Another Certified Fairfield City School District LIE

You don't need a flashy graphic or the obligatory ominous music cable news channels employ when announcing breaking news to understand that Fairfield City Schools is a dishonest organization.  Fairfield City Schools lied, and poor Emilie Olsen died.

The fact Fairfield City Schools has engaged in a long pattern of dishonesty and outright lies about the Emilie Olsen case is beyond question.  We have proven beyond all doubt that the school district is incapable of being truthful on the subject of Emilie.

The question is, who particularly at the district is or was generating these lies?  We still don't know, but we're here to present an example of some of the lies the district told itself in the days after Emilie Olsen died.

Check out this December 16, 2014 e-mail from Fairfield City Schools Public Relations Director Gina Gentry-Fletcher to the Superintendent, Board of Education, and other district officials:

As you can read for yourself, Ms. Gentry-Fletcher informed district leaders that no evidence indicated Emilie Olsen was bullied, police investigated her case twice, no bullies were named, the Middle School principal only coincidentally visited the Olsen home with police to return locker belongings, and the school resource officer was continuing to investigate.

None of that is true.  Not a single, solitary word of it.

Let's be clear here.  Just because what district spokesperson Gina Gentry-Fletcher said was not true, does not mean she is personally engaging in dishonesty.  Perhaps she was fed bad information by someone.  We have no idea who that would be.  But you might have your own opinions on that subject.

Regardless of where the dishonesty was generated, what was being relayed to district leaders in this e-mail was not true.  And we'll prove it in five easy points.

1.  In her e-mail to district leaders, Ms.Gentry-Fletcher states the police investigation was done twice.

Nowhere in the police report, and in no media outlets was it ever reported that the police investigation was conducted twice.  In fact, no one anywhere has ever claimed that, except in this e-mail we've posted.

Why?  Where did the idea the investigation was conducted twice come from?  We'd like to know.  More importantly, so would a federal court.

We have spoken offline to some of the people interviewed by police in the investigation.  None of the people interviewed, save one, were spoken with by police on more than one occasion.  Nowhere in the police report was it mentioned that multiple interviews were conducted with every single person contacted.

2.  In her e-mail to district leaders, Ms.Gentry-Fletcher stated that there was no evidence Emilie Olsen was bullied.

Again, this is not true.  Not by a long shot.

This is not to say that Ms.Gentry-Fletcher knew what she was telling district leaders was not true.  In fact, we believe she and many other district officials had no idea about the bullying Emilie endured over two years at Fairfield.

The question is, why was Emilie's bullying kept a secret, and who covered it up?  A federal court will find out, if this group doesn't do it first.  There is a paper trail on this, Fairfield City Schools.  It's just a matter of time before someone pieces it all together.

The e-mails between Emilie's parents and school officials prove that she was bullied, and that numerous people at Fairfield City Schools knew about it.  The incident report below from October 21st, 2014 at Fairfield Middle School proves it.  See for yourself.

Above are the eyewitness reports submitted regarding an October 21st, 2014 incident in the cafeteria where Emilie Olsen was the target of bullying.  We know for a fact that at least one administrator at Fairfield Middle School knew about this incident.  Assistant Principal Mark Rice is identified by name in the documents, and was the school employee that sent those students involved in the incident to the office.  The question is, who at the office took these statements, and was also aware of this incident?

There was also a long line of e-mails to administrators at two Fairfield buildings which proved that the district was informed by Emilie's parents about the harassment she was enduring.  See for yourself e-mails which prove bullying occurred and the school knew about it:

3. & 4.  In her e-mail to district leaders, Ms.Gentry-Fletcher stated that no bullies were identified or named by Emilie's friends who spoke with police.  District leaders were also advised that Mr. Butts was simply at the Olsen home that December 16, 2014 to return the belongings of Emilie's locker.  In this e-mail by the district spokesperson, and in later e-mails and statements to the public, the nature of Mr. Butts visit with police to the Olsen home was described as coincidental.

That's just not true, according to the excerpt below from the Fairfield Township Police Report:

 

As you can see for yourself, a specific alleged bully was named, but his or her name was redacted by our group.  Moreover, nowhere are locker articles mentioned by the police in their report.  Perhaps some of Emilie's items were brought home, but it is obvious that the simultaneous arrival of Mr. Butts and police at the Olsen home was no coincidence.

As we have stated before at length in a previous blog entry, what Fairfield City Schools wants us to believe is that one of it's administrators and law enforcement were together at 10:30 AM for a span of time, and then all arrived at the same location 90 minutes later, and it was all just a happy coincidence. Neither party knew the other would end up at the Olsen home that day, December 16th, 2014, when both police and Mr.Butts were together an hour beforehand?

5.   In her e-mail to district leaders, Ms.Gentry-Fletcher stated that the school resource officer at FMS would continue investigating the case.  If this did take place, why didn't the officer - or anyone for that matter - inform the public of the findings of this wider investigation?  Where is the report?  Where is the investigation?  Show us.  Where were it's findings revealed?

We want to emphasize again that we have no evidence Ms.Gentry-Fletcher was engaging in a purposeful effort to mislead district leaders in her e-mail above from December 16, 2014.

All the same however, as we have demonstrated, her statements to leaders at Fairfield City Schools proved to be untrue.  Why?  How did this happen

Was the district spokesperson given bad information?  If so, by whom?  Where is the accountability at Fairfield City Schools?

Regardless of who uttered the first falsehood, or who may have also been duped by false statements other district employees might have uttered, the bottom line is, Fairfield City Schools lied, and Emilie Olsen died.  The district has yet to own up or admit to this deception of the public.  How can we trust these people?

Screw the Taxpayer and Even Their Own District Employees: "The Fairfield Way"

In researching for this blog entry, we have observed multiple instances in which district employees and officials at various levels have spoken of "The Fairfield Way."  We've come to the conclusion that "The Fairfield Way" exemplifies everything actually wrong with the school district.

"The Fairfield Way" was on full display in the fake, fixed, faux job search for the district's next superintendent.  Deceit and a contemptible loathing for public input - and even the comments and wishes of their own district employees - all combined to taint the recent hiring process for Fairfield City Schools' next leader.

Fairfield City Schools was not honest and transparent with the public or even it's own employees while conducting a sham search for the next Superintendent.  As usual, Fairfield has demonstrated why it is a district that has no desire to listen to one word from the public about anything.  This is a school district in denial, and has exhibited once again why it simply cannot be trusted.  We'll show you why we believe this by sharing a series of e-mails and documents.

The story of how Fairfield City Schools came to have a new Superintendent through a tainted process began when Paul Otten handed in resignation notice on April 5th. You can read more on that story here.

Ostensibly, it looked like a new day was dawning for Fairfield City Schools. Perhaps a new face would be arriving in our district to unify our community and bring about the necessary change and healing we so badly need after the Emilie Olsen scandal that has rocked the school system and placed Fairfield in the negative spotlight of international news. Even this April 22nd posting on the district's Facebook page made it sound like the search for a new school leader was a wide open process that would gather up and consider community input until the Board of Education was able to make a superb selection in a large field of qualified candidates from inside and outside the district:

Behind the scenes however, the outcome of the job search was everything but pre-determined, even as the services of consultant Bill Sears were retained for $1000 on April 14th:

Fairfield City Schools could have saved itself the effort of spouting worthless lip service, Mr. Sears the trouble of his good work, and the taxpayers' money.  It was clear from the onset of the job search that it would be a strictly internal process, open only to employees already on the payroll at Fairfield, according to this April 14th e-mail:

We know for a fact that the job search was only open to internal candidates, and that only two people even applied, according to this recently uncovered e-mail from Board President Dan Hare:

We also know the names of all Fairfield employees who applied the Superintendent's position.  The massive field of two candidates included Assistant Superintendent Roger Martin, and the eventual winner, High School Principal Billy Smith.  If you would like to see their applications, please contact us and we will send it along.

Unlike Fairfield City Schools, it is clear that the consultant hired to lead the search, Bill Sears, was trying to act with professionalism and integrity to get Fairfield the best Superintendent possible.  The school district had it's own agenda and threw away Mr. Sears' talents and experience.  We don't understand why.

Further proof that Fairfield City Schools had an agenda all it's own when they began the job search for a new Superintendent can be seen in this April 19th e-mail from Mr. Hare, where he lists the steps that need to be taken.  Focus groups were supposed to be a prominent feature of the hiring process.  Take a close look and see where community input from taxpayers and parents ranked in the pecking order:

As you can see, your thoughts, wishes, and input about the new Superintendent ranked dead last.  Your thoughts were the last to be considered.  Once again, the district's contempt for you is palpable.

The leadership and Board of Education gave the community a huge middle finger in the hiring process for a new Superintendent.    But don't feel too badly.  The district used their other middle finger to shove into the faces of it's own administrators, teachers, and other employees.

Several focus groups were formed among different work groups at Fairfield City Schools to gather ideas on what the ideal Superintendent would look like.  If you would like to review these brainstorming session results, please contact us and we'll send it along.

In the focus group involving building administrators, one of their top requests for a new district leader included a wide range of experience in dealing with multiple student age groups.  Building administrators also wanted a Superintendent with experience in many different areas of district affairs, such as curriculum or A.P..  Employees in the focus group from district offices requested that the new Superintendent possess "multiple years of admin experience in a school district."

Here are the qualifications for the new Superintendent of Fairfield City Schools, according to his own application:

This group cannot find any mention of multiple years of administrative experience at the district level, or involvement with curriculum or A.P..  In other words, the Board of Education ignored it's own employees as much as the taxpayer.  At least the district leadership was fair about it.  They don't care what anybody thinks.  Period.  No exceptions.

The manner in which Fairfield City Schools deceived the public into believing our voice carried weight in the Superintendent hiring process really is scandalous.

A public meeting to gather public input on what Fairfield residents wanted in a new Superintendent was held May 5th, according to this Journal-News story.  The consensus view of the meeting appeared to be that an outsider, with fresh eyes, was what Fairfield needed in a new leader.

There were even community members who wrote the Board and Mr. Sears urging them to hire an outside candidate for the job, such as this citizen:

To his credit, Mr. Sears was prepared to give the community a wide field of exceptionally qualified candidates.  The slideshow he presented to the Board and community indicated he desired to present to the Board nine to twelve candidates to pick from.

The Board of Education simply did what it wanted to, and said to hell with you, the taxpayer, district parents, and even their own employees.  We feel this hiring process for the new Superintendent was not transparent or honest.  The selection lacks legitimacy because of doubts about the process.

At no point have we found a single e-mail or document to indicate that any consideration was ever given to posting the vacant superintendent's position externally.  If you don't believe us, send us an email at shameonfcsd@gmail.com and we'll turn over every document we have on the matter for your inspection.  Unlike this school district, we have nothing to hide.  

Fairfield City Schools is so conceited and presumptuous that it thinks the best qualified candidate to be your community's superintendent of schools could only be found on it's own existing payroll.  Nobody else in the field of public education anywhere in the United States and it's 14,000 or so school districts could possibly be up to snuff or match the qualities of any of the whopping field of two internal candidates who applied to be Fairfield's next school leader.  That's "The Fairfield Way."

Another subject conspicuous by its absence in the 100 pages or so of documents we have about the Superintendent job search is any mention of the Emilie Olsen case or the lifetime of ensuing negative publicity Fairfield City Schools has endured because of it.  Not one person from the Board, to applicant candidates, or any district staff in focus groups mentioned Emilie's case or even hinted at the topic vaguely.

What that tells us is that Fairfield City Schools has not learned anything in Emilie's case.  How else can one account for the fact that the case, and preventing future such tragedies, or even addressing the issue of bullying never came up once in any of the focus groups.  Nor were these topics addressed anywhere by the two job applicants vying to become Superintendent.

The district is tone deaf and doesn't care.  End of story.

Fairfield City Schools appears to not be in touch with reality if no consideration was given to how the new Superintendent might go about cleaning up the mess this district created for itself because of misconduct before and after Emilie's death.  The district is famous worldwide.  Or, infamous, rather.

The school district, Board, staff, and new Superintendent may have no interest in addressing the Emilie Olsen case.  But the rest of the world and a federal court does.

The community here in Fairfield is the loser here.  But so too is Mr. Billy Smith, our new Superintendent.  The process which hired this man was crooked and lacked integrity and transparency.  A large portion of the community will find it difficult to support Mr. Smith in light of the questions which surround his appointment.

Mr. Smith has done nothing wrong here.  He is a victim of circumstances, and the plotting of our school board.  It wasn't Mr. Smith's fault the district lied to our faces and said they'd conduct a thorough search for the best candidate, armed with your input, but then turned around instead and just conducted a sham process.

We have proven your worst fears about the job hunt for Fairfield's new Superintendent to be true.  You now know that the process was a rigged sham.  You were lied to yet again by Fairfield City Schools.  Rather than embracing this opportunity for healing and a new beginning in our community, Fairfield City Schools was too busy pursuing it's own agenda, and have once again shattered any faith the public had in them.

Mr. Smith Goes to Fairfield

As many of you may know, it was announced yesterday that the new Superintendent of Fairfield City Schools will be Mr. Billy Smith.  Mr. Smith is currently the lead principal of Fairfield High School, a post he has held for most of the past 7 years.  You can click on this story from the Journal-News to get more information.

We're sure Mr. Smith is a very nice man personally with all the best intentions in the world.  We think he might even make a good Superintendent of a school district someday.  At a later date.  In a different district.  And we wish him all the luck possible in trying to manage this school district.  Anyone would need it.

While it is not the fault of Mr. Smith; who is simply trying to do the best for himself, his career, and his family as any of us would do; the fact remains the citizens of Fairfield have once again been ignored by the powers that be in our community.

It is obvious Fairfield City Schools has given this community yet another huge middle finger.  

We won't beat around the bush or mince our words one bit.  The Board of Education for Fairfield City Schools does not care what you think.  This process to hire the Superintendent of our school district was dirty, lacked transparency, and was as crooked as the Board of Education that oversaw it.

Yes, you read that correctly.  We'll say it again. 

In their elected capacity as public figures and members of our Board of Education, Jerome Kearns, Balena Shorter, Dan Hare, Michael Berding, and Brian Begley have acted without integrity or transparency during the search for our new Superintendent.  But what else is new?

It is our contention that the fix was in the entire time in regards to the hiring of a new Superintendent.  How else can one conclude otherwise?

Paul Otten handed in resignation notice on April 5th.  You can read more on that story here.

The public meeting to gather public input on what Fairfield residents wanted in a new Superintendent was held May 5th, according to this Journal-News story.  

Mr. Smith was announced as the new Superintendent on June 2.  That meant the entire search process took less than two months from the day Mr. Otten resigned.  The Board only had public input on the topic for 27 days before making a selection.  

We stand by our statement that Fairfield City Schools ignored what the public said in regards what you wanted in a new Superintendent.  Many residents present at the May 5th public input meeting expressed a strong desire for the new leader of our district to come from outside our community.  So what does the Brain Trust of Bach Lane do?

They essentially said 'screw you.  We'll do what we want.  We'll hire an insider.  A crony.  It will be business as usual here at Fairfield City Schools.'

At least our Board was upfront about it's intention to spit in your face one more time.  According to the previously cited article, Board member Michael Berding told the Journal-News last month Fairfield was looking for someone already working for the district “and it would definitely be a positive if someone understands what we are about here in Fairfield."
Yes, Mr. Berding, we all know what Fairfield City Schools is all about.  The past 19 months or so has taught us all that.  The past 29 months has certainly enlightened the Olsen family on what Fairfield is about.

The Board had a pretty good chance at starting to heal this community and unite us all behind a new Superintendent.  We had the chance to change the culture in our district.  But Fairfield threw it all away.  

With their actions, Fairfield City Schools has dug it's stubborn heels in, and pigheadedly declared that it never did anything wrong in Emilie's case.  The district has stated by it's actions that it will continue to carry on behaving in the way that has made them world famous (more like infamous).

Fairfield City Schools has been raked over the coals worldwide over it's grossly negligent misconduct and disgusting antics in the Emilie Olsen case, both before and after her death.  Emilie's story has appeared all over local media.  Fairfield has made national news on both Good Morning America and more recently in the Washington Post.  The injustice doled out to Emilie by this school system has even appeared in international news, like the Daily Mail in the United Kingdom.

Fairfield City Schools has quite the reputation now.  They have only themselves to thank.  Hiring an insider does nothing to change this fitting reputation.

Putting aside the highly questionable process surrounding the hiring of Mr. Smith as the new Superintendent, the qualifications of the man himself raises several red flags, in the opinion of this group and many in our community.  First of all, Mr. Smith has never been a Superintendent before.  He hasn't even been an assistant superintendent.  

Granted, he has led a building of 2400 students.  But that is a far cry from managing an entire school district with 10,000 students and helping to oversee a budget of millions of dollars.  Even the most diehard of unquestioning supporters of the district have to acknowledge that fact.

Fairfield as a school district and as a community does not have the luxury of affording a new superintendent a set of training wheels until he learns the job, and perhaps even blossoms into a superb administrator one day.  This isn't a Summer internship we're talking about here.  It's the chief administrative position for the schools in your community.  There is little margin for error.

In addition to his glaring lack of qualifications to lead one of Ohio's larger public school districts, some incidents that have taken place at Fairfield High School, and the responses to them by Mr. Smith, leave us quite uncomfortable.  

Even as far back as 2010, bullying horror stories about Fairfield City Schools, and the High School particularly, began to surface.  Check out this story from WCPO in 2010 - while Mr. Smith was Principal.

What knowledge did Mr. Smith have about Sara Clark being bullied?  Was it brought to his attention personally?  If so, what actions did Mr. Smith take?  Was the bullying brought to the attention of Mr. Smith's staff?  If so, what actions did they take, and did they inform him, as policy mandates they do?

These are all important questions that need to be asked, and which Mr. Smith needs to answer.  Perhaps Mr. Smith did everything he could to help Sara Clark.  It may be that he followed the district's bullying policy to the letter.  She says otherwise in a lawsuit.  Will the district please set the record straight?

Still, we don't get a good feeling about promoting a man to the job of Superintendent in a district plagued by a bullying scandal, when the district he serves was sued just a few years ago over an alleged bullying problem in the very building he was supposed to be administering. 

Another problem plaguing Fairfield City Schools during the scandal surrounding the Emilie Olsen case has been the lack of transparency by the district and an intolerance for dissent or criticism.  As you can see in this May 21st, 2013 e-mail, Mr. Smith feels you, the parents, citizens, and taxpayers of this community should not be permitted to criticize the district:

 

We're also quite troubled by the role Mr. Smith played in a 2013 incident in which police were summoned and state in their incident report investigation that the victim's allegations had merit.  Read the report for yourself.  It seems to us that Mr. Smith is way out of line here, and as so often happens at Fairfield City Schools, was blaming the victim:

Fairfield High School was also featured prominently in the news in December 2015, and as often is the case for our community, it wasn't in a positive light.  We all probably remember this graphic and disturbing video from an incident within the offices of FHS:

As the video depicts, Mr. Smith was not with these students as the incident unfolded, and that is perfectly fine.  He may well have been attending to other duties.  The building principal cannot be everywhere at once, and no reasonable person would claim he could be, or even lay blame for this incident at the feet of Mr. Smith personally.

However, this incident did occur in the main office area at FHS, and presumably just feet from Mr. Smith's office.  How did this incident occur?  Why were two agitated, feuding students in the main office with no other adults, save one, immediately present?  Why were the students who filmed the incident permitted to roam the main offices at FHS?  What measures were put into place by the building's head principal, Mr. Smith, to ensure this sort of incident did not take place again?

Mr. Smith needs to explain what happened here.  The district never has explained.  Fairfield's solution often tends to be to ignore the public and hope we forget when an incident or scandal occurs.

We're certain that thin-skinned and unquestioning supporters of Fairfield City Schools will make their usual, played out claims that we're attacking Mr. Smith.  That we are the bullies, in fact.

That's a false argument.  A canard.  It's a talking point to distract you and the discussion away from the authentic issues we have raised here:

• Lack of integrity and transparency by the Board of Education
• Mr. Smith's lack of qualifications to be Superintendent of a district as large as Fairfield
• Mr. Smith's past actions and incidents 

Can district supporters and Fairfield City Schools address the issues we have raised?

We wish Mr. Smith all the best in his new position.  We're certain he will try his best.  And when Fairfield City Schools is actually ready to start working with the entire community - not just the vocal, increasingly small number of unquestioning supporters - our group will be here.