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