SCRG’s Response to School District’s OEC Complaints
by SCRGadmin on Apr.12, 2010, under Our School System
In July of 2009, Dr. Russell Jones, Superintendent of Stow-Monroe Falls City School District filed an affidavit of complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC). The complaint was sworn and notarized on behalf of the Stow-Monroe Falls Levy Committee. A reprimand was issued to SCRG. Herein is a paraphrased list of the complaints and the results. Anyone who desires to see the documents used as proof exhibits in the OEC hearing may contact Don Bettio, 330-688-8297. Please call during reasonable hours.
Complaint: (Dismissed)
The respondent (Stow Citizens for Responsible Government) (SCRG), is a political action committee that opposed and campaigned against proposed school levies submitted to voters on August 5, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The levies were defeated at both elections.
Our response: It was pointed out to the OEC that our committee and our website never mentions or suggests how a resident of the school district should vote. We endorse no issues or candidates. We merely inform voters of actions of the city and school board they otherwise would probably never gain knowledge of. The levies failed on their own merit.
Complaint: (Dismissed)
(1)The respondent (SCRG) maintained during its campaign against both the August and November levies a website on the internet. (2)The SCRG remains an active committee and continues to maintain its website.
Our response: (1)We reminded the OEC that we do not “campaign” for or against levies, issues or candidates. (2)We have a right to remain active as a committee and a right to publish our findings and our opinions on our website, whether the Superintendent and his lawyers like it or not. We will continue to do so in the future.
Complaint: (Dismissed)
The website contained numerous false statements in violation of Ohio Revised Code section 3517.22(B)(2). The website claimed that “the statements made on this site are verified by the School District’s own records”.
Our response: The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.
Complaint: (Dismissed)
The website falsely stated that “a high school principal with no experience was given the job of Human Resources Director at a salary higher than the former H.R. Director who had experience”.
Our response: The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.
Complaint: (Dismissed)
The website falsely stated that, “the Assistant Treasurer’s salary went from $41,000 to $51,000. When two Board Members were candidates they criticized the raise. In fact the Board members were critical of the fact that the Board was under compensating the position and should have acted earlier to increase the compensation level.
Our response: The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.
Complaints: (Dismissed)
The website falsely stated that, (1)“the Booster Club offered to raise funds to carpet the football stadium with artificial turf. (2)The Superintendent vetoed the idea because he did not want the club raising private funds while the school district was conducting a levy”. “The truth is that I did not veto the idea and I support the Booster Club raising private funds”.
Our response: (1)The SCRG presented school district documents and witness statements refuting the Superintendent’s “truth”. (2) The SCRG presented school district documents and witness statements refuting the Superintendent’s “truth”.
Complaint: (Dismissed)
The website falsely stated that (1)“the Board and administration have ignored their two greatest security measures: (2)Time clocks and security cameras. Both have been installed but none are in use.” In actual fact, the security cameras were and always have been in use since being installed. Time clocks are not security measures. The website stated that “it cost the school district about $2000 a pay period (2 weeks) in unaccounted for overtime”. The actual facts, based on the period of time when the time clocks were in use, the amount of over-time was greater than when the time clocks were not in use. (3)The website further states that the Treasurer has never written a policy governing use of the time clocks. The truth is that the time clocks are not in use because they did not operate properly.
Our response: We contend that the security cameras were not in use at the time the information was posted on the website. (1)And yes, time clocks are a security measure. Ask any business owner. (2)We are unaware of a policy in force at the time this statement was posted on the website. If one is available, we have not received it even though we requested it through the Ohio Open Records Act. We have received documentation from the district Treasurer’s office that the policy was never voted on by the Board and, as she has told us before, “if the Board has not voted on it, it does not exist”. (3)The taxpayers of the district paid an enormous amount of money for the security system to not function properly. We are aware of union grievances regarding the time clocks. It is time to straighten it all out.
Complaint: (Dismissed)
The website falsely stated that, “from August 1, 2007 to June 2008 (the school year) 15,570 days were missed by school system employees. 11,521 substitutes were called in to replace the employees missing work”. The actual fact is that the number of days missed was 10,139. The number of substitutes called in was far less than the number stated.
Our response: The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.
Complaint: (Dismissed)
(1)The website contained the photograph of (we do not care to name the person here), a teacher employed by the school district. (2)The website falsely stated under the photograph, “Here is an example of a teacher’s compensation. This teacher has eleven years with the school district and a bachelor’s degree”. In actual fact, the teacher had twenty years of employment with the district.
Our response: (1)The photo of this teacher (by the way, which one of the three persons in the photo is the teacher in question?) was taken from a public website (the teacher’s union site) and was being displayed publicly. It is a picture taken from the public domain of the internet. Obviously, the teachers in the photograph were participating in an “informational picket” about the unfair practices of the school board. We were unaware of the teacher’s name until we received the complaint. (2)The website clearly indicated that this was an example of a teachers compensation. The photo was removed when we rebuilt our website in the fall of 2009. The photo no longer served any purpose since the compensation scales all changed. Next time, we will try to be more accurate and actually link the photo with the pay scale. We did not wish to embarrass anyone but the Superintendent’s complaint forced us into it.
Complaint: (Dismissed)
(1) There were two complaints concerning SCRG’s financial records reported to the Summit County Board of Elections (SCBOE). (2) These complaints were dropped after verification of records showing that the SCRG was not in violation of report deadlines. These reports are public record.
Our response: (1)Since we have never acquired over $1000 in our treasury, and we do not campaign for or against any candidate or issue, (2)we were exempt from the reports required by many other Political Action Committees.
Complaint: (Part of Reprimand)
The respondent (SCRG) filed as a Political Action Committee with the Summit County Board of Elections on May 6, 2008. The first finance report (periodic finance reports are required by law) was filed by SCRG in July, 2008. The SCRG did not file pre-election or post-election reports for the August 2008 special election.
Our response: The OEC was reminded that SCRG was exempted from filing the required reports because its treasury has never contained $1000.00, the limit at which financial reports must be reported to the Summit County Board of Elections. After being misinformed by the SCBOE, we missed one required report. Our treasurer was not aware that the report was required even if the treasury limit was under $1,000. That error has been corrected.
Complaint: (Part of Reprimand)
The website falsely stated that “the tax would be permanent”
Our response: The SCRG is aware that we used the word “permanent” in error. The SCRG recognizes that any levy legally expires unless it is marked as “permanent” or “continual” (such as the current library levy). From a grass-roots level however, we have never seen a levy expire. They are always renewed. History confirms this. We contend, for instance, that the February 2008 “emergency” levy submitted to the voters was going to be used to offer employee raises and fund an all-day kindergarten. Our contention is that by refusing to allow the state to mandate unfunded liabilities on us, we are notifying them that it is time that the state begin to seriously look into school funding in general. This is unlikely to happen (even with a court order) in the near future if we do not apply pressure through our school districts.
Complaint: (Part of Reprimand)
The website falsely stated that, (1)“snow days in the winter cost approximately $200,000 per day off. (2)Some school employees are paid for the snow day and then paid again if the day is made up later in the year”. School employees are paid for 184 days, which includes up to five calamity days. Therefore, employees receive the same annual pay even if a snow day must be made up later in the year.
Our response: (1)We stated that it costs the school district $200,000 a day to operate. This was shown by the district’s records. (2)Our statement indicating that employees would be paid to make up the calamity days was in error. Teachers and some support staff get a day off with pay while giving the taxpayer nothing for their money.
Complaint: (Part of Reprimand)
The respondent made false statements in calling itself a “charity” and soliciting monetary contributions. These statements mislead the public and may cause donors to violate tax laws. Such statements are in furtherance of respondent’s efforts to raise funds for communications to influence the results of elections were made knowingly and with reckless disregard of the truth.
Our response: We had determined that we were incorrect in the statement “tax deductible” when we consulted with an I.R.S. Agent in late March of 2008. The statement was immediately removed from the website. This complaint was filed based on a website date of March 14, 2008. The statement was removed long before the July date of the complaint’s filing. We never referred to our committee as a charity. We did, however, unintentionally draw a parallel to charities seeking contributions. The entire statement was removed from the website.
9 Comments for this entry
-
Welcome to the new Stow Citizens For Responsible Government website!
Click here for Website Navigation Help
Please note as of the most recent post's date, NO ONE has stepped forward to challenge any fact presented on this website. The easiest way to stay updated is to subscribe to our RSS feed, send us a message, or join us on our Facebook page!
Loading ...
We use Digsby to manage our social networks.
What do you use?
We use 1&1 for our hosting!
April 12th, 2010 on 9:34 pm
School superintendent Russ Jones is like a boxer who, out of desperation, leads with his chin.
SCRG, keep putting out the fact on this trivial complaint business ….. and its cost.
The more the public learns what it is all about, the more the community will come to see what a poor stewart Jones is of the taxpayer money regardless of what his apologists may say.
An open and continuing discussion of this matter is a debate Jones and the education establishment can’t win.
April 13th, 2010 on 1:31 am
After reading the above article, I have no doubt that the public has been outright lied to on many more occasions than are listed. I wonder what the cost of those “misleading statements” the Board and the Superintendent have made is. I know that large institutions and groups usually have monies hidden away somewhere, or they are spending funds on costly, unneccessary things simply because “we’ve always done it that way”. For the Board to join into this “trivial pursuit” shows that they have been led by the nose by the one person they are supposed to be able to trust and work with. Keep up the good work, SCRG, the people of Stow need you whether they know it or not.
April 13th, 2010 on 11:42 am
Yes, SCRG, you have given the information necessary for citizens to be knowledgeable about our school district leadership. Readers should go immediately to your posting, “False Statements?….Misleading Statements? Is The Kettle Calling The Pot Black?” with the picture of the cat.
Connect the dots. Superintendent spends distsrict money to lodge complaints. Superintendent asks PTA Council to collect money registrations for the 2nd annual SMFCS Golf Outing. (The 1st annual golf outing was a fundraiser for the levy committee.) PTA writes the check to the levy committee. SCRG finds out and raises a stink. The levy committee returns the money to the PTA.
Yes, keep up the good work, SCRG.
April 13th, 2010 on 5:08 pm
“Let’s throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.”
The school administration’s attempt to discredit SCRG has had the opposite affect. The superintendent would have us believe this group’s four reprimands legitimize $20,000 and counting in lawyer fees. He conveniently forgets that he swore to twice that many FALSE claims.
This was an obvious, albeit misguided, attempt to shut this group and website down. Rather than attempting to build the district’s credibility with honest communication, fulfilling records requests in a timely manner and truly emulating the pillars of “Character Counts,” the school board and superintendent have chosen to prevent public discussion by jumping on the litigation bandwagon.
The students deserve better…the taxpayers deserve better. They and the staff are truly responsible for the district’s “Excellent with Distinction” rating. The only difference is that they don’t enjoy the $5,000 bonus the school board awards the superintendent every time that rating is attained. Way to go board – keep adding money to the superintendent’s already bloated benefits package. Sit back and rake it in Dr. Jones; according to your recent evaluation, there is no end in sight.
April 15th, 2010 on 7:33 pm
This posting has nothing directly to do with Stow-Munroe Falls school district, but it does have an effect on us.
In May, Hudson has a 5.9 mill school levy on the ballot to raise some $5.6 million dollars. Judging from the letters-to-the-editor in the Hudson Time Hub, there is considerable resistance to this tax hike. Strangely, the citizens of Hudson seem to think they already pay enough for their schools.
To push the levy, the Hudson administration is going through the usual display of hysterics, saying that the city schools would face huge deficits in 2012 without passage of the levy and this would result in ‘dismantling” the schools.
“Dismantling” the schools, yes that’s the superintendent’s chosen word.
I can’t imagine a janitor, let alone the school superintendent, making such an ignorant statement as that, but there it is.
The point here is that we are not alone in facing arrogant, out-of-touch school bureaucrats & administrators whose main concern is feathering their own nest and the nest of the others who are fortunate enough to be employed in our schools.
Hudson is a rather wealth community which historically has not battered an eye to showering its public schools (and municipal work force) with an excess of money. If the tax increasing levy goes down there May 4, the echo of that defeat will be felt across the border to here in the Stow-Munroe Falls and beyond. It will be a not too subtle message to the squanders in charge of the public schools that tax increases will not be tolerated.
April 21st, 2010 on 3:22 pm
I agree with Wizard and Flowerpower that SCRG is generally doing good work as a “watchdog” (pun intended) on community leaders, but you need to be more careful.
From what I read online in the public records of the OEC and from what you say in above article about correcting your own web site, you admitted to five of the charges in exchange for a promise from the board and the commission not to be fined or prosecuted. You saved yourself some time and legal fees in this negotiated “settlement” as the Sentry calls it.
Your lawyer should tell you that you need to be accurate and careful in your future commentary to avoid further complications with the elections commission. That’s why the school board spent their time and effort — to get a little legal leverage on you. As a veteran blogger and news media pro, I can tell you that you undermine your credibility every time you have to correct or clarify inaccurate statements — like in the long post above. Ask the Sentry or the Beacon Journal editors about accuracy and corrections. They hate them.
Citizen bloggers like you (and me) have a good role to play, but we hurt our own arguments with false statements that we have to admit to in court or in a quasi-judicial process. Good luck.
April 22nd, 2010 on 2:42 am
Bull Dawg Dad: Thanks for your input. We are learning. Like you say, the “settlement” was more about money than anything else. We look forward to the day when we have unlimited funding just like a school board. Yes, our lawyer was very helpful in pointing out to us the subtlties of language and the law. We learned a lot. We learned enough to not roll over and die. We also learned that the politically experienced are quite vague, will issue “false statements and misleading information” right along with the rest of us. The difference being that they have access to assistance we could never dream of. We also learned that “lies” are subject to interpretation depending on who is doing the interpretation. Probably the biggest thing we learned is it is very easy to be labeled the “bad guys” when a community allows itself to be blindly led by a cunning leadership. We’re learning, and we’re learning very well. Maybe the learning curve is long, but we intend to hang in there. We hope you will see better, more documented information in the future. And we hope you will see better “legal” care of our language also. From our perspective, we view the OEC process as a victory from the standpoint of the many other complaints that were submitted but dismissed because of our proof. 17 to 4 isn’t a bad score for our first time out. Thanks again for your remarks. Hope to hear from you in the future.
May 3rd, 2010 on 5:19 pm
Admin:
What BulldawgDad said was exactly what I have stated previously (although a little more harshly because of the pushback that some of the ‘regulars’ with SOME of their ridiculous spin). You guys are spinning it your way (which doesn’t make you look good, to be honest), and the school board will spin it their way. But when it comes to the LEGAL FACT OF THE MATTER (and not people’s opinion), is that you admitted guilt. It doesn’t matter how many charges they brought that were dropped. That happens every day in almost every court case in every court room in the USA. Not every charge is upheld. There are also plea deals. So, it doesn’t matter if it was 5 or 12 or even 1. The fact is, you admitted guilt to 5 of them.
Keep in mind (and I can relate to BDD), what POSTERS (like me) write is one thing (although Freedom of Speech does not totally protect them either). What YOU post is something completely different. I know some posters were crying about “freedom of speech” (talk about someone not having a clue what they’re allegedly screaming about — sounds like some of the tea party wackjobs LOL). One does NOT have the right to say whatever they want.
You really have to be careful with what you post and pass off as fact and what you don’t. You can offer **opinion** that you **think** they are being misleading with “whatever” (just using generalities).
Like I’ve said before, I don’t visit here often, but this site can be a HUGE asset to this community. I would strongly suggest letting this go already. This site can either be a driving force in the community, or it can be like the Regular Clueless Complainers who regularly put their ignorance on display with their Letters to the Editors in the Stow Sentry (which are laughed at by many, and rightfully so). I don’t think you want to be viewed as the latter.
Stop writing about or even referencing it. You’re sounding like the bitter ex who didn’t get his way in a child support hearing LOL. You know the School Board is checking this site out for what YOU write, and the more you harp on this, the more they eat this up because they know you’re still ticked at them. You boo-booed and got smacked. Oh well. It happens.
Like I said before — time to step-up YOUR game! Because you know you’ve got a captive audience! Not meant to rip — just trying to offer constructive criticism who has no dog in this fight (outside of being a homeowner). Peace.
May 4th, 2010 on 2:03 am
JJinstow: Yes it does appear that the SCRG group did admit to a few bungles. But did you read the list that the superintendent admitted to? Yes, that is exactly what he did by not even contesting the evidence against his own complaints. No, I don’t think this website should drop any reference to the complaints. Voters need to know what’s going on behind their back with their money. Yep, the SCRG got smacked, but the super and the board got clobbered.