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

Handwriting on the Walls: Fairfield City Schools Caught in Yet Another Lie in the Emilie Olsen Case

The handwriting was on the walls for Fairfield City Schools in the Emilie Olsen case in the days and hours before and after her death on December 11, 2014.  Literally.

We'll prove that.  We'll also prove yet again that Fairfield City Schools LIED in it's official federal court filing response to the Emilie Olsen case.

When will Fairfield finally just start to tell the truth?  Or hire better liars.  It really is sad and pathetic that Fairfield is incapable of being honest.  And when one considers that the evidence we used to catch the district in yet another lie about Emilie's case is widely available in public records, it is puzzling Fairfield would even be dishonest anyway.  What is it with these people?

In the federal lawsuit filed against Fairfield City Schools, it's employees privately, and several students, it was alleged that graffiti existed in the middle school that was derogatory and possibly racist towards Emilie Olsen .  We have published an image of this allegation in the Olsen lawsuit below.

This allegation by the Olsen family regarding hateful graffiti on the walls of Fairfield Middle School was denied in the district's official response filed in federal court early this year.  You can read more about that here.  In fact, every allegation - literally every last one in the 100+ page filing by the Olsens - was denied by Fairfield City Schools.

In April 2016, our group submitted a records request to Fairfield City Schools to try to get to the bottom of these graffiti allegations involving Emilie.  Our reasoning was that if the graffiti did exist, then a paper trail of maintenance requests might have led to it's removal.  We were told by the district that no such records existed, and have posted that e-mail exchange below.

Like everything else involving Fairfield City Schools when it comes to Emilie Olsen, the district is lying again.  Plain and simple, they're LIARS.  We'll prove it.

Check out this e-mail from the day after Emilie Olsen died, between her science teacher and Fairfield Middle School Assistant Principal Mark Rice (For more on Mr. Rice's dirty hands in Emilie's case, please click here).  As you can clearly see, this December 12, 2014 e-mail, sent at 11:46 AM that morning, clearly indicates that graffiti about Emilie Olsen did decorate the bathroom walls at FMS.

So, we have proof that administration at Fairfield City Schools was notified that yes, indeed there was graffiti about Emilie Olsen in FMS around the time of her death.  Kind of makes Fairfield's denials about the graffiti in their response to the Olsen lawsuit look like a sickening and ridiculous pack of lies, doesn't it?  That's because it is.

What did Mark Rice do with this information in the e-mail above?  We don't know.

We have his e-mails and those of other administrators and the Superintendent, and can verify that this note from Emilie's science teacher was never forwarded to anyone by Mr. Rice.  Nor is any mention of graffiti mentioned in the Fairfield Township Police Report.

Why, Mark Rice?  What did you do with the information given to you in that e-mail?

Fairfield City Schools' lies go deeper than that however.  Not only do records exist in the form of e-mails proving that the the district was made aware of the racist, bullying graffiti about Emilie Olsen at Fairfield Middle School, but we have reason to believe the district has actual images of the writings themselves.

Check out these e-mails sent by an unknown party to Fairfield Middle School Principal Lincoln Butts on December 17, 2014.  The images depicted in the boys and girls restrooms at FMS are redacted because they contain student names.  Note the last of the images contains the date Emilie died, "12-11-14."  We'll give you three guesses to figure out the student name redacted in these pictures.

Notice in this e-mail also sent on December 17, 2014, that some kind of unknown graffiti also existed in Cafeteria C.  That's the cafeteria Emilie ate in.  That's the cafeteria where the October 21st, 2014 bullying incident we have spoken about before unfolded.  One guess as to whose name is under this redaction:

We're no attorneys or legal experts by any means.  But it seems like in the civil case filed against them by Emilie Olsen's estate, Fairfield City Schools has been caught in yet another whopper of a lie.

What did Mr.Butts do with the information in these e-mails?  Again, we can find no e-mail evidence these images were ever forwarded to his superiors or police.  Why?  What was done?

These documents that prove the existence of the graffiti about Emilie, and establishes that proof of the same was in Fairfield's possession from just hours after she died.   The first e-mail to an FMS administrator was sent the morning after Emilie died.

Judging from the official police report into the incident, it appears Fairfield employees never bothered to inform law enforcement about the graffiti regarding Emilie that the school knew existed.  If that isn't obstruction of justice, then it ought to be.  It should be illegal in some from or fashion what employees at Fairfield City Schools have done here.

And frankly, how dumb does one have to be to deny in federal court the existence of graffiti that is openly documented in public records available to anyone who bothers to request them and look for it?  If some irrelevant internet watchdog activist group was able to piece all this together, Fairfield, what is a real lawyer, or even state and federal investigators going to do?  We wouldn't want to be in the legal position of Fairfield City Schools right about now.

Fairfield lied and Emilie died.  The handwriting is on the walls as to Fairfield's guilt.

#JusticeforEmilie

Lots of Talking Going on at Fairfield Behind that Wall of Student Privacy Laws

To use the words of a certain official at Fairfield City Schools, when it comes to exposing your conduct during the Emilie Olsen case, it would be a mistake to say "We're done with you!"

We will be presenting for your review an e-mail exchange from May 2015 between two district employees regarding the Emilie Olsen case.  The level of dishonesty contained in the e-mail is shocking, and we will provide you with the proof as to why.  We have some serious concerns about the content of this e-mail, as well as the untrue statements being issued by the district's spokesperson.

The e-mail exchange in question, posted below, was likely prompted by the public outcry that accompanied the May 2015 WCPO -I-Team investigation into Emilie Olsen's case.  You can view that report here.

As many of you probably recall, when the I-Team reported about Emilie's case, there was shock across the entire Tri-State.  Despite their statements to contrary, Fairfield City Schools in fact was fully aware of the fact Emilie was being bullied.  WCPO had the documents to prove it.

After the I-Team report hit the airwaves, Fairfield City Schools was roundly criticized.  The district was inundated with negative publicity and scorn from all quarters.  There were even angry outbursts at a Board of Education meeting.  And yet all Fairfield did in the face of a firestorm of criticism was issue canned statements and cite student privacy laws.  In the minds of many people, this made the district appear all the more guilty; and compelled unquestioning Fairfield supporters to demand a response.

Now that you have an understanding of the context about surrounding events, please read for yourself the May 16, 2015 e-mail exchange between Fairfield City Schools Public Relations Director Gina Gentry-Fletcher and Instructional Specialist Lori Wegman:

While the e-mail may seem innocent enough at first glance, we're going to prove that there's enough baloney in Gina Gentry-Fletcher's response to open a deli.  We'll start at the beginning of Ms. Gentry-Fletcher's response, and dismantle it, point by point.

Ms. Gentry-Fletcher states "We had one report of bullying from her dad prior to the start of the school year from when she attended FIS..."

That's a LIE.  And Gina Gentry-Fletcher knows it.  Here's the proof:

This was an e-mail exchange between Marc Olsen and Fairfield Middle School Assistant Principal Mark Rice from September 8, 2014.  As you can see, it was forwarded by Mr. Rice to Gina Gentry-Fletcher on December 15 , 2014.  We have the original e-mail, which was also sent to FMS Guidance Counselor Erica Green, if anyone is interested in seeing it.

As you can see for yourself in the e-mail above, Mr.Olsen clearly identifies a particular student in a specific classroom at FMS in September 2014 that was harassing Emilie Olsen.  In other words, bullying.

So how can Ms. Gentry-Fletcher claim that the school was never notified of any bullying of Emilie at FMS during the 2014-2015 academic year, when she herself was copied on an e-mail indicating specific harassment that was taking place?  Why was Ms. Gentry-Fletcher discussing intimate particulars of Emilie's case with Ms. Wegman anyway?

More importantly, what was done by Assistant Principal Mark Rice to address this harassment Mr.Olsen identified specifically?  Was the bullying policy adhered to?  Was the building administrator or the Superintendent's office notified of the bullying, as district policy demands?  We can't find proof of it.

Moving on...

Further in her May 2015 e-mail to Lori Wegman, Ms. Gentry-Fletcher states "The incident ch9 referred to in October did not involve __ ([sic] Emilie).  The reporter insists that she is one of the students who completed an incident report but she is not."

That's just not true.

First off, as anyone who watched the I-Team story can see, at no time did reporters claim Emilie herself wrote any of the eyewitness statements regarding an October 21st, 2014 bullying incident in the cafeteria at Fairfield Middle School.  The I-Team simply published the documents and identified Emilie as the target of that bullying incident.

Additionally, in subsequent e-mails with reporters, district officials have claimed that the October 21st incident being referenced had nothing to do with Emilie.  That's just not the case.

We've published these documents before, but must do so again.  These are the eyewitness statemnets to the October 21st, 2014 cafeteria incident at Fairfield Middle School.  As you can see for yourself in the first image below, it says as plain as day, "File under Emilie Olsen."  Look:

And as you can also clearly see in the eyewitness statement above, Emilie Olsen was specifically named as being the target of bullies then and there, at the FMS cafeteria on October 21, 2014.  How can anyone who isn't a liar or not very bright claim the October 21st incident described in these eyewitness statements did not involve her?

Please read the rest of the eyewitness reports for that day as well.  The statements clearly describe a bullying event where Emilie's friends attempted to come to her rescue because of harassment actively taking place then and there at FMS on October 21st, 2014.  Not the previous academic year at the Intermediate building.

This e-mail exchange between district employees - even if we had not conclusively proven it to be a pack of complete lies - raises some very troubling questions about Fairfield City Schools.

Why is the Public Relations Director speaking about the Emilie Olsen case at all with a frontline staff member?  Why is Fairfield speaking about private details of Emilie's case with district employees, while cowering behind student privacy laws to the public?  Has FERPA - the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act - been violated?

We'll wait with bated breath for an explanation from Fairfield City Schools.  But there are other questions that need asking too:

Have student privacy laws been violated here?   Has professional misconduct taken place under Ohio Department of Education regulations?  Is this e-mail one more example in a long pattern of abuses and misconduct by Fairfield City Schools?  Does this e-mail only provide further proof of a pattern of conduct by Fairfield City Schools that resulted in Emilie Olsen being deprived of her civil rights under federal law?

We think so.  What do you think?

We'll be sending all of this information along to state education officials in Columbus, and you can rest assured it will get into the hands of federal investigators at the Justice and Education Departments.  Fairfield City Schools can just explain all this to the proper officials.  Because they lack the integrity to come clean with this community.  You can bet on that.

#JusticeforEmilie

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?