 law in numerous articles and to our school board over the years. This is why it was such an important fact when it was discovered that online defamatory posts directed at me were traced to the homes of our former superintendent, former assistant superintendent (who was demoted to elementary principal) and the home of a former assistant principal.
What's interesting as well is the fact that an incorrect assumption and the forwarding of false information to Fox's former superintendent, Dianne Critchlow by the Lone Dell Elementary principal is what led to the really nasty defamatory online posts that were traced to Fox's former superintendent's home. It wasn't until the principal at Lone Dell apologized to one of the other plaintiffs in our lawsuit for passing on the incorrect information that I was able to confirm who had forwarded the false information to Critchlow. The Lone Dell principal and the teacher who assumed incorrectly that I was involved in the posting of signs in the District were both directly involved in the 504 issues as well.
We filed retaliation complaints with ED OCR, and provided them with copies of the posts and lawsuit. However, nothing became of those retaliation complaints. It makes you wonder what OCR considers retaliation after reading the numerous comments that were posted online and forwarded to ED OCR and USDA OCR.
ED OCR's Lack of Enforcement
The lack of enforcement by ED OCR is a story in itself. I’ve heard the same story from parents around the country who have experienced the same thing in their school districts. When it takes nearly a decade for ED OCR to do “vigorous enforcement” of the law, you quickly learn that ED OCR must be using a different definition of the word “vigorous” than everyone else.
Plus, the fact that ED OCR did not include in their March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter any references to the denials of Section 504 plans or when Section 504 plans were taken away from students between August 2008 and June 2014 even though ED OCR was aware of those facts from district documentation and Due Process Hearings. I asked the current Director of the Kansas City ED OCR office why nothing was noted in the District Wide Compliance Review letter from the 2008 to 2014 school years. I didn't get a response to that question.
USDA OCR Non-Compliance Findings
I also noted in my response to Mr. Brazeal that USDA OCR had issued findings that found Fox and Missouri DESE non-compliant with Section 504. That non-compliance letter was issued in August 2011. This was noted in my July 2013 article along with a reference to a copy of the non-compliance letter. I also wrote an article in March 2013 regarding the USDA Non-Compliance Findings.
Perhaps items weren’t documented in the March 16, 2018 District Wide Compliance Review letter for the 2008 through June 2014 time frame because things changed in the district in June 2014. That’s when the district switched law firms, our superintendent was ousted and the district switched Section 504 Coordinators.
Following the ouster of the district’s law firm, in August 2014, ED OCR came and did an Early Complaint Resolution which resulted in the reinstatement of a Section 504 plan that had been removed in September 2008. It took nearly 6 years to reinstate a 504 plan that had been removed. That’s the reason why I have been documenting this process and the numerous things that occurred in our district during that time.
The 504 issues going on in our district is what led to my uncovering of other issues involving our former superintendent. People I’ve told about this over the years find it hard to believe all of the things that went on in our district related to this issue. That’s why I have tried to be very thorough in my documenting of it. It's easy to see why Fox wants to sweep all of this under the rug and keep it hidden from the public.
My July 2013 article, documented how slow ED OCR was at following up and enforcing the May 2009 Resolution Agreement signed by Dan Baker, Fox’s former Section 504 Coordinator. (Current Fox C-6 school board member Vicki Hanson was the Section 504 Coordinator prior to Dan Baker taking over the job when she retired in 2008.)
Another article I wrote in June 2013 pointed out some information sent to me by a parent in the Lee’s Summit School District who had read some of my articles. One thing I did not note in the article back then was the fact that the Lee’s Summit Superintendent was one of the highest paid superintendents in the state and the fact that Fox’s former superintendent Dianne Critchlow was the 4th highest paid superintendent in the state at the time. Critchlow eventually became the 2nd highest paid superintendent in the state when she “retired” in 2014 with a salary of $267,468. The Lee’s Summit superintendent was ousted in May 2016 and was the highest paid superintendent in the state with a compensation package worth $397,000.
Below is a link to the June 2013 which pointed out some of my concerns as to why it was taking the Kansas City ED OCR so long to perform their “vigorous enforcement” of Section 504 law.
