Debunking Their Own Talking Points: The Fairfield Paper Trail Says the Past is the Present...and Likely the Future

The unquestioning district supporters of Fairfield City Schools often sound like ridiculous lawyers compelled to defend their often indefensible clients who were caught red-handed in some kind of misdeed.  We have read and debunked several talking points by the district and their supporters both in the Emilie Olsen case, and on the topic of bullying generally.

Absurd defenses of Fairfield's conduct in Emilie's case has ranged from accusing that poor dead girl of all sorts personal failings, to chalking up the whole incident and excusing it as a wider societal problem.  Our group has debunked all of these ridiculous and often hurtful arguments dreamt up by district supporters.  In fact, nothing Fairfield City Schools has ever said about Emilie or her story is nearly as malicious or ridiculous as some of the fanciful explanations and excuses we have heard from district supporters.  The unquestioning supporters of Fairfield are ten times worse and more unreasonable than anyone our group has ever dealt with that was actually employed by the school system.

One of the latest talking points thrown against the wall by district supporters is that things have changed in Fairfield City Schools.  The small number of people involved in Emilie's story are gone from the district.  We have a new superintendent.  All the mistakes of the past are in the past.  A new day has dawned, we've been told.  The people in charge now have fresh eyes and will handle bullying appropriately.  Or so district supporters say.

We wish that was the case.  The recent history of the district would seem to indicate that little has changed.  And we'll share documents with you revealing why we think little has changed just yet in our district.

As you probably may know, the WCPO I-Team recently filed a story where it was reported two more Fairfield Middle School students had committed suicide within 3 months of each other in early 2017.  That makes 3 student suicides at Fairfield City Schools in 32 months.  You can see the video here:



Our group says it is a problem when the community buries three young people in less than 3 years because of bullying.  District supporters say that our group is the real problem.  You're free to make up your own mind, of course.

The loss of Logan and Lily - on top of what happened to Emilie - are the ultimate tragedy.  Suicides related to bullying at Fairfield are still rare events; albeit less rare in our district than for any other of comparable size.

The routine bullying incidents witnessed in daily life are still being mishandled by Fairfield City Schools.  Or at least they were as of 18 months ago in the scenario we're about to relay to you.  What's revealed in the district emails below is important because it is the daily grind of bullying, like in the story we're about to relay, that eventually have the cumulative effect of pushing a troubled young person over the line to suicide.

Nobody gives up hope and steps off the edge into tragic oblivion because they were made fun of one time.  Bullying and harassment that endures over weeks, months, and years in a steady stream of insults, taunts, and terror can conspire with other factors to induce young people to take their own lives.

The story we're about to share is significant too because the district employees playing prominent roles in this incident are still employed by Fairfield City Schools.  This story debunks the talking point of district supporters that the so-called handful of staff who don't address harassment properly are long gone and in the distant past.  No they aren't.  Nor is district mishandling and basic lack of customer service a memory either.

On a positive note, we are very glad to see in the pages below that Superintendent Billy Smith acted quickly, decisively, and properly when notified by parents of the problem.  He saved this encounter.  Single handedly.  We had a seemingly good ending here thanks solely to him.

We still disagree with the process that installed Mr. Smith as Superintendent.  But we say unequivocally that if there had been more pro-active, decisive administrators like Mr. Smith in Emilie's story, then perhaps none of us would be here right now having these types of discussions.  And maybe Emilie would be.

Check out the two notes below sent to Fairfield High School assistant administrators in January/February 2016.  It features a fed up, frustrated parent asking for his or her daughter to have a locker re-assignment away from a male student who is engaging in harassment, both online and in person.  As you can read, the followup and cooperation by these assistant administrators was basically non-existent. (Hasn't that been the whole problem since 2014?)

Following a week of no action or response, the fed up parent finally e-mailed then-FHS Principal Billy Smith:







Mr. Smith, much to his credit, then swung into action.  And despite a few more hiccups because of his assistants, had the problem on its way to eventually being resolved within an hour.  It's amazing what a little leadership can accomplish.

But why did it have to come down to a parent concluding Fairfield really does have a bullying problem, and threatening to go to the Board and the media for something to be done?  Why didn't assistant administrators follow the district's harassment policy, and send this issue up the chain of command as the protocol demands?  Why wasn't the bullying and harassment form offered to the parents by the assistant administrators?

For a district that not only says it doesn't have a bullying problem because it's staff always follow the policies and procedures on harassment, the events we've detailed here don't leave us with a warm and fuzzy feeling.  What if the parent had simply thrown their hands up in despair and not pursued this situation to the doorstep of the media?  What if a responsible administrator like Mr. Smith hadn't been there to make sure things got done correctly?  Would we be talking about now a 4th tragedy in three years?

Fairfield City Schools has a long way to go to restore public confidence when it comes to how they address bullying.  These e-mails show there is still a lot of work to do.  The documents also show that there are responsible, able, competent leaders in the district who will ensure the right thing is done to help the kids.

Maybe this incident is the signal of a beginning.  Rest assured that's all it is: a beginning.

Fairfield is in Denial About Being in Denial: But That's Not an Admission!

As our group has demonstrated both in recent weeks and over the past few years, Fairfield City Schools is utterly incapable of telling the truth.  They lie and deny at every turn.  Even in the face of hard facts and evidence, district officials cling to the mantra of "deny everything."

The latest denial of reality coming from Fairfield City Schools occurred last week.  As you can read here in this report from WCPO, Fairfield announced the creation of a new position: Bullying and Harassment Officer.

The Fairfield Board of Education voted 4-0 to approve Donna Martin as the Fairfield City School District's bullying and harassment officer, a new position created to "streamline efforts to address complaints of bullying and harassment," district spokeswoman Gina Gentry-Fletcher said.

The school board approved a two-year contract for Martin with an annual salary of $62,000.

The district has to hire someone and pay them $62,000 a year to make all the teachers and principals in Fairfield obey the bullying policy?  That doesn't speak too highly of the district's workforce.  Why do teachers and principals need a hall monitor to make sure they toe the line on bullying?

Did you see the interesting Interesting tidbit from the WCPO article? Something that district spokesperson Gina Gentry-Fletcher said caught our eye.

She said the new bullying and harassment officer position "is not" connected in any way to the Olsen case. She added, "but as you know, we do not comment on pending litigation."

"The new position will provide a layer of accountability in our work to ensure that our students learn in a safe and secure environment," she said. "That is our top priority."

Really?

Three dead students, a federal lawsuit, and e-mails we've discovered lately that show the United States Department of Justice was seeking records from the district last year - and none of it has a single thing to do with the creation of a Bullying and Harassment officer, huh?

We find this denial by the district difficult to believe.  

You will remember, that the district refused to fulfill a records request recently, citing that the documents we sought were exempted because Fairfield was in reasonable anticipation of a proceeding. The records we were seeking were duplicate copies of whatever Fairfield provided to the US Department of Justice last year.

Now, we're no lawyers, but if the school was refusing to provide duplicate copies of records it provided to the US Department of Justice under the logic that Fairfield was in anticipation of a proceeding of some kind, then we can only conclude that Fairfield City Schools has been or will be involved with federal officials in an official capacity on the issue of bullying.

Being in denial of reality is nothing new for Fairfield City Schools.  The district has been in denial for almost three years about it's bullying problems.  Surely we all remember the vast public outcry that occurred a couple of years ago when the story first broke about the dishonesty in Emilie's case by Fairfield.  

Despite worldwide condemnation in the Summer of 2015, Fairfield City Schools refused to so much as even review its own bullying policies.  You can refresh your memory on the district's obstinacy here in this WCPO article.  

“District leaders have not discussed revising or reviewing the bullying policy,” district spokeswoman Gina Gentry-Fletcher said at the time.  A district enduring all the negative publicity Fairfield was undergoing at that time could only be described as being in a state of denial.  

The denial of Fairfield City Schools extends to well beyond just publicity.  Throughout the Emilie Olsen case, our group has amassed a pile of documentation and other evidence pointing towards misconduct by Fairfield.  In the face of documents, e-mails, and other facts, all Fairfield has been able to do is simply deny everything and insist it did nothing wrong in Emilie's case.

It's as if the district is saying to the world "Who are you going to believe, us or your eyes?"

You can read here on our blog where we documented Fairfield's lies when it told a federal court that there was no graffiti about Emilie Olsen on the bathroom walls of the middle school, and nor was it ever informed of such.  E-mail records show Fairfield City Schools lied on both counts.  There was graffiti and they knew about it.

You can see where Fairfield told a series of whoppers to its own employees that flew in the very face of reality, and very likely broke the law.

Check out where Fairfield City Schools was caught in another huge lie about visiting the home of Emilie Olsen with police just days after her death to confront her grieving parents.

Our group caught and called out the now former Superintendent about a series of false statements he gave to the public.  His punishment?  He found another job and a $30,00 raise.

Despite all these documented instances of wrongdoing, Fairfield still claims it has done nothing wrong on bullying or in Emilie's case specifically.  Talk about being in denial, right?

So why do you send your kids to this school?  There have been 3 student suicides because of bullying in our district in just 32 months.  Or do you think it can't happen to your family too?  

Who is in denial now?

Proceeding With the Proceedings: Fairfield's Bait and Switch on Public Records

Officials at Fairfield City Schools should cheer up and look on the bright side.  It is true that most district leaders will be unemployed by the time a federal court in the Olsen case, the United States Justice Department, and Ohio Department of Education gets through with them.

Fairfield's ability to dodge questions and engage in bait and switch tactics should serve district officials well in their next career as used car salesmen in some of the many fine dealerships we have up and down Route 4.  

That talent at avoiding the answering of questions was on full display this week, as our group continued to pursue duplicate copies of whatever public records were made available to the United States Department of Justice last year by Fairfield City Schools.  You can read more about this ongoing discussion with district officials in two separate entries on the blog, both here and here.  

We can now give you an update on our progress with the district and can say that we are pursuing avenues of appeal to force Fairfield City Schools comply with Ohio's open records law.

In summary, this is what has happened so far:

• A citizen e-mailed Mr. Smith asking for duplicate copies of records the district provided to the United States Department of Justice in 2016
• The district refused, citing Ohio law, claiming that trial preparation records are exempt from public records requests
• Our group e-mailed Mr. Smith, asking for the records and disputing the assertion that the documents were exempted.  In our view, there is no trial pending between the Department of Justice and Fairfield City Schools.  Thusly, the documents are not trial preparation records.
• Our group asked for the case number of the trial that is/was apparently pending between Fairfield and the district.
• Mr. Smith said the Department of Justice "did not provide an identifying case number."

The claim that the district did not know the case number of a pending trial it had with the United States Department of Justice did not sit well with us.  This was our response:

As we informed Mr. Smith, if the district was under the micrscope of the US Department of Justice, then the records are not exempt from a public records request on those grounds alone.  Only a trial would exempt the records in our view, as that is the language of the law.  And there is no trial we know of between the district and the DOJ, or case number that's been provided.

Mr. Smith rejected our view in this e-mail:

As you can see for yourself, Mr. Smith seems to hint at the argument the records are protected because of some kind of pending civil proceeding, or the reasonable anticipation of such, between the district and the US Department of Justice.  Mr. Smith could well be 100% correct.  If the district is heading for or has had some kind of official meeting or hearing as a result of an official federal investigation of some kind, then yes, the documents we have asked for are no longer public records.  He's right, if that's the case.

Our group tried to be reasonable and work with Mr. Smith.  All we asked for was confirmation that Fairfield City Schools was or is under investigation by the US Department of Justice for bullying and harassment issues, and that an official proceeding was or has happened.  If we could have obtained confirmation of this federal investigation and proceeding, then we were happy to drop the whole matter.  You can see our e-mail here:

And then after essentially stating previously that Fairfield City Schools was in reasonable preparation for a civil proceeding of some kind, Mr.Smith turns around and refuses to confirm it:

What do you make of all this bait and switch and talking in circles?

This subject is not a matter of opinion or conjecture.  It was a simple question:

Was or is Fairfield City Schools under investigation by the United States Department of Justice for issues related to bullying, and was/will there be a proceeding/hearing/etc between the district and federal officials on that topic?

Seems a simple enough question to answer.  There are only two possible answers, in fact:

• Yes, the district was/is under investigation and a proceeding has or will take place
• No, the district is not under investigation, and there is/was no proceeding

That's it.  Yes or no.  It's a simple question the district cannot answer.  And that's why no one believes a word they say about anything.

With no records or confirmation of a good reason for not providing the documents, our group has no choice but to pursue our lawful avenues of appeal under Ohio Revised Code 2743.75 Jurisdiction over claims alleging denial of access to public records.

We'll keep you informed as to what happens next.  

The Dog Ate Fairfield's Homework: They Don't Know the Case Number of Their Apparent Pending Issue With a Federal Agency

This is another one of those occasions where we really hope Fairfield City Schools is lying.  If they are telling the truth, then the facts are probably worse than a lie!

Last week, we brought you a story about a records request that a citizen had submitted, but Fairfield City Schools had refused to fill.  You can read that blog entry here.

In summary, both our group and a private citizen were seeking copies of records provided by the district to the United States Justice Department, and alluded to in this May 2016 e-mail between a staffer and the current superintendent:

Fairfield City Schools is saying it won't provide the same documents requested by the United States Department of Justice based on the following two portions of the Ohio Revised Code:

(1) "Public record" means records kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, and records pertaining to the delivery of educational services by an alternative school in this state kept by the nonprofit or for-profit entity operating the alternative school pursuant to section 3313.533 of the Revised Code. "Public record" does not mean any of the following:

(4) "Trial preparation record" means any record that contains information that is specifically compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or in defense of, a civil or criminal action or proceeding, including the independent thought processes and personal trial preparation of an attorney.

So what we interpret to be Fairfield's position here is that the district won't provide for public review the same documents it was working to give to the DOJ in May 2016 because the papers in question involve a "trial preparation record" of some kind. 

We wrote an e-mail to Superintendent Billy Smith, seeking clarification:

Our position is simply this:

Unless Fairfield City Schools is indeed in a trial of some kind with the United States Department of Justice, then the documents the district provided that federal agency last year are public records that the community has a right to see.

Mr. Smith graciously responded that he stood by the refusal of the district's custodian of records to turn over the documents we requested.  Our group then asked for a case number of the trial that is/was/may/may not be apparently pending between the US Department of Justice and Fairfield City Schools.  Here was his reply to our request for that case number:

In other words, the dog at Fairfield's homework.  How could an organization be staring down the barrel of a trial or some other sort of date with destiny with a federal agency, but not know the case number?  It's astounding really.

We'll keep you posted on whatever happens next.

Half-Empty or Half-Full: How Much is Fairfield Lying this Time?

In the latest chapter of what has turned out to be a long narrative of sad and sorry incidents committed by Fairfield City Schools, the district has again made itself look horribly dishonest.  It may even be breaking the law once again.  We'll be turning all of this information over to our contacts at the state and federal level, as well as partners and allies in local media.  Let them sort it out.

A friend of the group forwarded an e-mail to us that was obtained lawfully via public records request.  The May 2016 e-mail is posted below.  It is a communication between the current Superintendent of Fairfield City Schools, Billy Smith, and the Coordinator of District Information, Donna Martin.  As you can read below for yourself, this e-mail exchange mentions a United States Department of Justice records request filed with Fairfield that Ms. Martin was apparently working on.

It is our view that this records request almost certainly pertains in some way to the Emilie Olsen story.  Our group sent a 246 page report in December 2016 to the US DOJ, as well as a wide range of public officials and agencies at the state and federal level, seeking an investigation into Fairfield City Schools and providing a case for why such a query is justified.

We posted this e-mail between Ms. Martin and Mr. Smith on our Facebook page to let the public know that federal officials are interested in Fairfield City Schools.  Several of our friends and supporters contacted district officials for clarification and answers as to what business the US Department of Justice had with Fairfield.  Here is one of those e-mails:

As you probably saw in the e-mail, this resident was asking whether or not the DOJ was investigating the Emilie Olsen case.  If federal officials were investigating the district, then this resident requested the same records that the Department of Justice was asking for in the previously posted May 2016 e-mail above between Mr. Smith and Ms. Martin.

A few days after the concerned resident contacted the district about the Department of Justice's records request, Fairfield's custodian of records and Treasurer, Nancy Lane, sent this reply:

As you can see, Ms. Lane does not confirm or deny that the referred to May 2016 e-mail mentioning a Department of Justice records request had anything to do with Emilie Olsen.  Regardless of the focus of that federal query into Fairfield's records, Ms. Lane stated in her reply that the documents being sought by the Department of Justice are not public records.  Fairfield City Schools has thusly refused to turn over duplicate copies of the records being sought by the US Department of Justice, stating they are not public records.

We very much hope that for once Fairfield City Schools is not doing what it does most of the time: lying through it's teeth.  We very much disagree with the district's assertion that the records requested by the DOJ are not a public record.  We'll explain why.

Bear with us for a moment as we dive into the intricacies of the law.  Lets break down what Fairfield is saying here when it refused to provide the documents requested, claiming the papers are not public records.  The district has cited Ohio Revised Code Section 143, which deals with public records.  You can read through it yourself here.

Fairfield City Schools is saying it won't provide the same documents requested by the United States Department of Justice based on the following two portions of the Ohio Revised Code:

(1) "Public record" means records kept by any public office, including, but not limited to, state, county, city, village, township, and school district units, and records pertaining to the delivery of educational services by an alternative school in this state kept by the nonprofit or for-profit entity operating the alternative school pursuant to section 3313.533 of the Revised Code. "Public record" does not mean any of the following:

(4) "Trial preparation record" means any record that contains information that is specifically compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or in defense of, a civil or criminal action or proceeding, including the independent thought processes and personal trial preparation of an attorney.


So what we interpret to be Fairfield's position here is that the district won't provide for public review the same documents it was working to give to the DOJ in May 2016 because the papers in question involve a "trial preparation record" of some kind.

We find this explanation to be highly unsatisfactory.  In fact, we think Fairfield City Schools is just lying again as usual; it's what they do best, in fact.  So far as we know, the United States Department of Justice has no case filed against Fairfield City Schools or any of its current or former employees.  There is no trial that Fairfield would be preparing for with the DOJ,

Believe us; we very much wish federal officials had slapped the district and many of its workers with criminal charges for violating Emilie Olsen's civil rights.  Nothing would give us greater pleasure than to see the many villains mentioned in Emilie's story over the years and months do a perp walk into the federal courthouse downtown on Main Street, and march out in orange jumpsuits.

That will probably happen someday.  But that day isn't today.  No criminal charges have been filed by the DOJ against Fairfield City Schools or any of its current or former employees.  Nor, to the best of our knowledge, has any civil action been brought by federal officials against the district.

So how then can Fairfield claim it will not give up the records requested by a citizen in the June 2, 2017 e-mail posted above, citing ORC 143.45 A(4)?  There is no trial pending between Fairfield City Schools or the United States Department of Justice, to the best of our knowledge.

Granted, there is a civil trial pending between the estate of Emilie Olsen and Fairfield City Schools.  But that has nothing to do with the United States Department of Justice, which was the entity requesting the now sought after records.

The Olsen family is the party that is successfully suing Fairfield.  Not the Department of Justice.

Moreover, the records requested by the Department of Justice being mentioned in that May 2016 e-mail between Superintendent Smith and information officer Martin almost certainly contains documents like e-mails - which are undoubtedly public records.

So we don't accept the reasons provided by the district's custodian of records for not fulfilling the citizen's records request of June 2, 2017, posted above.  There is no trial pending between Fairfield and the US Department of Justice, so far as we know.  And the records being sought by the DOJ are the same sorts of public records any citizen can ask that Fairfield produce for inspection.

If there is a criminal or civil case pending between Fairfield City Schools and the US Department of Justice, then what is the case number?

What is Fairfield City Schools hiding this time?

A cynical person think that there were gaps between whatever records the Department of Justice requested and received, and the e-mails that were contained in the December 2016 report we sent to federal officials.  We would be quick to tell such cynical persons that Fairfield City Schools has far too much integrity to do something like that.

We are going to reach out to district officials to try to get this citizen's records request properly filled. We'll keep you posted.

#JusticeforEmilie

Cronyism is Alive and Well at Fairfield City Schools

Fairfield City Schools is so crooked that if it swallowed a roofing nail, it would come out the other side as a corkscrew.

Fairfield City Schools is very talented.  They never surprise us, but at the same time never cease to amaze.  Once again, the Board of Education has spit in the face of this community and told us all to go to hell.

The story behind this latest outrage from Fairfield City Schools began with a real tragedy.  The Board Vice President, Jerome Kearns, sadly passed away of a sudden heart attack on December 20, 2016.  He was only 50 years old.   

The death of Mr. Kearns is heartbreaking for his family.  The tragedy was compounded by the suddenness of his death, and made worse by the fact it was five days before Christmas.  You can read more about it here, courtesy of the Journal-News.

While our group had many documented issues with Mr. Kearns' time on the Board of Education and his actions while serving in that role, we certainly held no personal animosity towards him.  Mr. Kearns had a family, and no one should have to bury a father and husband at age 50.

Work was quickly set about by the district to fill the seat left vacant by Mr. Kearns' untimely passing.  A public notice was posted to the district website on the day after Christmas:

The announcement on the particulars of filling the vacant seat were published on December 26, with a deadline for application submissions December 31. If you believe that a 5 day window between Christmas and New Year's allows ample time for the best qualified field of applicants to submit paperwork to fill that Board seat, then you probably need to think about all this a little while longer.

Why the rush? The deadline could have been extended for at least a week.There was no reason to rush this appointment through in secrecy unless something untoward was going on at Fairfield. And it usually is.

The week before the January 12, 2017 Board meeting to fill the vacant seat, our group received copies of all 8 applications submitted by citizens interested in filling out the term of Jerome Kearns, which lasts until 2019.  The applicants ranged in age, experience, and background.  One was a college student.  A few were recent graduates.  One was a retired banking CEO.  And a few were district insiders with a long history of working to support tax increases; two of these cronies of the Board of Education even had the temerity to list former Superintendent Paul Otten as a reference.

The process to fill the vacant seat on the Board of Education was a sham, in our opinion.  As we have documented before, Fairfield City Schools has a nasty habit of engaging in cronyism. The candidate search to find a new Superintendent carried out by the district in Summer 2016 was a rigged farce.

It was our view that the process to fill the Board vacancy would be similarly rigged. And how right we were!

The January 12th Board meeting to fill the vacant seat started at 5 PM. That was problematic in and of itself. How many of you can get off work, pick up kids from school/daycare/babysitter, get them to practice, feed your family dinner and be at the high school for the meeting by 5 PM?

We know we can't. Most people can't.

Why was this meeting being held at 5 PM? Why was the deadline for applications December 31? Why was the meeting held tonight when it could have been pushed back for an additional week at least? Why the rush?

Well, we know why. Fairfield City Schools is likely up to no good again. But what else is new?

The Board of Education ended up selecting Carrie O'Neal as the replacement to serve out the term of Mr. Kearns.  You can read the official announcement on the district's website here.  You can view the announcement below, as well as Mrs. O'Neal's application.

 

We reviewed the Board applications carefully. There were several qualified people. There were several outsiders with a fresh set of eyes and perspective who would make ideal Board members.

But as we predicted, the insiders got the Board seat. The cronies. The folks who listed a current or former Superintendent as references. Someone who will go with the program, maintain the status quo, and not rock the boat.

It's what happened the last time an open Board seat was filled. It's what happened when the Superintendent's position needed filling.

The tone deaf echo chamber of cronyism is alive and well at Fairfield City Schools. The track record of this district proves it.

This Board of Education, which has illustrated time and time again that it has no interest in accountability when it comes to bullying, is not about to install an outsider in their midst that is sympathetic in principle towards Emilie's case or this group.

This community has been screaming for change at Fairfield City Schools.  Within the past two years, the district has been the subject of international news, a barrage of public outcry, state investigation, and a federal lawsuit.

So what does the district do?  It appoints to the Board someone who has supported and worked to assure passage of every recent expensive tax levy and bond issue.  

The new Board appointee even listed as a reference, former Superintendent Paul Otten.  This decision smacks of cronyism.  How can the Board appoint someone to it's ranks who listed as a reference, a man who conducted himself this way while leading our schools:

Using this man as a reference ought to have been a disqualifier in our opinion.  In addition to his conduct in the video above, we have detailed some of Mr. Otten's more questionable actions during his time as Superintendent at Fairfield.  The appointment to the Board of an applicant who would use Mr. Otten as a reference is a signal that change is not something on the minds of Fairfield City Schools.  Business as usual and the status quo are the order of the day.

We hold no animosity towards Mrs. O'Neal for joining the Board.  She hasn't done anything wrong.  On the bright side, she cannot possibly be as bad as the rest of the Board.  No one can.

But the fact remains Mrs. O'Neal, based on her comments thus far and application, appears to be one of many people in the community that express nearly unquestioning support for Fairfield City Schools.  We cannot find a single word in her application or any other resource that would seem to indicate she has made public any concerns about bullying problems in Fairfield, staff accountability regarding harassment, or any of the other issues that have cast a negative spotlight on the district for over two years now.

Mrs. O'Neal has expressed interest in promoting diversity, ensuring the redistricting goes smoothly, and has taken an interest in the district's health clinic.  We'll have much more to say on some of these topics in future blogs.  We wish her all the best during her time on the Board.

#JusticeforEmilie