INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
FOR

MASON CLASSICAL ACADEMY

Submitted to:
The District School Board of Collier County, Florida

By: on Fishbane, District General Counsel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject Matter

1. Introduction

II. The Evidence Received and Reviewed
Methodology

IV. The Financial Oversight Committee
V. Board Governance and Oversight

VI. MCA Board and Administration Oversight:
Grievances, and Parental and Student Concerns

VII. The Issue of Potential Con?ict of Interest

Financial Issues and Best and Brightest Program
IX. Faculty Concerns -

X. Miscellaneous

X1. Conclusions and Recommendations

Page No.

4: 


6-18
18-28
28-52

52?54
54-56
56-57
57-53
58?61

I. Introduction:

On or about June 2018, Joseph Baird, a former Mason Classical Academy or
the chool?) Board Member, Treasurer, and parent of students previously enrolled at the
School, ?led a detailed Complaint with the Florida Department of Education?s Of?ce of the
Inspector General In it, he alleged multiple areas of wrongdoing involving especially
MCA Board Members Lichter and Miller and the School?s Principal Mr. Hull. His allegations
and concerns will be more speci?cally addressed beginning in Section IV of this report. On one
8, 2018, Mr- Baird supplemented his Complaint by submitting the OIG additional information,
including a link to the State?s Department of Corporations Sunbia site, concerning a corporate
entity, the Classical Charter Management Group, LLC, which identi?ed Mrs. Lichter and hair.
Hull as business partners along with an MCA employee, Mrs. Smith, who was 
Curriculum Coordinator.

On June 13, 2018, Edward G. Rawls, Jr., Director of Investigation at the OIG wrote to
Mr. Baird acknowledging receipt of the Complaint ?regarding various concerns with the Mason
Classical Academy School Board of Directors and Administration.? letter from E. Rawls,
Jr., to J. Baird, June 13, 2018). Mr. Rawls informed Mr. Baird that based upon his of?ce?s
review and analysis, the 01G had concluded that the concerns raised in the Complaint, ?do not
fall within our jurisdictional purview.? It was determined that on the basis of statutory and
Florida Constitutional review, the matter more appropriately fell within the authority and
jurisdiction of the local school board (in this case the District School Board of Collier County).
Mr. Rawls added that to assist him in ?nding resolution to his concerns he was referring Mr.
Baird?s Complaint to those parties that have the authority over the matters he raised. Mr. Rawls
concluded his letter as follows:

By way of this letter, we are forwarding your complaint information
to the Director of Independent Education and Parental Choice, to
the District Superintendent in Collier County, and the School Board
Chair, for their review and action deemed appropriate.

He copied Mir. Miller, Dr. Patton, Mr. Terry accordingly. Dr. Patton and Mr. Terry brought the
Complaint to the attention of the undersigned and, given the scOpe of the issues raised, as well as
the multiple parental cells, complaints, and student departures from MCA, that had come into the
District over several years, which were not being addressed by MCA, to carefully review and

look into the matter.

Sometime in early August 2018 inquiries were being made by concerned parents whose
children had attended MCA and former faculty members, to express their interest in coming
forward to discuss the matter. Mr. Hull became aware of people coming forward. It led to him
to email Dr. Rogers, the District?s then Director of Charter Schools, in order to express his
concerns. In his communication, he noted the following:

We take complaints seriously because that is a great way to self?re?ect
and become a stronger institution for students and their families. However,
there has only been one o?icial complaint in over 4 years of operation.

This could very well be a result of CCPS interference, or MCA is just
that good at pleasing our parent base. There are other issues along
these same lines that do not paint the CCPS governance in a good
light, but I will refram from pointing those is sues out at this time.
(Sag, September 4, 2013, email ?om D. Hull to S. Rogers sent at
1:59 pm.

The tone of his email, both defense and aggressive in nature, with respect to people coming
forward in the early stages of review and investigation, was of some concern.

Many people did indeed come forward. Many of these parents and faculty members
expressed being fearful of retaliation (for themselves and their children) by Mr. Hull. Over the
next several months, in discussions with District staff who received calls from MCA parents
seeking educational advice from them, it was learned that such fearfulness had been
communicated to them as well.

As a consequence of these conversations, a very considerable amount of email
communications were received from multiple sources and providers (including those received
from l?vh?. Hull in November 2018 who wanted the undersigned aware of them as part of the
investigation). Many issues surfaced that needed follow up, review, and investigation. Some
were linked directly or tangentially to Mr. Baird?s Complaint some were not. This led to a
widening of the scope of the investigation, the time needed to complete it, and bring it to closure.

11. The Evidence Received and Reviewed

The evidence received, reviewed, and considered has been extensive. in addition to the
information received from MCA parents and faculty members and District staff along with
extensive email communications as previously noted, MCA Board Meeting Minutes and
Agendas going back to 2013 were reviewed as well as Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
from 2014 2016, Mr. Baird?s October 4, 2016, Treasurer?s Report and resumes of persons
seeking to be part of the proposed revised Financial Audit Committee at that time. In addition,
the undersigned reviewed MCA principal reports, documentation linked to meetings, MCA
Policy Binders (dated April 26, 2018, and its updated version dated January 23, 2019).

Moreover, the following other important documents were reviewed: 2013
Application and the charter documents between MCA and the District School Board of Collier
County, 2018~2019 Progression Plan, Unaudited Financial Statement, McCreedy and
Associates documentation, MCA Charter School financial condition reporting documents, and
May 29, 2018, salary planning document.

Further, the undersigned reviewed corporate organization documents pertaining to
Classical Charter Management Group, LLC and charter school application
documents involving the American Classical Charter Academy from multiple school districts
which CCMG was apparently providing consulting services, multiple letters to MCA parents
?om MI. Hull ?om 2015 and 2018, multiple social media postings from 2105 and 2018, District

records of transfers from MCA to the District, home education, and private schools, and 2017?
2018 Best and Brightest program documentation involving MCA.

Finally, as part of the legal analysis, the undersigned reviewed Florida case law and
statutes pertaining to issues under review, including FS 1002.33, Federal Statutes implementing
regulations, USDOE Of?ce of Management letter rulings, and pertaining to FERPA,
Florida Attorney General Opinions, and several cases and statutes cited therein, Sunshine Law
materials, MCA policies, Roberts Rules of Order, ESE procedural safeguards, Florida
Commission on Ethics Opinions, and FAC (Principals of Professional Conduct for

the Education Profession in Florida).

The above pretty much covers all of the materials reviewed and considered.

Ill. Methodology:

As previously noted, the documentation reviewed in this investigation was extensive. In
order to be able to meaningfully organize and interpret the evidence, the tmdersigned, in
consultation with District staff, looked for commonalities in the multiple documents and
interviews to determine if certain patterns of observation and experience could be ascertained.
For example, where multiple reporters of information expressed observing or being the recipient
of the same of similar patterns of action and behavior with respect to MCA Board Members and
administrative staff, whether as to given events or over time, credence was given to such
information. Thus, such same or similar patterns of action and behavior demOnstrated a
regularity of conduct over time that had to be taken seriously into account fort he purposes of
careful review and interpretation.

This principle of observation and experience was also applied if reporters of information
related the same or similar statements, actions, behaviors, usage of language, including body
language and, gestures, as well as linguistic responses and voice tonalities. Moreover, credence
was given to same or similar linguistic expressions, and expressions of emotion articulated by
reporters with respect to Board Member and Administrator actions, behaviors, or experience of
similar events. Such sameness and similarity evidenced a commonality and regularity of actions
and behavior over time that had to be taken into account. 

In this context, reporter statements and observations that wandered away from the issues
under review or involved extraneous information, were given lesser weight. The same held true
where statements and observations were found to be unclear and confusing. The credibility of a
given reporter?s statements and observations were also examined in connection with
documentation received, where applicable.

The undersigned also took seriously the statements expressed by Mr. Hull, Ms. Turner,
and Mr. Marshall at the meeting with them on April 29, 2019, at MCA. Finally, and perhaps
most importantly, in reviewing the extensive email communications, Board Meeting Minutes,

Policies, and so on, the central priority analytically was to let the documents speak for

themselves.

IV. The Financial Oversight Cummittee:

In his Complaint, Mr. Baird has identi?ed two core issues pertaining to the Financial
Oversight Committee its formation and membership; and his inability to properly
undertake his role as Board Treasurer and receive ?nancial and accounting information. These
will be addressed sequentially.

A. (I) Overview of the Central Allegations Pertaining to Formation and
Membership on the Committee 

In this Complaint, Mr. Baird has alleged that MCA Board Members Lichter and Miller,
along with Mr. Hull and Mr. Marshall, knowingly created an environment where fraud could
occur by preventing the formation of a Financial Oversight Committee. He contended that Mr.
Hull took a leading role in halting his efforts to help form it. Mr. Baird alleged that at the
September 6, 2016, Board Meeting, the Board agreed that he should notify all school parents
that a committee was being formed; solicit resumes of persons interested in serving on a
Financial Oversight Committee or and individually interview
interested candidates, discuss the interviews, then vote on the most suitable applicants to serve
on the Committee. Mrs. Lichter advised that in anticipation of the October 4, 2016, Board
Meeting, Mr. Baird should get training ?om Dr. Carpenter who consults with l-Iillsdale College
and provides training for charter school board members.

Mr. Baird has also alleged that in a phone conversation with Mr. Hull prior to the October
4, 2016, Board meeting, he had informed him that Dr. Carpenter behaved the Board should move
forward immediately with the formation of an FOC. Mr. Baird alleged that Mr. Hull called him
to request that the formation of the Committee not go forward at that time. Mr. Baird allegedly
responded that Dr. Carpenter was quite clear that the Board should not delay forming an FOC
and that he intended to follow Dr. Carpenter?s advice. Moreover, Mr. Baird has alleged that at
the October 4, 2016, Board Meeting, Board Member Miller wanted to halt the determination and
vote on who would serve as Committee members and was allegedly supported in her efforts by
Board Member Lichter and Mr. Hull and the matter never proceeded to a consideration of

membership and vote.

A. (2) The Factual Record Pertaining to Formation and Membership of the FOC

According to the July 11, 2016, Board Meeting Minutes, the Board approved a ?Motion
to dissolve the existing Finance Committee in anticipation of the formation of a newly defined
Financial Oversight Committee?. It was noted that Board President Mrs. Lichter ?will email her
notes from Hillsdale Board Training to Jason Lane to assist him in defining the new Financial
Oversight Committee.? Mr. Lane was the then Board Treasurer. The vote was Board
Member Mr. Donalds opposed dissolving the Finance Committee. There is nothing in the
Minutes setting forth any discussion on the matter or the reasons why there was a need to
dissolve the Finance Committee at that time.

A review of records shows that the Finance Committee met almost from
at least to January 26, 2015, through May 9, 2016, as a Board delegated Committee with well?
developed Minutes describing the work of its membership and contributors. The Finance
Committee reviewed and discussed the following: cash ?ow, pro?t and loss reports, balance
sheets, reserved accounts, the proposed ?scal year budgets, including explanations of third
balance and risk management, as well as school insurance, construction loans, payroll, bank
statements, CAM costs, Board policies pertaining to ?nancial matters, donations, commercial
loans, GoFundMe proceeds, loan repayments, and so on. The work of the Committee and related
financial issues was regularly brought to the Board f0r review and discussion; often by Mr-
Mathias with contribution from Ms. Turner. Hence, there was a regular and continuous ?ow of
?nancial information reporting to Board.

The Minutes of the August 2, 2016, Board Meeting re?ect that Board President Lichter
reported that Mr. Lane had resigned from the Board and had presented his letter of resignation
accordingly. It was announced thereafter that the Board hold a Special Meeting on August 8,
2016, to discuss replacing Mr. Lane as Board Treasurer.

At the August 8, 2016, Special Meeting, Mr. Baird was approved through motion and
vote to serve as a Board Member and the new Board Treasurer. During Board comments at the
end of the September 6, 2016, Board Meeting, the Minutes provide the following: ?The Board
Members discussed the role of the Financial Oversight Committee and possible members?.
What the work of the FOC would involve is not presented in the Minutes nor are there any
documents attached to give an},r reviewer a reasonable sense of its function. The Board
apparently agreed that a new Financial Oversight Committee should be formed and that Mr.
Baird proceed to notify MCA parents to see who might be interested in serving on it. In this
regard, Board Members and Mr. Hull believed it was important to follow the training
recommendations of Dr. Carpenter that a school such as MCA should have a committee such as

an FOC in place to protect its interests.

On September 20, 2016, Mr. Baird sent an information notice to the MCA Committee
from the schools email system (info@wuacademx.com, subject: Financial Oversight
Committee). He noted that the MCA Board was seeking ?volunteers to help run the Financial
Oversight Committee.? He requested that all interested persons complete the application
attached prior to September 24, 2016. lit/1r. Baird then noted that the purpose of the FOC was to
?provide ?nancial oversight for the school by providing recommendations for improvement to
the Board of Directors.? He then noted that some of the duties and responsibilities of committee
members would include the following: (1) review of 403B Retirement Plan; (2) assist
with auditor selection; (3) review of internal controls; (4) review of ?nancial policies; (5) review
of 990 form; (6) review of insurance policies; (7) ensure compliance with state and
federal regulations; and (8) review of ?nancial statements. It was anticipated that the
FOC would meet on a quarterly basis. (E, the September 20, 2016, email sent from MCA to

the MCA community concerning joining the FOC).

On September 23, 2016, in the early evening, after the close of business, Mr. Baird sent
all Board Members and Mr. Hull an email that he had uploaded to the school?s goo gle drive for
their review all the applications that he had received to date for the FOC. He noted: ?Please

review and interview applicants as you see Come prepared to the next meeting to discuss and
vote on the candidates.? He then added the following: ?Please check with David Hull for his
perspectives on any candidate you may be considering.? He promised to send along any
additional information he might receive. As a precautionary note to Board Members and lVlr.
Hull, Mr. Baird noted ?Do not reply to this email.? (E September 23, 2016, email from J.
Baird to MCA Board Members and Mr. Hull sent at 6:41 pm). Thus, Mr. Baird had provided
the applications of persons interested in serving on the FOC to Board Members and Mr. Hull for
review well in advance of the October 4, 2016, Board Meeting.

In the morning of September 26, 2016, Mr. Baird sent Mr. Hull an email noting that he
thought it might be helpful to obtain feedback from the teachers of students whose parents have
applied for a position on the Financial Oversight Committee. He felt that since teachers
interacted with parents, ?some of our teachers could provide some insights regarding potential
candidates.? He asked Mr. Hull if he had any suggestions as to how the Board could obtain this
information recognizing that he doubted that Mr. Hull ?would want all Board Members
interviewing teachers.? Mr. Hull responded that ?we should probably not involve the teachers if
that?s okay.? He added that he would serve as the go between if necessary. He wrote: ?If you
feel strongly about it through, give me the name of the candidate, and I will speak with the.
teachers to see if her she has any information.? Mr. Baird replied that he would trust Mr. Hull?s
judgment. He asked Mr. Hull if he could speak with him by phone, ?if you have some time
today to voice some concerns.? He felt speaking by phone would be easier than emailing back
and forth and asked if Mr. Hull had some time that day. Mr. Hull wrote back ?can it be another
day? I?m swamped.? September 26, 2016, email chain between I. Baird and D. Hull).

On October 2, 2016, two days before the Board Meeting, Mr. Baird wrote to the Board
Members and Mr. Hull. He informed them that he had uploaded two documents to the School?s
goo gle drive for them to review before the meeting: Finance Committee Purpose and 
Finance Committee Application list. He then noted ?when discussing individual candidates,
please refer to them by the letter next to their name instead of by name-? He also requested that
they all ?come prepared to discuss and vote on proposed purpose of the Finance Committee.?
He informed them as well not to reply to the email. (Si, October 2, 2016, email from J. Baird
to MCA Board Members and Mr. Hull).

Moreover, in the Finance Oversight Committee purpose document that he had attached,
he recommended the following to assist the Board and Mr. Hull as part of the review at the

Board Meeting:

The primary means by which this financial oversight will happen is
through the implementation of policies and rigorous monitoring. The
Committee will evaluate current management policies, internal controls,
insurance policies, legal regulations, etc. in order to provide recomu
mendations for improvement to the Board of Directors. The

Committee has no decision making authority whatsoever, and the
committee?s membership will be evaluated annually by the Board of
Directors-

On the Agenda for the October 4, 2016, Board Meeting, four items are identi?ed as
action items under New Business. The third action item identi?ed was Finance Oversight
Committee Members.? The action recommended was to approve and the Agenda identi?es Ms.
Lichter as the Board Member who would bring the matter forward.

However the Board Meeting Minutes provide that there was a ?Motion to Approve
Creation of Financial Oversight Committee? which was voted on and passed unanimously. This
was not listed on the Agenda as an action item; nor do the Minutes have anything concerning any
discussion about the FOC, its goals, purpose, composition of membership, and so on. in fact, a
review of the Minutes show no action was taken on Members serving on the Committee
including no effort to move to table or defer the matter to the next meeting. The investigative
record reveals that eight applications were received. All applicants were parents. The
applications were not attached to the Agenda for public review. Moreover, the applications and
the qualifications of the applicants were not discussed at the Meeting.

During the undersigned?s meeting with Mr. Hull, Mr. Marshall, Ms. Turner, and 
counsel on April 29, 2019, at MCA, Mr. Hull and Mr. Marshall stated that they did not review
the applications and resumes of the candidates. However, Mr. Hull noted that he remembered
that the applications included those of Board Member spouses. He could not recall how he lmew
that. He did remember speaking with Board Member Miller that the applicant pool should
include more than parents.

At the Meeting itself, Ms. Miller expressed her concern that the Board needed to see if
other members of the community with expertise were willing to serve in order to broaden the
pool of applicants who had already applied. Ms. Lichter concurred. Mr. Donalds did not concur
nor did Mr. Baird who expressed concern that the recommendation of Dr. Carpenter was not
being followed. Mr. Donalds recalled that not to follow Dr. Carpenter, who all Members
respected, was a matter of concern for him. No applicants were either identified or discussed as
capable and competent to serve on the Committee. While an FOC was formed, it was an empty
shell. No one ever reached out to the community again to reopen the application process. The
existing applicant pool was shelved, and the FOC died on the vine.

In the Minutes of the December 14, 2016, Board Meeting there is noted a ?Motion to
Establish Audit Committee Consisting of Chuck Marshall, Josh Longenecker, and Laura Miller.?
Mr. Marshall was the Compliance Of?cer of MCA at the time. Mr. Longenecker, who had been
approved to serve was the Board?s Treasurer. Ms. Miller made the Motion, lvir. Longenecker

seconded it, and the Motion passed unanimously.

Missing from all this was a discussion or documentation as to why such a Committee
was called for then; what was its purpose; what was the nature of its oversight; why it
included only three Board Members and a Compliance Of?cer; why there were no efforts to
seek applicants from the MCA (and general community) to be part of it; when the Committee
would meet; how an essentially Board Member Committee would report to itself, and so on.
In this context, MCA Meetings records show that this Cemmittee never met nor ever presented
any report. Like the C, the Audit Committee died on the vine. No other FOC, Audit
or their equivalent has been constituted by the Board.

B. (1) Overview of Central Allegations Pertaining to Mr. Baird?s Claims that He
Was Blocked in his Ability to Carry Out his Role as Board Treasurer

Mr. Baird has alleged that not only did Board Members Lichter and Miller, along with
hilt. Hull and Mr. Marshall, seek to halt the setting up a ?mctioning Financial Oversight
Committee, they also worked to prevent him horn carrying out his duties and responsibilities as
Board Treasurer.

In this regard, based on his understanding of Dr. Carpenter?s work, Mr. Baird has alleged
that it was appropriate for him to be able to ask for and look into ?nancial records, funding ?om
the District, including whether or not too much had been received, lists, MCA student
enrollments and withdrawals from the school, employee expense reports, and so on. He
expressed his concern that unless he could carry out appropriate due diligence, as Treasurer, into
?nances, both he and MCA could be at risk. In his view, based on his reading of Dr.
Carpenter?s work, he contended that not to be able to undertake such a review, he would be
negligent in his undertakings, risked breaching his ?duciary reaponsibilities as Treasurer which
could expose him to personal liability. Accordingly, Mr. Baird has alleged that when he
expressed these concerns, he was treated in a condescending fashion by Mr. Hull and Mr.
Marshall and essentially informed by Board Members Lichter and Miller that he should back off
and not try to scrutinize or manage Mr. Hull?s and Ms. Turner?s work. Baird Complaint, at

pp. 

B. (2) The Factual Record Pertaining to Whether NU. Baird was Blocked in his
Ability to Carry Out his Duties as Board Treasurer

Sometime in late August or early September 2016, Mr. Baird met with Susan Turner,
Business Manager, to go over his role as Treasurer. She spent several hours with him -
going through the school?s ?nances and reports; providing him with documents and showing him
how to access the school?s google drive. Mr. Baird found her assistance helpful.

To help him with the preparation of his first Treasurer? 3 Report (the August 20 16,
Minutes shows that he had not yet submitted any report) on Thursday morning, September 29,
2016, Mr. Baird emailed Ms. Turner concerning questions he had in follow up to his review of
August ?nancials. He noted, in connection with the fourteen questions he provided to
her for review, that it would be helpful if she could respond by Monday evening, October 3,
2016, if possible. He added: ?If this puts an undue reporting burden on you, please let me

know.?

Mr. Baird asked Ms. Turner, for example, ?what is the employee reimbursement policy?
Who approves? Can I see expense report for July and August?? He wanted an explanation of
Amazon gift card purchases and how to understand certain purchases. He asked, ?on 8/31, we
transferred $20k from FEFP into the Donations account. Why?? He also asked for explanations
on several transactions such as ?who is Curran Taylor and what is check #2345 in the amount of
$11,685 for?? And ?what is the $469k deposit from Doug Schuman on 815 for?? (E, the
September 29, 2016, email communications between J. Baird and S. Turner).

10

Ms. Turner expressed her concern with the scope of Mr. Baird?s request to Mr. Hull.
Shortly after 10:00 am. that morning she emailed Mr. Hull whether it was acceptable to provide
Mr. Baird the Amazon gift card documentation so that he would see that ?we?re tracking it and
not open to theft?? Mr. Hull replied ?of course.? the September 29, 2016 email
between S. Turner and D. Hull).

Shortly, thereafter, Mr. Hull contacted Board Member Lichter that Mr.- Baird?s requests
were extensive and impacting his stast time. Subsequent to their conversation, Mrs. Lichter
emailed Mr. Baird at 10:5 8 am. with the subject line reading ?Treasurer?s Role.? In her email,
she essentially informed Mr. Baird that he needed to back off and inferred that as a new treasurer
his actions were probably a function of not really understanding what his role was. She wrote:

spoke with Mr. Hull this morning about some questions you had for Ms. Turner. I understand
that you are still in the on?boarding process and learning, but I think those questions should be
asked during an oversight committee meeting.?

According to Ms. Lichter, Dr. Carpenter had advised that the board should ?keep any 
on things and looking for anything irregular, not questioning every single expense.? She then
informed her fellow Board Member as follows: ?Ms. Turner has a big job and I do not want to
add anymore to her plate.? In essence, she would make herself available at finance oversight
meetings ?to answer any questions or concerns. . .If you have any questions, please let me know.?
September 29, 2016, email from K. Lichter to I. Baird sent at 10:58 am). At 12:55 a
surprised Mr. Baird responded to Ms. Lichter as follows:

I didn?t think any of the questions I had were inappropriate, and I certainly
wasn?t questioning every single expense. I?m not sure that a committee
meeting is the right forum to ask some of those questions in any case.
Regardless, 1 have a treasurer?s report to prepare for Tuesday, and that
report needs to include a statement that says found no irregularities?.
There may be some disagreement about what questions are appropriate
and which are notfeel that 1 need answers to

a lot (not all) of those questions before 1 can legitimately say have
examined the bank statements and the ?nancial reports and found no
irregularities.?

(E, September 29, 2016, email from J. Baird to K. Lichter, sent at 12:55 

Mr. Baird added that he thought he had acted appropriately and had received Mr. Hull?s
permission to engage Ms. Turner and was mind?il of her time commitments. He felt giving her
a list of questions at one time rather than calling her when questions arose was the most ef?cient
way to minimize the time to complete the work involved. It should be noted that about an hour
prior to writing Ms. Lichter, Ms. Turner sent Mr. Baird the supporting documents concerning the
Amazon gift cards with accompanying explanatory information.

lvlr. Baird received no further documents from Ms. Turner and Mr. Hull until after the
October 4, 2016, Board Meeting. As a consequence, on October 3, 2016, Mr. Baird uploaded to

11

the goo gle drive his Treasurer?s Report for October 4, 2016, that he considered incomplete and
informed the Board accordingly. His Report listed those account balances as of August 31,
2016, that he received and veri?ed. He then noted;

I have been prevented from completing my examination of the ?nancial
and bank statements for August 2016 due to management?s failure to
provide pertinent information I have requested. I will complete my
investigation upon receipt of this information.

(See, October 4, 2016, Treasurer?s Report to the MCA Board signed by Mr. Baird).

At the October 4, 2016, Board Meeting, Mr. Baird expressed his concern truth not being
provided the necessary documentation to complete his work. Mr. Hull countered that Mr. Baird
was adding undue burden to his staff. Ms. Miller supported Mr. Hull?s concerns. Mr. Donald?s
questioned why Mr. Baird was not being appropriately assisted. He noted that such requests
were not unfounded and that the time needed to help him with his work would not affect
instructional time. Ms. Lichter also supported Mr. Hull?s concerns about adding to Ms. Turner?s
workload. She did not publicly disclose her September 29, 2016, email to Mr. Baird
acknowledging that she had spoken with Mr. Hull and had informed th'. Baird to back away and
to bring his concerns to the Financial Oversight Cummittee when Ms. Turner could be available
to respond to questions. No one at the meeting discussed when the Committee would commence
its meetings. And no one at the meeting discussed what the role of the Treasurer would be and
what would constitute reasonable requests for information- Instead, Ms. Lichter asked Mr. Baird
and Mr. Hull to meet together to resolve the issues in moving forward. In the Minutes of the
October 4, 2016, Board Meeting, under the report of the Treasurer, it was noted that ?issues with
regard to contacting staff were discussed and resolved." This representation was not accurate.

After the Board Meeting, Mr. Baird emailed M. Hull at 9:17 pm. (October 4, 2016). He
informed him that ?the last thing I want to do is increase Ms. Tumer?s workload. 1 know you
both work very hard and put in many more hours than most of us realize.? He added that as
requested, he will schedule a meeting with Ms. Turner to go over the questions. Mr. Baird
concluded with the following request of his own:

Before I do so, I wonder if you would mind sending me the information
she already has on hand. You mentioned in tonight?s meeting that she has
already put three hours into answering my questions. I would like you to
explain to me why all of the work she has completed so far was not sent

to me. In the spirit of not taking up any more of her time than is absolutely
necessary, it would be bene?cial to have that at the very least. In this way,
our meeting at the school should be short and sweet.

{See, September 29, 2016, email from I. Baird to D. Hull).
On October 5, 2016, at 7:07 am, Mr. Hull responded to Mr. Baird?s email stating:

?A?er giving it some thought, I agree with you that this request for information should be done
by email. Your idea of having it in a written record is a good one.? He advised that Ms. Turner

12

will make the request a top priority of hers and will ?email the answers by the end of the this
week. Mr. Hull then stated the following:

There is no explanation for why the work Ms. Turner completed was not
sent other than it was a total failure on my part. I was
thinking something completely different about this matter, and I blew it.
I offer my apologies. It won?t happen again. Please let me know what
you?d like, and we will get to you. Today, the focus will be on your list
of questions.

Mr. Baird replied to Mr. Hull?s email at 8:32 am. thanking him for his assistance. He
noted that he would be ?happy to prioritize those questions for you in order to minimize the
disruption to your daily I will look for a response from Mrs. Turner later this
week.? At 10:37 am, Mrs. Turner emailed Mr. Baird with the responses to his questions. (E,
September 26, 2016, email exchange between J. Baird and D. Hull).

Shortly, after Ms. Turner sent him the responses, Mr. Baird emailed Mr. Hull at 10:42
am. noting the following: ?tI?m afraid we?ve gotten off on the wrong foot. I would like to meet
with you in person to talk things over. Can you let me know your next availability??

M. Hull replied shortly thereafter (at 10:49 am). He stated that he thought that they
?were going to do that this week, but last night and this morning should have resolved many of
your concerns.? He informed Mr. Baird how time consuming it all has been for him adding ?we
have done our best to get you the information you requested.? (Sic, October 5, 2016, email from
D. Hull to J- Baird). Mr. Hull did not provide any dates or times he was available to meet- No

meeting between the two men ever took placeOctober 5, 2016, (at 5:41 Mr. Baird emailed Mr. Lichter
attaching pages from Dr. Carpenter?s Manual and speci?cally identifying those pages that
addressed oversight policies that he though Mr. Lichter might be interested in reading. (Se_e,
October 5, 2016, email from J. Baird to N. Lichter). The next day, at 9:48 am, in a 
email, Mr. Baird informed Mrs. Lichter that he was resigning from the Board. Mr. Baird
informed her that he was concerned that Mr. Hull was ?fighting every type of oversight. He does
not want to be held accountable to the Board.? In Mr. Baird?s view, ?Dr. Carpenter stands for
everything David does not want.? (Si, October 6, 2016, email from J. Baird to K. Lichter- ?ag,
E, I. Baird?s October 6, 2016, resignation letter).

That afternoon (at 2:03 pm), an upset Mr. Lichter emailed MCA Board Members and
Mr. Hull. His concerns and observations are worth quoting:

It is disappointing that Mr. Baird?s questions and requests for documentation
were met with resistance by the management team. His efforts were even
called ?co-managing? at Monday?s board meeting. Since when are a sitting
treasurer?s questions and requests for financial documents deemed ?co-
managing?? How ridiculous! As a result of management?s and the board?s
resistance to following institutional best practices and Dr. Carpenter?s

13

recommendations, Mr. Baird was unable to con?dently execute his ?duciary
duty to present an accurate ?nancial report to the board and had to resign.
Who can blame him?

Why the board refused to empower Mr. Baird to faith?illy carry out his duties
as treasurer raises several questions. First, which party is governing the
school? Is the board governing or is management governing? If the board

is governing, why would it defer to management and allow it to decide which
questions management would answer and which documents it would provide

to the treasurer?

. Mr. Lichter further contended that ?increasing the management team?s authority while
limiting that of the Board Treasurer would place the future of the school and its reputation at
risk. ?Not because of any wrong on the part of the management team but because they lack
oversight.? In his view, a Treasurer must be allowed to ask 'questions, request documents, and
obtain more training. He then observed: ?Without transparent and cooperative management, it
will be impossible for the treasurer to ful?ll his ?duciary duties and the management team will
be scrutinized for appearing to be hiding something. Why put the school through this?? hit.
Lichter concluded that Mr. Baird had been ?forced off the board because the board and
management refused to allow him to perform his proper role as treasurer.? (LL).

On Friday morning, October 7, 2016, Mr. Baird sent the Lichters a long email at their
respective personal email addresses. He expressed his frustration with working with Mr. Hull;
including his concern with the incomplete nature of the responses he received. He wrote:

I am sure that David will say he provided me with everything I asked for .
and gave me his full cooperation. Please review the attached ?les which
show some of the information he sent to me The scanning job is sloppy

and much important information is obscured from view. When I saw the
way this information was presented to me, I was frustrated because I
realized that I would have to go yet again to Susan and ask her to re?do

some of the work. This would have only re?ignited the fire and made the
situation worse. I also realized that I was going to have to go through

this ridiculous exercise every month. This was a major contributing factor
in my resignation.

In support of his claims, he attached some seven (7) receipt areas for their review. (SE,
October 2016, email from Mr. Baird to K. and N. Lichter and attachments).

Mrs. Lichter responded to Mr. Baird in the early afternoon as follows: plan to meet
with David and Susan to discuss since it looks like I will take over these responsibilities until we
find someone. Thank you for sharing.? She sent her response from her personal gmail account.

At the November I, 2016, Board Meeting, Ms. Lichter recommended Mr. Longeneelter

as a new member of the Board to replace Mr. Baird. The Motion to Approve her
recommendation passed. Mr. Longenecker also became the new Board Treasurer. (See, the

14

Minutes of the December 14, 2016 Board Meeting). Mr. Longenecker did not present his ?rst
Treasurer?s Report until March 24, 2017, reflecting a more than five month hiatus between
Treasurer?s Reports being submitted. However, a review of the record shows two different sets
of March 24, 2017, Minutes with different information on it, although in both Mr. Longenecker?s
report is noted. In this context, between March 24, 2017 January 26, 2018, the record of Board
Minutes show, no Treasurer?s report was submitted. The next time one was submitted was at the
April 20, 2018, Board Meeting. Thus, from Mr. Baird?s resignation on October 6, 2016 - April
20, 2018, only two (2) Treasurer Reports had been submitted to the Board for review. In fact,
one does not ?nd one through the October 22, 2018 Board Meeting. Thus, only two Treasurer
Reports to the Board were provided over a one year period. Treasurer Reports were submitted to
the Board only for review and these were done via the google drive and not attached to either the
respective meeting agendas or the respective approved Minutes during this period for public
access and review in spite of references to them being attached to the Minutes. After the April
20, 2018, submission, MCA Meeting Minutes show that no further Treasurer Reports were
submitted to the time of Mr. Baird?s Complaint to inform the Board of ?nancial matters. 

C. Discussion and Applicable Law, Policy. and Charter Documents

On July 11, 2016, the Board approved the dissolution of the Finance Committee over the
objection of Board Member Donalds. While there was apparent discussion at the September 6,
2016, Board Meeting as to who would serve on a new Financial Oversight Committee, and the
need to form such a Committee, what the duties and responsibilities of the Committee would be,
beyond apparent quarterly meetings, was not presented. The previous Financial Conunittee met
almost and the Business Manager Ms. Turner, regularly attended and provided financial

information to support it.

At the end of the day, the FCC never had members appointed to it nor did it ever meet.
Rather than discussing whether the eight applicants were qualified to serve, and vote to approve
quali?ed candidates so that FOC could at least commence its work, Board Members Miller and
Lichter decided to stymie the process by claiming they needed to broaden the applicant pool to
include non-parents. While the item was noted as an action item warranting a motion and vote,
Board Member Lichter decided she would not bring it forward did she seek a motion to defer
or table it until the next meeting. No effort was ever made thereafter to seek a broader applicant
pool. Board Members Lichter and Miller did nothing to support it as a functioning 
nor did Mr. Hull, Ms. Turner, or Ms. Marshall ever advise that an FOC was important to the

school.

Board Members all admired the training, advice, and support of Dr. Carpenter. Dr.
Carpenter had strongly recommended the need for a finance committee or ?nancial oversight
committee. in his Complaint, Mr. Baird discussed the critical importance of following Dr.
Carpenter?s advice. in a recent communication, Dr. Carpenter noted that except for the fact that
he did not personally provide Mr. Baird with training, ?Mr. Baird?s representations of my
remarks are substantially accurate.? Dr. Carpenter?s ideas were discussed by Mr. Baird at the
October 4, 2016, meeting and affirmed by Mr. Donalds, but they were neither followed nor

implemented.

15

- In Ms. Lichter?s September 26, 2016, email to Mr. Baird, after speaking with Mr. Hull,
she directed him not to burden Ms. Turner further and stated that the information could be
provided at a Financial Oversight Committee. But despite that assertion she never allowed it to

reach fruition.

Equally signi?cant, in 2012 Application to enter into a Charter Contract with the
District, it set forth a detailed Organizational Plan under which is the section on governance
(Section 9). The Application is incorporated by reference into the 2013?2017 Charter Contract
with the District School Board and reincorporated by reference into the'renewed 201?? Charter

Contract.

In the Organizational Plan of the Application m, p. 60), there is to be constituted a
Finance Committee and an Audit Committee under the authority of the Board. The duties and
responsibilities of the Finance Corrmrittee are to include the following:

Finance Committee:
The Finance Committee shall assist the Governing Board in carrying out its budget and finance

duties. At least one member of the Governing Board shall serve on the Finance Committee. The
Business Manager shall be required to attend all Finance Committee meetings. Speci?cally, the

Finance Committee shall:

(1) Make recommendations to the Governing Board in the following areas:

Financial planning, including reviews of the charter school?s revenue and expenditure
Projections

Review of financial statements and periodic monitoring of revenues and expenses

Annual budget preparation and oversight -

Procurement
(2) Serve as an external monitoring committee on budget and other ?nancial matters.

This work was undertaken until the Finance Committee was dissolved. As a side note, the claim
by Board Member Lichter that Mr. Baird?s request was burdensome to Ms. Turner, is inherently
problematic. Ms. Turner had regularly assisted and met with the Finance Committee. Mr. Hull
had informed Mr. Baird that Ms. Turner had put in three hours of time in gathering information
prior to October 5, 2016. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that she had previously
provided a minimum of three hours to work With the committee and sit in on the
meetings. At the October 4, 2016, Board Meeting, both Mr. Baird and Mr. Donalds? questioned
how the requests were unreasonable and excessively burdensome on her time.

Similarly, under the Application (and the Charter), an Audit Committee was to be
formed. in Section 9 of the Application, the duties, responsibilities, and membership were to

include the following:

Audit Committee:
The Audit Committee shall consist of two Governing Board members, one volunteer member

who is a parent of a student attending the charter school, and one volunteer member who has

15

experience in accounting or ?nancial matters. The Principal and Business Manager shall serve
as ex?of?cio, nonavoting members of the committee. The Audit Committee shall:

(1) Evaluate the request for proposal for annual ?nancial audit services

(2) Recommend the selection of the ?nancial auditor

(3) Attend the entrance and exit conferences for annual and special audits

(4) Meet with external ?nancial auditors at least after audit ?eld work begins until
the conclusion of the audit

(5) Be accessible to the external ?nancial auditors as requested to facilitate communication
with the Governing Board and the Principal

(6) Track and report progress on the status of the most recent audit ?ndings and advise the
governing on policy changes needed to address audit ?ndings

(7) Provide other advice and assistance as requested by the Governing Board; and

(8) Be subject to the same requirements regarding the con?dentiality of audit information as
those imposed upon the local school board by the Audit Act and rules of the state auditor.

At the December 14, 2016, Board Meeting, the Board approved the creations of an Audit
Committee. The Board did not follow the membership criteria set forth above. Mr. Marshall
was not a volunteer parent of student attending MCA. He was one of the school?s executiVe
employees. There was no volunteer member, who had experience in accounting or ?nancial
matters, who was asked to serve. The Audit Committee nevermet. Like the FOC, it was an

empty. shell.

Accordingly, given the dissolution of the original Finance Committee, and the fact that
the Financial Oversight and Audit Committees were shell committees that never met or oversaw
anything, the Board breached the terms of its own Application and thus has been in continual
breach of the Charter Contract since the dissolution of the Finance Committee in July 2016. In
sum, the Board has breached its ?nancial and auditing oversight obligations under the Contract.

Moreover, it was not appropriate for Ms. Lichter to write to lvlr. Baird on September 26,
2016, subsequent to listening to Mr. Hull?s complaint. In essence, she told him he needed more
training, needed to back away from requesting the information he felt appropriate to submit a
Treasurer?s Report because she ?did not want to add anymore to her plate,? and his requested
information could be taken up by a yet to be formed Financial Oversight Committee. She thus,
undermined a fellow Board Member. Mr. Baird reSponded to her incredulously trying to
understand what was inappropriate about what he was doing and trying to understand why she
was directing him in the manner that she did.

Of equal concern was the fact that Board Member Lichter never informed the Board and
the public at the October 4, 2016, Board Meeting nor any time thereafter, of the email to Mr.
Baird, its contents, the response her email invited or Mr. Hull?s complaining to her that led to her
emailing Mr- Baird. The email exchange involved both Board and operational matters for which
it was foreseeable that they would come before the Board for review, discussion, and action. She
also had the opportunity to bring the exchange forward to inform the public of it and cure the
problem publicly. In this context, at the May 9, 2016, Board Meeting, for example, Board
Member Lane properly read an email aloud in an e?ort to cure a Sunshine Law violation. (E,

17

the May 9, 2016, Board Meeting Minutes). Yet, Board Member Lichter chose not to follow Mr.
Lane?s example and publicly disclose the communication. As a consequence, it is submitted that
Ms. Lichter?s actions created a meeting outside of the Sunshine in violation of the Florida?s
Sunshine Law, drawing Mr. Baird into the web of her actions by inviting his response. As the
Florida Supreme Court noted in Woods v. Marsden 442 So.2d 934, 938 (Fla. 1983), ?the
Sunshine Law was enacted in the public interest to protect the public ?om closed door

politics. tog, Town of Palm Beach v. Grandison, 296 Sold 474 (F la. 1974), Sarasota
Citizens v. Responsible Government v. City of Sarasota 48 So.3d 7'55 (Fla. 2010), and Tolar v.
School Board of Liberty County, 398 So.2d 42'? (Fla. 1981).

 

With the foregoing in mind, in Policies Manual (Egg, the volume dated April 26,
2018, and its updated version dated January 23, 2019), there is a speci?c section identi?ed as
?Board Duties and Responsibilities.? Item 3 provides that ?an individual Board member should
never. involved in speci?c management issues unless directed by the board.? p5
in both volumes) Item 9 provides that ?a Board member who learns of a problem should bring
that attention to the Board. A Board member should not attempt to deal with such a situation on
an individual basis.? (Ea at 5) When Mr. Hull complained to Board Member Ms. Lichter about
the burdensomeness of Mr. Baird?s requests, she should have brought it to the Board to discuss
and not have written to Mr. Baird to tell him how she felt he should handle his duties as a Board

Treasurer.

When Ms. Lichter learned from Mr. Baird about his concerns with the way Mr. Hull had
handled the provision of ?nancial information, it was not appropriate for Ms. Lichter to inform
him that she would meet with Mr. Hull and Ms. Turner ?since it looks like I will take over these
responsibilities." Whether or not Ms. Lichter ever, in fact, took over such reaponsibilities is not
the issue. She had a duty to discuss the matter publicly with the Board and had no authority to
intervene and act unilaterally on management business. (If she did take them over, she exceeded
her authority). l?Ier actions violated items 3 and 9 of the Board?s policy pertaining to its duties
and responsibilities. Finally, in the Governance section of the Application, it is provided that
?the Governing Board will not be involved in the daily operations of the school. (S_ee, p. 60)
Board Member Ms. Lichter apparently believed this did not apply to her when she sent her
September 29 and October 7, 2016, emails to Mr. Baird.

The concerns raised by Mr. Baird in his Complaint are well?founded.

V. Board Governance and Oversight:
Overview of Central Allegations and Concems Pertaining to Board Governance

In his Complaint, Mr. Baird alleged that he was concerned that there may have been
multiple Sunshine violations by the Board. He alleged that often Board Members Lichter and
'Ms. Miller came to Board meetings knowing how the other would vote. He expressed his
concern thatgiven the close personal relationship Mr. Hull had with these Board Members, in all
likelihood, he had served as a liaison between them. He detailed a conversation he had with Mr.
Hull in which Mr. Hull allegedly wanted to keep as much information from the public as
possible so that management practices and Board activities would not be presented.

18

Mr. Baird contended that under Mr. Hull?s in?uence, Board President Ms. Lichter
changed the format of the meetings. Reports were not included in the Minutes. Minutes
contained very little information and there were multiple inaccuracies in the Minutes themselves.
In his view, such changes could be traced to the September 6, 2016, Meeting. Prior to then,
reports to and by the Board, along with the content of meeting Minutes, were far more extensive
and complete.

90(2) Factual Record Concerning Board Governance and Oversight

a. Board Meetings, Minutes, and Agendas

While the Board met on a fairly regular basis, including the calling of multiple Special
Meetings, on multiple occasions, meetings were held and, business transacted, without a quorum.
These may be tracked as follows:

1. January 26, 2018, the only person present was Board Member Ms. Lichter. Board
Members Miller and Longenecker called in and appeared by phone.

2. April 26, 2018, Board Members Lichter and Miller called in and appeared by phone.
Board Member Longenecker was absent. Staff members Marshall and Turner were at the

meeting.

3. June 30, 2018, Board Member Miller was present, Board Member Lichter called in
and appeared by phone, and Board Member Longenecker was absent.

4, December 14, 2018, Board Member Miller was present, Board Member Lichter called
in and appeared by phone, and Board Member Longenecker was absent.

In the Minutes of each of these meetings, it is noted: quorum being present, the
meeting was called to order? and business was conducted. In this regard, during these meetings,
business matters discussed and approved included the following: approval of the allocation
of Local Capital Improvement Revenue approval of paying off long obligations; 
approvals of multiple policies; the Fiscal Year 2019 budget; approval of a new Board
Member (Mr. Bolduc); approval offence permit costs; consent agenda adoptions; and 
discussion of security issues.

Moreover, from January 2014 to July 2016, the record shows that Minutes for Board and
Finance Committee Meeting contained descriptive narratives of the different portions of the
meetings to enable the public to understand the proceedings, including Board discussion during
the Board Comments portion of a given meeting. After August 2016, this changed dramatically.
There is very limited, often with no descriptive narrative to apprise a reader of what transpired at
a given meeting. In fact, unlike the pro?July 2016 time period, in the post July 2016 time period
one sees, for example, under Board Comments, frequently no comments or limited ones such as
?The Board members had a brief discussion regarding reports and oversight? (E, the October 41,

19

2016 meeting), which would not inform the public about the nature and content of the
discussion. Thus, no one would know what Board Member comments were on this issue.

When the decision was made to alter the presentation of Minutes is not known. One
finds no Board Meeting discussion about reducing Board Meeting Minutes descriptions
concerning what had transpired at any given meeting. It appears that this decision was made
internally. Moreover, one does not find access to documents in either the Agendas or the
Minutes. There is no link, for example, that a member of the public could click; on for review.

On October 6, 2017, a concerned member of the MCA community wrote to Board
Member Miller seeking clarification of the following:

There are several minutes form meetings this year that make a note
to attachments to minutes. For example, several meeting notes state
that the president?s report or principal?s report is ?attached? and I
cannot find any further linlcs or attachments for these notesi?reports.
Where would one find these reports? Are they not part of the public
record?

Ms. Miller sent the email to Ms. Turner. Ms. Turner then forward the email to Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall responded that the documents used at the meetings were part of the public record.
He added that ?we do not upload the entire public record.? Mr. Marshall then further clari?ed
that while Agendas and Minutes are posted on the website, ?we do not post attachments because
the effort to process them would add too much extra work for staff taking away their time to deal
with student issues.? the chain of email communications commencing on October 6, 2017,
at 9:13 am. from H. Jinkins to L.Miller, to S. Turner, to C. Marshall). He noted that Minutes do
not include attachments. Yet, he does not explain why in several of the Meeting Minutes one
sees reference to, for example, ?Report Attached? (SE: for example, the Minutes to the August
2, 2016, and March 24, 2017, Board Meetings). Such references continued after Mr. Marshall?s
email. the Minutes to the April 20, 2018, September 13, 2018, and the October 22, 2018,
Board Meetings). These multiple attachments cannot be retrieved ?om either the Agendas or the

Minutes.

Mr. Marshall concluded his email by noting that under the Sunshine Manual, an extract
from which he attached, Minutes are de?ned as ?a brief summary? and do not include
attachnients. 1n the extract he attached, the Manual provides, in pertinent part the following:
?The term ?Minutes? as used in s. 286.011, F.S., contemplates a brief summary or series of brief
notes or memoranda re?ecting the events of the meeting; accordingly a verbatim transcript is not
required.? He did not address the fact that a review of the Minutes from the post July 2016
time period show that they often lacked summaries, notes, or memorandum of the multiple
events that typically occur during a Board Meeting. -

In his email, Mr. Marshall denotes practice of not attaching and uploading
documents to the multiple Meeting Agendas and} or Minutes. Thus, for example, one sees the
Consent Agenda routinely passed without one knowing what documents pertaining to MCA
business are being consented to. In addition, one sees on multiple occasions that policies are

20

placed and approved on the Consent Agenda without them being attached or indicating that the
consent involves the ?rst or second reading of the given policy. As will later be seen, often
second readings of policies are approved on the Consent Agenda, where, by de?nition, there is
no public second reading.

In several instances, the Minutes themselves are contradictory and con?lsing to the
reader. For example, one ?nds two sets of Minutes for the August 2, 2016, Board Meeting. The
first set shows Board Members Lichter, Donalds, and Miller present and adopting Minutes for
the July 11, 2016, Board Meeting on the consent agenda. The second set has Board Members
Lichter, Longenecker, and Miller present. Mr. Longenecker was, of course, not on the Board at
that time. The August 2, 2016, meeting was set for 5:30 pm. but the call to order of second
notes 9:00 am. The second set shows motion and approval of the November 11, 2016, and
December 9, 2016, Board Meeting Minutes along with Policy 5.0. It notes that MLLongenecker
submitted no report but met with Business Manager Ms. Turner. There were three
motions identi?ed (ail moved by Board Member Longenecker and seconded by Board Member
Lichter): Approve IRS form 5500; (2) Approve school recognition funds; and (3) Approve
the 2017-2018 performance salary schedule. 

Given the approval of the December 9, 2016, Meeting Minutes, one assumes these
matters were addressed in 2017. If one reviews the January 12, 2017, Minutes, there is no
reference to the November and December Minutes or Policy 5.0 under the Consent Agenda-
Policy 5.0 is noted under New Business as a First Read Policy Update. There is no reference to
the aboveunoted three other motions; nor are the motion, Minutes, or Policy 5.0 found at the
Special Meeting on January 25, 2017. One cannot reference to them in the Minutes of the
March 24, 2017, Meeting as well. One ?nds reference to forms 5500-8955SSAA voted on at the
October 6, 2017, meeting. This item was moved by Ms. Miller and seconded by Mr.

Longeneoker.

In the Minutes, for the March 24, 2017, meeting, the March 24, 201?, Minutes are
approved on the Consent Agenda (which would not be possible). Policy SE. 4.0 (Attendance)
is also voted on and approved on Consent. Yet, the Mnutes also show a Board Member had
brought it up under New Business without any indication that it was moved to New Business for
discussion, and there is no indication that it was then voted on.

And, at the August 25, 2017, Meeting, one sees ?Motion To Adopt Agenda? moved by
Board Member Miller and seconded by Board Member Lichter. But if one turns the page, one
sees at that meeting under Policy Updates, ?Motion To Adopt Agenda?, moved by Board
Member Longenecker and seconded by Board Member Miller. If there were to be policy
updates, andx?or discussion related to them, they are not referenced nor can one ?nd links to them

either on the Agenda or the Minutes.

One more will be referenced to help one see the extent of the confusion. The Minutes
attached to the April 26, 2018, Agenda are dated January 26, 2018. A comparison of the ?rst set
of Minutes for the January 26, 2018, meeting and the second set linked to the April 26, 2018,
Agenda. The items listed in the first are not contained with the second including who made the
respective motions. Both note the Meeting was set for 10:00 am, but the Call to Order for the.

21

second set is 8:30 am. The Policy items on the April 26, 2018, Agenda that are to be placed on
the Consent Agenda do not appear in the Minutes. While there is reference to Policy Updates on
the Agenda, in the Minutes, the notation is ?none?. The only possible linkage between the
Agenda and the Minutes is that the Mnutes reference amending the Agenda to include an action
item under New Business with respect to the Collier Marshall Program. This item was taken up
and approved by vote. The Minutes show a summary description of this meeting event.

School Advisory Council

In 2012 Application, which, as previously noted, is incorporated by reference
into its Charter Agreements with the District School Board of Collier COunty, a School Advisory
Council (?the Comicil?) was speci?cally designated to be constituted ?to assist the School
Principal with school-based decision~mal<ing and to involve parents in their children?s
education.? To this end, membership on the council was to ?re?ect an equitable balance
between school employees and parents and community members? with the hope that one
community member would come from the business community. The duties and responsibilities
of the Council were to be as follows:

(1) Work with the school Principal and give advice, consistent with state and charter
school rules and policies, on policies relating to instructional issues and curricula and

on the school?s budgets.

(2) Where appropriate, coordinate with any existing work force development boards
or vocational education advisory councils to connect students and school academic
programs to business resources and opportunities-

(3) Serve as the champion for students in building community support for schools
and encouraging greater community participation in the public schools.

(4) Hear grievances from parents according to the Parent Grievance Policy.

(5) Assist the Governing Board in ?lling Board vacancies. LS_ee, 2012 Application
at 63).

A review of the record shows that ?om early 2014 - April 2016, there was a
Parent/Teacher Committee association that met regularly and frequently reported to the board
through its leadership its work and activities. It is referred to in the Board Meeting Minutes as
the Its work primarily involved ?mdraising for MCA. However, at the July 25, 2015,
Board Meeting its role was discussed with an indication that its duties and responsibilities would
approximate those of a School Advisory Council. During discussion, it was expressed the PTCA
was frustrated with the Board?s lack of communication of its own goals to PTCA- Board
Member Donalds expressed his view that the Board needed to better identify and define its goals
to assist PTCA in its ?rndraising objectives. He advised that moving forward there was a need
for a professional development of?cer who would be responsible for overseeing MCA
fundraising plans. 65%, Minutes to the July 27, 2015, Board Meeting).

22

Board Member Lichter noted that it was l-Iillsdale College?s recommendation that all
communication go through the Governing Board. To this end, she expressed her belief
that is to support Principal Hull and teachers." She added that the Board ?should have
fundraising committee to formulate strategic goals which will incorporate the
principal. Ms. Lichter?s comments were consistent with the goal of establishing standing 
committees as set forth in the 2012 Application. It is provided therein that ?the Governing Board
is also contemplating creating other standing committees. ..It is anticipated that committees for
fundraising, policy development, principal evaluations and an outreach committee will be
created in addition to other standing or ad hoc committees.? (E, 2012 Application, at 63).

In this context, the Minutes note that Mr. Lichter advised that the reports to the
principal.? Ms. Wilson, one of the leaders of the PTCA, had added that the PTCA had ?received
non-pro?t status to be able to help the principal for daily operational expenses.? (E, Minutes
to the July 27, 2015, Board Meeting).

Nevertheless, at the April 1 l, 2016, Board Meeting, Board Member Donalds informed
the Board that he had learned that he PTCA had decided to dissolve its 5 01 C3 status effective at
the end of the school year (2015 2016). At the May 9, 2016, Board Meeting, under the
?Community Comments? section, the Board was also informed that funds raised in the
name of Mason Classical Academy will be donated to the school."

Subsequent to May 9, 2016, one does not hear about or hear from PTCA or any
equivalent organization again. Moreover, one does not see in any of the Board Meeting Minutes
subsequent to the dissolution, whether under Reports or Of?cers and Standing
Committees, Unfinished and New Minutes, or Board Comments any discussion or information
pertaining to the creation of a School Advisory Council standing committee, membership on that
committee, or the need for such a cormnittee, (or its equivalent) to undertake the multiple duties
and responsibilities as set forth in Application.

Finally, at the November 2, 2013, Board Meeting there is a unanimous vote to approve
?Third Option for Contracts Review, Five Year Extension of Contract, and Third Option for
Salary Review Effective November 16, 2018. (SE, November 2, 2018, Board Meeting
Minutes). Previously at the May 29, 2018, Board Meeting, a Salary Schedule and bonus options
were unanimously approved by the Board. (m May 29, 2018, Board Meeting Minutes). And,
at what is apparently the March 31, 2017, Board Meeting (apparently because the Minutes
denoting the issue are dated March 24, 2017), there is unanimous approval for the ?Salary
Increase and Bonus as Part of the Principal?s Contract.? One could provide additional examples.

What is the point of this? On April 13, 2014, the Board approved Policy 17.0
Management Compensation Review Policy. The Policy provides that before any compensation
approval, the issues must be reviewed by ?the Employment Committee.? Its duties and
responsibilities involve obtaining research and information ?to make a recommendation to the
full board for the compensation (salary and bene?ts) of the Principal (and other highly
compensated employees or consultants) based on a review of comparability data.? The Policy
lays out what should be included in the data and other matters. It concludes with ?no member of
the Employment Committee will be a staff member, the relative of a staff member, or have any

23

relationship with staff that could create a con?ict of interes There is no evidence in the record
that an Employment Committee was ever set up, members chosen, data gathered, and so on. The

Board seems to have ignored its own policy.
B. Discussion and Applicable Law and Policies
The Florida Attorney General has de?ned the term ?quorum? as

the number of members of a group or organization present to
transact business legally, usually a majority; and the minimum
number of members. . -who must be present for a deliberative
assembly to legally transact business. Thus, a quorum requirement,
in and of itself, contemplates the physical presence of the members
of a. board or conmiission at any meeting subject to the requirement.

(See, AGO 2010340).

In AGO 2010?34, the Attorney General addressed the issue of whether a City
Commission Board could adopt an ordinance that stated that the requirements of creating a
quorum could be met if members appeared via electronic means. The Attorney General
answered the question in the negative. He opined that Commission Board Members who
appeared by electronic means could not be counted in establishing a quorum.

Similarly, Attorney General Opinion 200341, addressed the issue of whether only one
could participate in meeting by phone. Participation was permissible under extraordinary
circumstance and only ?when a quorum of the board members is physically present.? The .
Attorney General whether a scheduling con?ict rose to the level of an extraordinary
circumstance was a determination left to the ?good judgment of the board.? (SE, gm, AGO
2002- 82, in which the Attorney General concluded-that physically disabled members of a public
board! committee who could not attend the meeting in person could attend by electronic means
?as long as a quorum of the members of the board is physically present at the meeting site?).
The Attorney General reemphasized the physical presence requirement a public meeting in her
Informal Legal Opinion of July 20, 2016.

If a quorum is not physically present, official business and of?cial action (through vote,
for example) cannot be undertaken. Indeed, a quorum must be physically present ?to legally
transact business.? AGO 2009?56). This is also noted in Robert?s Rules of Order, 11th

edition 2013, at ?40, p. 347).

The renewed 2017 Charter between MCA and the District provides in Section 9:
Governance, the following: majority of the voting members of the Governing Board shall
constitute a quorum. A majority of those members of the Governing Board present shall be
necessary to act.? In Board Policy 3 .0 (?Board Meetings?), it is speci?cally noted that ?all
motions shall require for adoption a majority vote of those present and voting. . 
subsection on ?Voting? Policies Manual 26, April 2018, at 13, and the January 23, 2019 updated

Manual at 13). Moreover, consistent with the above-referenced Attorney General Opinions, 

24

the section on Voting By Proxy, the following is provided: ?Members who are participating
electronically may not be considered in the count to determine whether a quorum has been met."

(Emphasis added). (Li, both editions of the policies manuals, at 14).

At four separate meetings, Governing Board held and conducted business at
which there was no quorum physically present at the school. Such meetings were thus held
wrongfully and impermissibly in violation of law, MCA policy, and the 2017 Charter which was
in effect when such actions were illegally undertaken.

Accordingly, it is submitted that all of?cial actions and business undertaken at the
January 26, 2018, April 26, 2018, June 30, 2018, and December 14, 2018, Board Meetings are
null and void. The June 30, 2018, Meeting is of considerable concern. This meeting was called
to approve annual budget for ?scal year 2019. The meeting was held at 5:00 pm on a
Saturday and undertaken without a quorum. (Board Member Longenecker was absent, Board
Member Lichter appeared by phone, and Board Member Miller was physically present). The
meeting was called to order at 5:03 pm. and ended nine minutes later at 5:12 pm. During the
nine minutes, Ms. Turner introduced the budget and Board Members Miller and Lichter moved
and voted to approve it; hardly time to review and discuss something as important as a school?s
annual budget. There is no discussion noted in the Meeting Minutes.

Perhaps sensing or knowing something was wrong, at the November 30, 2018, Board
Meeting, the Board moved and voted to ratify the FY 2019 budget. @eg, Minutes of the
November 30, 2018, Board Meeting). Both Board Members Lichter and IVliller were physically
present at the meeting. Mr. Longenecker was again absent. Thus, at both meetings involving the
budget, the Treasurer was absent. There is no discussion as to why rati?cation of the budget was
determined to be needed. There was certainly no effort to take up and move to cure the June 30,
2018, meeting events. Accordingly, the Board in essence voted in November to ratify an illegal

vote taken in June which is anything but a cure.

Equally of concern is that two weeks later at the December 14, 2018, the Board
wrongfully voted to approve Mr. Boldue as a new Board Member. It is submitted that Mr.
Boldue?s appointment was null and void mitig- He has thus wrongfully served on the Board
since his first meeting on January 23, 2019. Accordingly, all his votes from that day forward,
and until such time as a cure is effectuated, must also be deemed null and void.

Given the Board?s wrongful action to approve of Mr. Boldue (which approval is certainly
not his fault), the Board in essence has operated since December 2018, as a two person Board in
material violation of Charter with the District which provides that the ?management of
the affairs of the school shall be vested in the Governing Board with a minimum of 3 members.?

Board Membership

In the Board?s bylaws, under the heading ?Election Process?, the following is provided:
?The Directors of Mason Classical Academy shall be elected annually by the Board of Directors
at an annual meeting of the Board?. both Policy Manuals, noted above, at p. 3
respectively). In Policy 3.0, under ?Annual Meetings?, it is provided that ?the annual meeting

25

of the Board of Directors shall be held in July of each year. At the annual meeting new Board
Members will be elected.? at 10).

in this connection, at the Board?s October 3, 2015, Workshop, which was devoted to
Strategic Plan, the Minutes note that the current term of a Board Member is one year
with no term limit. A review of the Board?s Meeting Minutes for the months of July or August,
during the 2015-2018 time period disclose no annual;rr organizational meeting to elect Board
Member and/or of?cers. New members were approved when there was a resignation from the
Board. Thus, for example, Mr. Baird replaced Mr. Lane as Treasurer and Mr. Longenecker
replaced Mr. Baird as 'I?reasurer and later Mr. Bolduc was approved to replace Mr. Longenecker
as Treasurer. However, when Mr. Donalds left after the November 1, 2016, Board Meeting, no
motion was made to fill his seat with an appropriate candidate thereby reducing the number of
Board Members from 4 to 3. (In fact, there is evidence that there was a period of time the Board
had 5 members). Board Members Lichter and Miller have remained continually in place to the
present as President and Secretary, respectively. The Board has thus disregarded its own By?
laws and Policy in connection with the Board Member election.l selection process.

Minutes and Agendas

In Attorney General Opinion 82?47 meeting minutes are de?ned to mean ?a brief
summary or series of brief notes or memoranda of a proceeding or transaction.? They are not
expected to be a verbatim record of a board meeting. In essence, they are to serve as a record of
the proceedings for the public to review and understand what has transpired. Robert?s Rules of
Order, (1 l?:l edition, 2011) provide that the minutes should be a record of what was done at the
meeting. The body of the Minutes should describe all main motions and the issues taken up, and
the substance of committee and other signi?cant reports. (Roberts, supra, at 468 471).

A review of the Meeting Minutes from July 2016 - 2019 show that except for a few
Meetings such as the September 13, 2018 Board Meeting, the reporting of what was done at such
meeting was either minimal or often not presented. The writing and approval of such Minutes
reflects an unfortunate lack of concern for transparency for the public. Moreover, a. review of
policy conceming Agendas, show a concern with the Board?s access to documents
?accompanied by descriptive materials from the Principal or designee. (SE, Policy 3 .0,
under Agendas at pp. 11-12 in both manuals noted above). Such documents and descriptive
materials are not made accessible to the public for review.

With the foregoing in mind, the concerns raised by Mr. Baird in his Complaint are well-
founded. In this context, one item connected to his Complaint needs to be addressed. There is
no evidence found to substantiate the claim or belief that Mr. Hull has ever acted as a liaison
between Board Members alleged in violation of Florida?s Sunshine Law. in the meeting with
him, he acknowledged that as part of his work, he meets with individual Board Members as
might be necessary. However, he has never brought to the attention of, nor shared with any
given board member, information he has learned from another, nor has any Board Member ever
asked to do so. One has found no evidence to dispute his statement. Thus, he will indeed be

taken at his word.

26

Governing Board Oversight of Policies

Board Policy 2.0 provides that while ?We (2) readings are not required by statute, the
Board prefers two 92) readings so the adoption schedule must be planned to provide for two (2)
readings. {Policy Manual, both editions, at 9). Both readings must be placed on the agenda for
the Board Meeting or workshop.

Item 4 under First Reading in the Policy speci?cally provides the following: ?All
policies must be included as attachments to the Agenda item. Revised policies must be in the
strike out, underlined (or bolded) version to indicate changes. Attachment will be uploaded to
the MCA server for Board review?.

After the ?rst reading, the Principal is responsible for placing the second reading policy
items on the agenda for the next Board Meeting. Changes recommended by the Board during the
?rst reading must be incorporated into the proposed policy, Item 5 of the Second Reading
section, mirror images item 4 of the First Reading section.

While policy items are to be included as attachments to the agenda, they are only
uploaded to the MCA server for Board review. They are not attached to the agenda for the
public to review nor is there a link that would enable a person from the public to have access to
the MCA server to read the proposed policy (whether at the ?rst or second reading level).

A review of the record shows that many MCA policies never go through a second reading
for the public to review or open discussion held by Board Members about such rule making for
the school. Many are placed on the Consent Agenda and approved without Board review or
discussion. Moreover, where there are multiple policies for second reading, they are, by
de?nition, never individually identi?ed when placed on Consent for vote. They are simply
passed through collectively. Sometimes one simply ?nds as well a First Reading without any
second reading identi?ed thereafter. There are multiple examples of this practice as the
following will show. For example, at the August 2, 2016, Board Meeting, Policies SE 20-1, SE
19.0, and SE 53.0 were present by Mr. Marshall for a First Reading. At the August 8, 2016,
Special Meeting, all were placed on the Consent Agenda without a Second Reading with an
individualized review and discussion followed by vote.

On January 12, 2017, Policy SE 19.0 which was passed on Consent at the August 8,
2016, Special Meeting, was brought forward and placed on Consent at the January 12, 2017,
Meeting then moved to un?nished business so it could be modi?ed which would have created a
new First Reading. Nevertheless, the Board voted on it treating it as if it were Second Reading.

This pattern of placing First Reading policy items on the Consent Agenda can be found
as well at the March 25, 2017, Board Meeting, as well as at the April 26, 2018, Board Meeting
where policies are identified on the Agenda, but not in the Minutes of the Consent Agenda for
that meeting which was wrongly dated January 26, 2018, as previously noted.

Further, two policies were taken up as a First Reading (AP 9.0 and SE 4.0), and a vote on
Policy SE 57.0, which would indicate a Second Reading was undertaken, at the December 14,

27

2013, meeting when there was no quorum. Since the action are null and void, it would mean the
First Readings presented later as voted on as a Second Reading would have to be withdrawn and
SE 57.0 would have to be brought back again at meeting where a quorum is physically present
and, therefore, like the others cannot constitute approved policy of MCA until these matters are

cured.

It is clear that the Governing Board has used the Consent Agenda as a means to push
policies through as a substitute for Second Readings. There is simply no way the public
(including the MCA community) could comment under such circumstance. While the Board
bears ultimate responsibility for such actions, one does not see Mr. Marshall or Mr. Hull as
persons who are responsible for of bringing proposed MCA policies forward to the Board,
properly advising the Board procedurally and substantively in this area of review. In sum, the
Board and the Administration suffer from a transparency problem. And as noted above, it has
faultered in its duty to set up standing several committees as required under the Application;
including the setting up of an Employment Committee as required under Board Policy. It has
equally faultered in its oversight obligations including appropriate and careful policy review.

VI. MCA Board and Administration Oversight: Grievances, and Parental and Student


A. The record shows a school with a strong instructional model valued and appreciated
by most parents whose children attend including those parents who have taken their
children out of the school to attend other schools. Parental concerns and criticism have been a
function of actions (and non~actions) taken by the Administration and the Governing Board that
they believe have shown a serious insensitivity to questions and concerns they have raised.
These include criticism of parents as stakeholders, criticism of their children, uneven
implementation of policy, arbitrariness in decision?making, discipline, and the experience that if
they question the Administration in any way, by filing grievances or express disagreement,
whether verbally or in wri?ng they are seen and treated as being against me school, fringe~types
who are really outsiders who do not belong at hither.1

This does not overlook the reality of many other parents who have experienced the
administration in positive ways and have expressed their support for it. And indeed, it does not
overlook the positive efforts made by Mr. Hull and Mr. Whitehead in addressing parent
questions, concerns, and con?ict. As will be seen, this has created an unaddressed polarizing
eifect, which will be seen, has affected faculty who have been men and women of good
will who have wanted to educate students to the best of their abilities in accordance with high

academic standards.

lSeveral parenE have express ed con com with the rather draconian nature of the pink. slip disciplinary policy. Parents of smdents who were
suspended for a certain number of pink slips must spend a day at the school with student. Student may not return if the parent does not attend.
Parents have expressed concern that if they cannot give up work, the child is penalized and cannot retum to school. This creates an anomalous
situation of students losing instructional tinie because their parents cannot leave work and give up a whole day. Most recently, Dr. Thornhurg has
written extensively to administration and the Board about this issue in light of his child?s discipline. Mr. Hull advised the undersigned he was
trying new to address ?iese issues on a case by case basis. He did not address the deeper question as to why a child must pay instructionally if the
parent calmer meet the terms of the policy.

28

B. Review of Speci?c Factual Issues

While there were parental concerns raised and expressed during the 2014-2015, school
year, a serious set of events occurred at the beginning of the 2015?2016 school year that
unfortunately continue to resonate to this day in their own way.

On September 15, 2015, Valerie Parker, an MCA parent with two children enrolled in the
school, was informed that her kindergarten child was being unenrolled from school because of
his alleged failure to comply with Policy SE 1.0 Personal Hygiene in which students must be
?independent in toileting.? This arose out of some three accidents that occurred during the
course of an approximate month period (August 17 September 15, 2015).

On or about August 17, 2015, the child had apparently wet his pants in. the bathroom.
Ms. Parker wrote to the teacher, Mrs. Huck on August 18, 2015, thanking her for helping her
child. She noted that she had ?washed and sent the spare set of shorts, and had placed them in
the child?s backpack. Mrs. Huck responded with ?no problem.? And she proceeded to inform
her of the three reasons why she thought Ms. Parker?s child had the accident including ?there
was a line waiting before him; and he couldn?t manage to get his belt off.? She asked that he
work on practicing taking-his belt on and off. During the week of August 24, 2015, the child was
out for several days for medical reasons. He was out again September 8 and 9 for similar
reasons and for which he was on a medication regimen. Ms. Huck was informed of this in the
email. Mrs. Parker emailed Ms. Huck accordingly on September 8 and 9, 20l5. On September,
she also emailed Ms. Barreto of her son?s illness and absence from school when Ms. Barreto
informed her he was missing too much school and would need a doctor?s note. At 3:02 pm. on
September 9, 2015, in furtherance of Ms. Barreto?s request, Mrs. Parker emailed her stating
?please note the dr faxed a letter for your records. This was done about an hour ago.?

On Friday, September 11, 2015, an accident occurred in which he soiled himself while in
class. Traumatized, he touched himself in the lower back area to feel what it was and then
removing his then soiled hand from his pants. He was taken to the bathroom and left there with
another person until Mrs. Parker was called to come to school to clean him up. After cleaning
her child up, recognizing how dif?cult the experience must have been for all, a distraught h/Irs.
Parker apologized to the teacher, and made a $50 donation to the school for the cost of any
cleaning supplies that were used in the clean-up process. (Sic, September 11, 2015, email
communications to Ms. Huck and to the school). Mrs. Huck responded quite critically lecturing
Mrs. Parker that her son should have known how to handle his toileting needs. She added that
that for it was ?not one gross and something a kindergarten teacher should rarely hand, but very

unsanitary for us all. . 3"

At 10:15 am. on Monday, September 14, 2015, Mrs. Huck emailed Mrs. Parker seeking
to meet with her and Mr. Whitehead that day or the next to discuss her son?s ?accidents at
school.? Ms. Parker wrote back asking: ?Was there an issue today which required an expedited
meeting?? She informed her that the most recent accident ?was an unexpected onset of an
intestinal bug.? She advised she would be glad to meet to discuss. However, wanted her

husband to be present but he was away for the week. She offered the folloudng Monday
(September 21, 2015) to meet.

Ms. Huck then made it clear why she and Mr. Whitehead wanted to meet with her. At
3:36 pm. she wrote: ?The reasons for our scheduled meeting is to inform you of the enclosed
policy and if there is another occurrence this week?, her son ?will be unenrolled at Mason
Classical Academy. . .Let us know if you still want to meet on Monday.? Mr. Whitehead was
copied on the communication.

On September 15, 2015, another accident occurred in the bathroom just as the child was
getting to the toilet itself. Mrs. Parker was called and she came to school to clean it up. She
recalled Mr- Hull telling her that he expected her to clean it up; which she did. Once she had
done so and was walking her child out of the bathroom to hallway, she was handed a copy of
Policy SE 1.0, told her that her child was done at MCA and Mr. W?tehead escorted both of

them out of the building.

On September 16, 2015, a separate event occurred apparently involving a second made
student, who also experienced an accident. Embarrassed, the child tried to ?ush his underwear
down the toilet which got clogged in the process. The ensuing plumbing problem led the
Administration to the decision to ?nd out who the culprit was. The decision, was also made,
without prior parental noti?cation, to check the pants of multiple students to see who might not
be wearing underwear. This investigation was spearheaded apparently by Mr. Whitehead. The
student was identified, confronted, and apparently confessed to his actions.

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015, Mrs. Parker wrote a email to Mr.
Whitehead expressing her concerns including the fact that she felt the medical issues, including
the medical issues involved, were not taken seriously by the Administrative team. She then
stated her concern about the other child and the fear and embarrassment that he must have felt.
She concluded her remarks as follows:

While this is disturbing on so many levels, you must understand how
these children have been made to feel. These are good, obedient
children who just want to comply and obey the rules. You have to
think on their level. When a teacher, a superior, someone of authority
gives them directive, they want to comply even if that means putting
common sense aside to do so. We?ve taught them to listen, be
respectfully and comply with what they are 

While I have been advised by man concerned MCA parents to report
these incidents to outlets outside of MCA, 1 support this school and
want to go through the proper charmels, extending courtesy that both
my child and were never given. I am calling on you to please make
these things right. 1 care very much about this school. I want it to
flourish and succeed. I was one of those parents involved from the
beginning. My heart is here, even though my child was judged unfairly,
far too and his expulsion was unjust. What is happening here

30

is very concerning. It must be addressed and remedied for both the
mental and physical health of our children and for the good standing
of the school.

Mr. Whitehead wrote her back that day acknowledging that he had read all of her
concerns noting: will forward this on to all related personnel for ?rrther review.? With respect
to the bathroom incident that Mrs. Parker had noted toward the end of her email, he informed her
of the following: ?The child who caused the clog WAS NOT disciplined in any way for the
unfortunate event. Any rumors stating that the child was disciplined by MCA are completely

false.?

Despite Mr. Whitehead?s representation that he would send her email on for further
review, she never heard from anyone at MCA. Pursuant to Board Policy, she prepared a detailed
grievance letter that included much of what she had expressed to Mr. Whitehead. She sent her
written grievance to MCA Board Members including Mr. Donalds and Mr. Mathias. Mrs. Parker
never heard back from the Board and no inquiry was ever undertaken to address her concerns.

On October 3, 2015, Mrs. Parker then sent her grievance to Dr. Messer, the District?s
then Director of Charter Schools, for review. Dr. Messer informed her the District could not
undertake a review and wanted to give Board a chance to do so. She also contacted the
Charter School Of?ce of the FDOE and received no response. Ultimately, Mrs. Parker
concluded that she would receive no response to help her redress her concerns. As a
consequence, after Speaking with several other parents who were upset by the underwear incident
and lack of transparency at MCA, she agreed to speak with the media to voice her concern. The
story was picked up by NBC-2 News and the Naples Daily News 

The response to the media reports was something Mrs. Parker could not have predicted.
Mr. Whitehmd, the School?s Assistant Principal, who had promised to forward Mrs. Parker?s
concerns, now directed his energies by indirectly attacking her on social media. He began his
post by discussing rumor spreading and gossip as essentially criminal ?Spread against a person or
organization.? Warming to his subject, he then extrapolated as follows: ?When you kill a good
reputation intentionally, wrongfully, and by stealth, you have in fact killed that person.? He
noted that persons who spread rumors are cowards. He then explicitly added the following
message: would have no problem with facing anyone like that and terminating their lease on

life.? (Emphasis added).

Board Member Laura Miller read Mr. Whitehead?s remarks and supported them. ?Joe, I
agree with you. It?s imposing for me to believe that the parent who called for an interrogation of
staff by DCF is a true patriot." She later added that founders of the school ?would never dream
of this kind of cowardly, destructive action without having good form to discuss their grievance
with the teachers, administration, and then if need be the Board.? It is clear, that Board Member
Miller had not looked into the facts before commenting. Mrs. Parker had written to the teacher,
written to Mr. Whitehead, and written to the Board. Mr. Whitehead never responded to Mrs.
Miller?s posting that he had received and reviewed Mrs. Parker?s concerns and had promised to
send them on to the appropriate persons. Other comments mocked the child and Mrs. Parker?s

31

parenting skills including anonymous ones written under cover of ?CCEA?Collier Citizens for
Educational Achievement" that were particularly destructive in nature.

Board Member Lichter also weighed in on the social media posts. She commented on a
prouMCA statement by calling out Mrs. Parker by name as follows: ?Thank you for your
support. Perhaps you and others should personally let Mrs. Parker know how you feel.? Yet,
neither she nor anyone else on the Board or Administration made any effort to investigate the
matter or sit with Mrs. Parker to address her concerns. They never reviewed what the policy

provided.

For whatever reason, Mrs. Lichter decided that she wanted to attack Mrs. Parker again
almost three and a half years later in a series of emails sent to District School Board Members.
She noted that she ?was very surprised that not one of you asked me to send the report on Valerie
Parker. This just proves that you have no interest in truth or hearing our side for your
convenience. I have attached the report to this email. Your minds will be blown! If anyone
should be investigated, it is this School Board.?

A review of the alleged report discloses a non?report; just a cobbling together of emails,
newspaper, letters, and so on. A good portion involves comments involving the underwear
incident which had nothing to do with the complaints raised by hits. Parker. Mrs. Lichter begins
her email with a statement of false reporting guidelines and the criminal penalties related to
them. She then proceeds to comment on an alleged DCF report and claim that she knew of a call
?om Mrs. Parker to DCF (Mrs. Parker never called DCF) and then proceeds to comment on it.
How she came into possession of it, or who authorized it, she does not say. Why MCA never
prepared or produced a report based on the September October 2015 events, she also does not
say nor does she say why no one acted on Mr. Whitehead?s promise to pass Mrs. Parker?s
concerns along or why her written grievance was never addressed. Certainly, her report is silent
on them. It appears her email was an attention-seeking device to get Board Members to respond

to her.

Mrs. Lichter?s April 4, 2019, email was a springboard to a further set of attacks sent via
email to the School Board on April 5, 2019- In one of them, she goes after Mrs. Parker and her
child directly ?The report I sent you did not include details regarding the 4th and final incident.
Her child not only had an accident but he put feces matter all over the ?oor, the walls, the stall,
the toilet, and the sink.? What Mrs. Lichter left out is that she had no personal knowledge of any
of this. Her comments are a variant of the comments set forth in the anonymous CCEA
Facebook post noted previously from November 2015.

Mrs. Lichter also sent a separate email, which is actually a photo, pertaining to Ms.
Lucarelli?s campaign. Mrs. Parker is apparently in the picture. Mrs. Lichter has drawn a black
circle around her face identifying her as ?Valerie Parker?. Below is a small photo of Mrs.
Lucarelli with a group of children in a classroom. Mrs. Lichter has drawn a black circle around
the faces of two children with the notation ?Valerie Parker?s children.? In the subject line of the
email, Mrs. Lichter has written No need for me to comment finther.? The email
address shows the email was sent from Mason Academy (klichten?dhnasonacademvnom). The
email warrants disclosure in its entirety.

32

From: Kelly Lichter 

Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 10:22 AM

To: Westberry, Jory <Westbelo collierschoals.com>; Lucarelli, Stephanie 
MITCHELL, JENNIFER Carter, Erick Terry,
Roy Patton, Kamela Fishbane, Jon
(Jonathan) 

Subject: need for me to comment further

 

33

As if that were not enough, six day later, on April 11, 2019, Mrs. Liehter emailed Ms. Lucarelli
directly and not copying anyone else on the email. She tauntingly wrote the following:

Stephanie:

I assume you are pretty shocked after reading the report, which is why you
likely have not responded. Valerie was featured on your campaign materials.

It?s amazing that you couldn?t ?nd anyone else to be part of your
photo shoot. She convinced a lot of people that she was some victim.
She does appear to be so genuine and sweet. You were fooled too.
You are so blinded by your hatred and disdain for MCA that you did
not care about the truth.

You aren?t who you claim to be. You got away with the foreclosure
situation and lied about it. How do people trust people like you and
Valerie 1 am in to all of you and what you are trying to do.
It?s criminal and deSpieable.

This email also was sent from Mason Academy. At the bottom of the email is the following
notation: ?this email is the property of Mason Classical Academy and to be used for official

business only.?

The Parker grievance and its multiple related issues was not the only grievance ?led.
Many of the parents who came forward did not file formal grievances even though they felt
administrative staff did not address or answer their concerns. Others decided to ?le grievances
with the Governing Board. The Minutes of the May 29, 2018, Board Meeting re?ect the

following:

Prior to the Principal Evaluation, Mrs. Zuluaga, parent of two MCA
students, ?led a grievance with the Board of Directors. The grievance
will be investigated by the individual board members and response
will be given at the next board meeting.

Mrs. Zuluaga had requested that the evaluation of Mr. Hull, scheduled for that meeting, be
deferred until her grievance could be heard. Her request was denied and the Board voted

unanimously in favor of Mr. Hull?s evaluation.

Subsequent to the Board Meeting, Board Member Mrs. Lichter requested Mrs. Zuluaga
respond to speci?c questions she had based on statements contained in the complaint. Mrs-
Zuluaga responded to each question in considerable detail, recording them in blue, and emailing
them to Mrs. Lichter on May 31, 2018.

The events at issue originated in an email her daughter, a senior at MCA, sent to Mr. Hull
at 3:24 pm. on February 27, 2018, that she wrote on behalf of the senior class and with the

3-4

senior class students? assent for her to do so. The email, cast in the form of a letter to Mr. Hull,
began with an apology for ?the senior skip day idea?? She noted that while it was a joke, she
could appreciate how it might be seen by them as disrespectful. She noted that she deeply valued
her teachers and did not intend on offending them. She then noted that what on the surface
appeared to be ?senioritis gone wrong, there is a much deeper reason for this feeling of apathy
you have been seeing recently in my class.? Ms. Zuluaga then tried to explain to him the

feelings of exhaustion and concerns that she and her peers shared. She then explained her
meaning in the following way:

The short explanation is simply that we?re tired, and often times fee] burnt

out. The curriculum we?re receiving at Mason is far more weighty than
anything we are used to, and is often times overwhelming. Many of us are
managing collegiate level classes alongside writing our thesis, which requires
a lot of additional research to cover the holes we did not go over last year in
our moral philosophy class. We look towards the weekend for a relief to our
week ?lled with tests (sometimes more than one test in a single class), quizzes,
homework, and our extracurriculars. We want to succeed, and we don?t want
to dread waking up in the morning, but sometimes the weight is too much, and
we yearn for some kind of break.

She then added, on behalf of her classmates and herself, the following observations: .

On top of this, oftentirnes my classmates and I are overwhelmed by the immense
pressure which comes with being the first graduating class. We are aware that
being the school?s ?rst graduating class is exceptional and should be celebrated.
We?ve been the ?guinea pigs? for over 2 years now, and it is finally coming
together towards something great. Yet we often feel as though we?re being shown
off, not for our own bene?t, but for the schools. Applying to college is grueling.
Especially since I applied regular decision to all my choices, and now, it?s simply
a waiting game which will ultimately determine my life for the next four years.
So when I apply to a reach school, knowing very well my chances are slim but
taking that leap of faith anyways, I don?t always want it to be public. I under-
stand we are your ?rst graduating class and this information is bene?cial to the
school, but nor now, I want this information to be private until I am comfortable
to disclose it. The pressure to bring the school acceptance letters, scholarship and
grant numbers, and college application adds to the stress I already
inflict on myself as I wait for acceptances. At the end of the day, it feels
more like we?re being set up to compete against our classmates for who
can bring in the most money and acceptances, instead of being uni?ed.

(E, the February 2018, email ?om Ms. Zuluaga to D. Hull).

Ms. Zuluaga concluded as follows: do not want you to think any less of me or my classmates
over this and I hope it can shed light on how we feel. We don?t mean to be dramatic or stressful.
We are truly working very hard, Mr. Hull, and we hope that a joke which was never intended to
o?end doesn?t change your opinion of us.? 

35

Mr. Hull?s response was to call a meeting of all MCA seniors to address the letter. In her
grievance, Ms. Zuluaga contended that Mr. Hull yelled at the students, read the letter out loud,
mocking sections of it and demeaning students in the process, calling students out publicly,
chastising her daughter, calling her out for her friendship with his son allegedly saying then if
you are so tired you shouldn?t be speaking to my son on the phone at midnight. Mrs. Zuluaga
noted that Mr. Hull had referred to ?to a time they were on the phone together very later at night
at least one year before this incident.? This and multiple other comments reduced her daughter
to tears and asking him to stop which he would not do. Mr. Hull was also alleged to have
accused the students of being sel?sh and ungrateful. (See, the Grievance document and
Thursday, May 31, 2018, email from L. Zuluaga to K. Lichter).

When the undersigned asked Mr. Hull about the meeting with the senior class and his
review of the letter, he acknowledged that he met with the senior class collectively. He stated
that he did not target Ms. Zuluaga. When asked whether he publicly questioned her character
and her National Honor Society status, he responded that he did not remember. He
acknowledged that he did go through the letter line by line and allegedly explained to them that
such behavior had to stop and that they were responsible for their actions. He stated that he did
not yell at the students but gave them a wake up call and told them that they needed to get their
acts together. He also claimed he told them that they needed to show appreciation for all the
help being given tot hem to enable them to receive scholarships. He stated quite emphatically
that he does not abuse kids and that one of his own was in the 2018 graduating class.

After the meeting with the senior class, Mr. Hull emailed Mr. and Mrs. Zuluaga on
Wednesday morning Febmary 28, 2018. He requested that they meet ASAP to discuss the
February 27, 2018, email ?and a few other things? concerning their daughter. He added: 
would be willing to do any time today, even cancelling a class I teach, if you are able to come
in." They agreed to do so and advised they could come in at 12:30. Mr. Hull accepted. the
February 28, 2018, exchanges between Mr. Hull and Mr. and Mrs. Zulnaga). They had an
intense exchange concerning the email, the meeting with the senior class, and related issues

involving Ms. Zuluaga.

That evening hits. Zuluaga emailed Mt. Hull. She noted that in light of the meeting held
that day, ?we believe that it is important that we meet again to ?nd the proper way to move
forward. We are available tomorrow any time after 11:00 am, please let us know what time is
convenient for you.? Mr. Hull responded at 7:16 pm. as follows: ?It will have to be next week.
I am booked solid for the rest of this week. What day and time works for you.? (SE, the
February 28, 2018, exchange between L. Zuluaga and Mr. Zuluaga responded the next
morning, March 1, 2018, expressing his disappointment noting that ?it is really important to ?nd
the truth of this situation, and considering that we are only three weeks away from graduation,
we would rather have you listen to our concerns sooner rather than later.? Mr. Zuluaga added
?he found no reasons to conclude that his email was disrespectful.? ?We believe that she was
speaking up, which is what we have always taught her to do.? He then proceeded to express his
and wife?s concerns as follows:

36

The way in which you reprimanded my daughter ultimately embarrassing
her in ?ont of her classmates by utilizing past, personal and irrelevant
incidents; yelling at her and her classmates and humiliating her by
threatening to strip her away ?om the awards she had earned so far is
de?nitely not acceptable and will not happen again.

We have already spoken with our daughter and given her the speci?c
instructions to wallc away if you choose to approach her in those terms
and to wait until one of us is present.

You need to stop the bullying to our daughter with personal issues from
her past.

(See, email from S. Zuluaga to D.l-Iull, March 1, 2018).

Mr. Hull did not respond nor did the parties meet again. Mrs- Zuluaga, in her response to
Board Member Lichter?s questions, provided her with the email communications noted above. .
(See, email from L. Zuluaga to K. Lichter, May 31, 2018, response to ?nal inquiry ?om Mrs.
Lichter).

At the July 16, 2018, Board Meeting, Board Member Lichter announced that the
grievance had been denied. The Meeting Minutes provide the following information: ?Taking
any and all input seriously the MCA Board of Directors mVestigated the complaint and examined
the statements of all concerned parties. After careful deliberation, the Board found no evidence
that any further action was necessary.? (SE, the Minutes to the July 16, 2018, Board Meeting).

When asked about the Board? 3 investigation, Mr. Hull noted that he was not involved in
it. He also noted that he was unaware of the Board itself investigating complaints and did not
believe it was appropriate for Board Members to do so. He did note, however, that he welcomed
an investigation being undertaken. But he never saw nor received a written report in connection

therewi?r

But a?er the ?ling of the grievance, another thread to this issue emerged during the
second week of June 2018. On June 12, 2018, horn their personal email account, Mr. Hull and
Mrs. Hull wrote to Zuluagas informing them as follows:

Please consider this your ?nal notice about contact with my son

. As his parents and legal guardians we are forbidding
Any contact whatsoever between any member of your family and
Any member of my family. . .If you or any member of your family
contacts him or accepts communication from him again, I will
notify the Collier County Sheriff?s Of?ce and the State Attomey's
Of?ce immediately and without hesitation. (S_ee, email from David
Hull to the Zuluagas, June 12, 2018, at 3:54 

  
  

37

Mr. Hull then decided to involve his Assistant Principal, Mr. Whitehead, a former City of
Naples Police Of?cer, to provide him with assistance and advice concerning whether there were
criminal consequences for the contact he noted above. Mr. Whitehead made inquiries on lvir.
Hull?s behalf. Mr. Whitehead replied ?Thank you for advising me of this. . .I have contacted the
SAC and CCSO regarding this situation as you mentioned below regarding previous info and I
will advise you asap as we move forward. . .I will keep you posted on my interaction with
relevant entities.? -

At 8: 19 that evening, MI. Hull (though email is signed ?David and Sabine Hull?) took the
liberty of writing directly to the student, Ms. Zuluaga unthout notifying her parents. He stated:

We wanted to make sure you are aware of this serious situation and write
to ensure you have a full understanding of it. Under no circumstances are
you to contact - in any way ?face-to-face, digitally, on the phone,
through online media, or otherwise. . .. 

We are willing to leave things as they are now, unless you or-
decide to violate the mandate of this message. Otherwise, as

parents, we will take appropriate and swift legal action. At this point,

we consider this matter closed and will not communicate with you or
your family anymore unless our demand is violated by any party involved.

The next evening, June 13, 2018, at 7:45 Mr. Waitehead wrote to Mr. Hull the
following: Spoke with a State Attorney today, who I have along term professional
relationship with." He noted he was advised that Mr. Hull should save all communications
involving the two students and all members of her family. He adds: will be the collection
point that compiles these documentations for evidence as we move forward.? Mr. Whitehead
does not say what right he has as an MCA Assistant Principal, to act as police detective, on
behalf of the Principal, to move against an MCA family, (while one of the Zuluaga children had
just graduated, another was still enrolled).

Fifteen minutes later, at 8:00 Mr. Hull wrote again to the Zuluagas. He informed
them that he had a need to respond to them one more time. He wrote: ?The reasons for this
response is to address the advice offered by the State Attorney and to let you know that I have
already have a substantial amount of such communications. ..I will continue to collect.?

Mr. Zuluaga responded at 9:21 pm. that evening to both Mr. Hull and Mr. Whitehead as
follows:

Please move forward with any actions that you consider appropriate on

this matter, but you need to cease and desist the harassment and intimidation
you are in?icting on our family or we will pursue our own legal

actions.

Thank you and have a great night-

33

Neither Mr. Hull nor Mr- Whitehead responded. (See, the email chain involving Mr. Hull, Mr.
Whitehead, and Zulugas of June 12 13, 2018).

As the following will show, there are multiple examples of Mr. Hull?s confusion of
boundaries between the personal and the professional, and the disregard of the privacy rights,
reputations and sensitivities of others. These, as will later be discussed, have serious legal and

policy rami?cations.

For example, on May 11, 2018, after a faculty committee of eleven teachers voted to
present the Student of Virtue award to a twelfth grade student they believed to be the most
deserving, Mr. Hull interjected himself in the decision?making process emailing to the faculty
committee members that he believed his son was the better candidate and should have been
given the award. He began by saying that he tries ?hard to bite may tongue when it comes to my
own children and their enrollment at this school.? He then goes on to say that ?being the
Principal requires me to honor my duty as such? lay-speaking out on behalf of his son, ?as I
would for any student who needs a case being made on his or her behalf.?

Mr. Hull proceeded to post and provide a comparative list of the awarded student?s (and
his son?s) disciplinary record, tardies, GPA, awards, college acceptances and scholarships
received in dollar value. He then informed the faculty members as follows: have also copies
screenshots of demerit reasons for each student and attached it to this email.? The screenshot
includes photos of the two students. He added: must have missed something about how you
objectively measured the 12th grade Student of Virtue.? Mr. Hull concluded his message, as
follows: ?But in rare form I will put principal desk, and point out
that I disagree with your decision. More important, I hope all the other students were given
serious consideration and objectivity for this award.? (See, email from David Hull to multiple
faculty members dated Friday, May 11, 2018, at 4:56 subject: Student of Virtue).

There is no evidence that Mr. Hull ever notified the awarded student?s parents of what he
planned to do or obtained their permission to post their son?s disciplinary history, tardies, GPA,
and so on. Nor did they know he would be posting a comparative disciplinary screenshot,
involving their son and Mr. Hull?s son, denoting the names of the homeroom and issuing teacher
with a narrative of the event?activity or which the student was disciplined, that would be viewed

by multiple faculty members as a pubic record.

When asked about the matter, Mr. Hull acknowledged that he intervened and believed his
decision was warranted. He felt the chosen student was not a strong candidate and that he
believed he should speak out. He acknowledged preparing a comparative of demerits between
the two students. When asked why, he responded because it was about virtue which re?eots
upon the school. When asked if he would have requested the committee to review their decision
if a parent other than Mr. Hull had brought the matter forward, he responded that yes he would
have.

Several months prior to the Student of Virtue email, on December 1, 2017, Mr. Hull
emailed Sheryl Rogers, the District?s then Director of Charter Schools discussing a parent issue
he was having. 111 the email, after speci?cally naming the student, he informed her of the
student?s grades by letter, the student?s grade level, his own argument with the parent, and the

39

nature of the testing the child was receiving. He told Dr. Rogers that he ?just wanted to let you
know about this situation since the mom was so out of control and angry and threatening to sue
the school.? He asked Dr. Rogers to look into the child?s ?situation at his prior school (which
was a District school), including wanting to know whether the District Principal of the school the
child previously attended have issues with her and so on. There is no evidence that Mr. I-Iull
sought parental permission to share such informatiOn with an administrator from another school
agency nor is there any indication why he believed he had a unilateral right to share a child? 3
academic (and social) background with Dr. Rogers.

In addition, on August 30, 2018, Mr. Hull took it upon himself to write to District School
Board Member?s about an MCA parental matter. He named the parent, the student, and the
speci?c academic issue involving the child. He stated he was aware that the parent had
contacted District School Members. And he expressed his concern that according to the parent at
least one of the Board Members had allegedly weighed in on what the outcome for the student

should have been.

Mr. Hull then proceeded to lecture the School Board that ?this opinionated suggestion
gave her false encouragement and perpetuates her anger at the situation. This is not good for her,
her child, the school, or He added: ?It is unfortunate that any CCPS board member
would advise a parent in such a way without knowing any details beyond what the parent said.?
He then lectures Board Members on the proper lines of communication and procedures they need
to follow. ?Please refer grievances, he noted, to the appropriate people going forward and do not
entertain complaints by offering your opinions.? (E, August 30, 2018, email from D. Hull to
CCPS Board Members). There?s nothing in the Board?s Meeting Minutes in which he discussed
this matter or sought authority from Governing Board to write District School Board
Members on his own about these issues.

While Mr. Hull gave a lot of his time and care to many parents and students, including
dif?cult students, to help MCA grow, he often struggled in his relationships with many parents
as well. For example, over several months, Mr. and Mrs. Donalds were in on- going
communication with Mr. Hull and Mr. Whitehead concerning their children?s performance and
behavior at school. The parents express dismay and regret for their disruptive conduct, took
responsibility for it, and expressed that they were working with their children to have them also
take responsibility for their actions, including being reSpect?il at MCA.

Nevertheless, they also asked Mr. Hull, as well as Mr. Whitehead, to take a closer look at
how discipline is meted out at MCA, the bases for issuing disciplinary demerits, and how
discipline affects different children in di?erent ways.? On November 2, 2017, Mr. Donalds
emailed Mr. Hull about such iSSues noting: ?As I told Mr. Whitehead today, the current pink slip
policy assumes that a 6 year old, a 10 year old, and a 14 year old have the same ability to course
correct. I have personally coached and mentored children, from ages 5 to 18 for 15 years- That
is simply not the case at all.? Mr. Donalds asked that when problematic issues arose, that
teachers call him or Mrs. Donalds. His reasou was that it helped them to work with their child if
disruptive behavior was occurring in order to obviate the need for the issuance of pinks or
ultimately suspension. The communication between the parents and administration increasingly

broke down.

40

Mr. Hull took it upon himselfto write to Dr. Rogers on January 10, 2018, to describe his
view of the Donalds as parents and provided examples of the disciplinary record of the children.
He tried to disguise who the parents were by not actually naming them but by describing them.
Anyone could easily ?gure out who the parents were by reading the following: ?One parenting
issue I see is that of not being home very often. For example, the dad could be out of town for
months at a time, only to come home on some weekends. He happens to be a Florida State
legislator. The mom is also gone a lot as she is not only a member of a certain school board, but
other boards and organizations.? Referring to one of the children, Mr. Hull made the following
judgment: ?Based on my knowledge and esperience with this family, his poor behavior is due to
the style of parenting his parents elect to enforce.? He added that the child?s alleged misbehavior
is ?due to an absence of proper parent and training.? email from D. Hull to S. Rogers,
Wednesday, January 10, 2018, set at 8:32 am). Who authorized Mr. Hull, or gave himthe right
to present MCA student disciplinary issues and pass judgment on the student?s parents to an
outsidethird party, is not mentioned.

On February 7' and 8, 2018, one of the Donalds? children was alleged to have been
involved in a series of incidents the school claimed warranted disciplinary suspension. Mrs-
Donalds emailed Mr. Hull at 9:33 am. requesting to view ?the videos you referred to this
morning surrounding the incidents of yesterday and today from the time when students were
allowed into the hallway through the incidents in question. You can show them to me when i get
to the school today or provide electronically.? When she arrived at MCA, Mrs. Donalds emailed
Mr. Hull at 9:54 that she as at school in the hunt lobby and would like to view the video
before the suspension carried out.? Almost an hour later, she informed Mr. I-Iull that she was
still waiting in the lobby to meet with him and see the video. Mr. Hull and Mr. Whitehead
thereafter apparently met with Mrs. Donalds and her son.

At 12:26 pm, Mr. Hull emailed Mrs. Donalds stating that he was continuing that ?you
do not have an expectation of our stalling processing your public records request for video
footage? of the alleged bathroom incidents. . Mrs. Donalds replied: ?Unfortunately, due to the
severity of the consequence, we still want to review the video,? with their son. Mr. Hull informed
her that he would be back in touch with her as to how much it would cost to process the request.
He then added that he felt a need to express his concern that she not watch the video with her
son. He concluded that given the student?s capacity to change his stories, it was not a good idea
for him to view the videos with her. ?Showing him the video would not be positive or
productive in holding him accountable for his actions.? (S_ee, the February 8, 2018, email
exchange between E. Donalds and D. Hull). Why that should be a concern of Mr.Hull is not
clear. Nor is it clear why he has apparently taken it upon himself to parent both the child and the

parent.

Late in the afternoon, Mr. Hull provided a cost breakdown and rationale for the requested
video. The charge would be $294.62. He informed Mrs- Donalds as follows: ?please make
payment by check to the front of?ce, and then we will begin processing your request.? (Egg,
February 8, 2018, email from D. Hull to E. Donalds, sent at 4:18 pm, with the accompanying
invoice). In light of the fat that the request involved student discipline, Mr. Hull does not explain
why he was treating it as a public records request.

41

On Wednesday, February 28, 2018, at 6:15 Mnl-Iull decided to forward Dr. Regers
a detailed set of emails between Mr. and Mrs. Donalds, one of their son?s teachers, and Mr. Hull.
He claimed his goal was to apprise her of an on? going behavior issue ?we have been dealing with
at In the ?nal email in the exchange, Mr. Hull took it upon himself to lecture and judge
Mr. and Mrs. Donalds at length about their parenting, their child, their failure to pursue the truth,
and having deep hostility toward him personally which has had negative consequences for all.
Mr. Hull wrote that their son had never apologized nor admitted his actions. He then continued

as follows:

That he has not speaks to your actions, or lack thereof, and to what you
wrote below. He will never learn his lesson because you are so undermining
towards the school. We are not asking for you to do anything harsh in

terms of punishment. If you have been doing that, then it has obviously

not worked. Something new should be tried. We are asking you to pursue
truth, just like we ask everyone to do. Unfortunately, like you also
continue to deny what he did in those bathrooms, admit truth, and apologize.
That is where moving on begins. The ball, as I said before, is in your court.

is in no way ?unredeemable?. In fact, I cannot tell you how many times
I?ve told someone ?it?s not the child?s fault.? But you have many, many
people telling you that something is seriously wrong in the behaviors of
both your children, and that something desperately needs to change. Why
would I even say that? Do you even stop to think how much easier it

would be on me to ignore this whole thing? That you have such animosity
over me and put so much blame on my back speaks volumes about your

true desire to help that needed change happen.

Around the time Mr. Hull was working on this email, Mrs. Donalds was trying to get a
handle on the school?s decision to recommend evaluating one of her sons and sending her a form
to complete regarding a certain testing instrument- There was no team meeting to which she was
invited to review and discuss the eligibility for services including testing to determine that Mrs.
Donalds wrote to Ms. Van Vlyman on Monday, February 26, 2018, as follows: ?perhaps you
and 1 should meet so I can better understand this evaluation and the decision being made? for
her child. ?Alternatively, I could speak with the person at the District handling the evaluation. I
feel a little inthe dark about this whole process.? February 26, 2018, email chain between
E. Donalds and Van Vlyman). Ms. Van Vlyman apparently spoke by phone during which the
tracking charts, behaviors, and evaluation were discussed. On March 1, 2018, Ms. Donalds
advised that she wanted to withdraw her consent for testing. Ms. Van responded that
given Mrs. Donalds? decision, will not be proceeding with summarizing the documents?.

(E, February 27, March 1, 2018 email chain between E. Donalds and Ms. Van Vlyman). There
was no meeting during which Mrs. Donalds could review the testing/evaluation process with a
school testing coordinator, the child?s teachers, and Ms. Van And there
was no meeting during which she could discuss whether she understood her procedural
safeguards prior to provide her with informed consent for evaluation.

On February 27, 2018, Mrs. Donalds emailed Mrs. Van Vlyman requesting the tracking
documents Mrs. Van Vlyman had mentioned during their conversation. Ms. Van Vlyman sent
her an invoice for the request noting that once payment was received, the copies of the
documents would be provided. Mrs. Donalds responded that she had ?a right to these documents
and should not need to pay for them.? Ms. Van Vlyman replied that she did ?not have the
information as to your rights to obtain records at no cost, sol am copying Mr.Hull on the reply.?
Mrs. Donalds never received a reply. Sometime thereafter, the Donalds. decided to remove their

children from the school.

In early October 2018, the Naples Daily News ran an article on Mr. Baird?s
Complaint. Mr. and Mrs. Donalds agreed to speak with the reporter about it. Supporters of
MCA attacked them for it. Subsequent to the appearance of the article, Mr. Lichter posted the
following statement on Facehook: ?Byron Donalds, Erika Donalds, and Joe Baird just i* *d
the wrong school. IT ON YOU LYNG 1? In the aftermath of the article,
a few days after, Mr. Lichter?s post, Board Member Miller took it upon herself to post the
following about a certain child and the child?s parents:

LAURA MILLER Abusive
Disruptive

Dishonest

Threatening

Unsanitary

Vicious

Disrespectful

Angry

When these words describe a student who is robbing their schoolmates
of a decent, safe school environment, and their parents cast blame on

the people holding them accountable instead of the needs of the child,
ugly accusations There is a massive, disgrace?il campaign underway
by people desperate to save face instead of facing parenting challenges.
I?m grateful my child and his teachers are no longer in jeopardy of being
attacked, since the policies designed to protect every member of our
school are working. I hope the poor children whose parents are still
focusing on displacing blame in lieu of their own children will wake up
to the screams (and tantrums) for attention happening inside their

ovm homes.

On October 14, 2018, Mr. Baird emailed Ms. Miller privately to take the post down as
potentially harmful to the child and harmful to reputation. October 14, 2018, email .
from Mr. Baird to Laura Miller, sent at 3:26 She did not reply. He then emailed the
Board Members on October 15, 2018, to request the post to be, taken down. It was his cencern
that posting re?ected ?a clear act of public humiliation on the part of an MCA Board Member.?
October 15, 2018, email from J. Baird to MCA Board Members sent at 9:05 am). l?vir.
Baird sent the Board a follow up email the next day. October 16, 2018, email from J- Baird
to MCA Board Members sent at 11:08 am). There was no response nor was there discussion or

?13

comment about the matter at the October 22, 2018 or November 2, 2018, Board Meetings. (SE,
the Meeting Minutes for those meetings).

C. Discussion and Applicable Law and Policy
l. The Parker Grievance and Related Matters:

Mrs. Parker complained to the administration and to the Board that she believed that the
dismissal of her kindergarten child from the school was wrongful- Her concern was heightened
when a second grade student had a toilet dif?culty and was not disciplined. Mr. Wlutehead
informed her directly on that score and promised to bring her concerns to the appropriate people.

Ms. Huck noti?ed her that she and Mt. Whitehead wanted to meet with her to inform her
of Policy SE 1.0 and if there was another occurrence that week her child would be ?unenrolled?
certainly a code word for expelled from MCA. It is quite remarkable that a kindergarten teacher
would inform a parent that her child would be administratively unenrolled from the school itself
unless she had been directed to do so. Policy SE 1.0 provides, in pertinent part, the following:

All students of Mason Classical Academy must be independent in
toileting. On occasion students may have ?accidents?. When an accident
occurs, it is the responsibility of the parent to assist the child and to
provide clean clothing. If there are repeated ?accidents?, a meeting

with the parents, assistant principal, and school nurse will be held to
evaluate the situation. Appropriate action will be taken based on what

is in the best interest of all students and the school.

No meeting ever occurred. Mrs. Parker asked that the initial meeting be moved so that
her husband could be present. She and her child were escorted out because of an occurrence
prior to that requested meeting. The intended meeting per policy was to involve parents (so Mrs.
Parker?s request to have husband present was not unreasonable). It was also to include the
assistant principal and the school nurse. Mrs. Parker had conveyed to the teacher in detail that
her child had serious medical issues affecting his attendance. She complied with Mrs. Barreto?s
request for physician con?rmation. Thus, the school?s dismissal of the child was abrupt and
unilateral. Mrs. Parker could have been requested to keep her child home until the meeting
occurred. Certainly, the medical issues were worthy of discussion and review before expelling

her child.

Mrs. Parker articulated all this in her Wednesday, September 23, 2018, email to Mr-
Whitehead. That evening, Mr. Hull sent a letter to families of a student? that he
planned to hold a forum on Friday, September 25, 2018, to correct the ?incredible amount of
misinformation out there about a bathroom situation that happened last week.? the emailed
letter from Hull to parents dated September 23, 2015, and sent at 6:49 pm). The forum was
argumentative and divisive and did little to defuse parental concerns despite Mr. Hull?s promise

?to put everything to rest. . 

44

When the NDN published its article on or about November 20, 2013, Mr. Hull wrote a
letter to the MCA community describing his displeasure with the reporter and the article, and
presented his response to reporter. In it, he ignored the events concerning Ms. Parker and the K-
2 parents who were upset by checking the underwear of their children and the divisive forum.
He changed the focus and created an alternative narrative writing:

Here is the bottom line: there is an assault on school choice
across this great nation. The assault comes in many forms, and
it does not only affect our school. . .The attack on school choice
must not go unanswered, whether in this school district or in
others across the nature. Education should not be political.

Yet, Mrs. Parker and other upset parents, were not attacking school choice. Their complaints
had nothing to do with school choice.

Mrs. Parker was upset by the abrupt ?unenrolhnent? of her child. She wanted him to
continue at MCA. indeed, she informed Mr. Whitehead: ?l care about this school and want it to
?ourish and Neither Mrs. Parker not the other concerned parents who questioned the
actions taken by the administration and the failure to notify them in connection with the steps
they planned to take after the clogging of the toilet, were attacking school choice. Yet, because
of the NDN article, they are cast in the role of ?the enemies at the gate? of the school by the
principal. Mr. Hull stated ?Education should not be political.? Yet everything about his article
was political and polarizing in nature.E

Mr. Whitehead?s Facebook threat to Mrs. Parker, and impliedly to other concerned
parents all of whom he has deemed to be rumor mongers and cowards, stated that he ?would
have no problem facing anyone like that and terminating their lease on life". His conduct is 
unbe?tting a professional educator. He was, and is, the Assistant Principal. He cannot
claim that he took off his Assistant Principal?s hat when he wrote this. The Code of Ethics of the
Education Profession in Florida (F AC 613?1001) provides that ?the education values the worth
and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to ?and must be aware
of the importance of maintaining the respect and con?dence of one?s colleagues, of students, of
parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the
highest degree of ethical conduct.? His Facebook threat was also abusive and intimidating which

is proscribed by the Code.

th is of interest that on February 25, 2018, that Mr. Hull emailed Dr. Rogers concerning ?a kindergarten student who is not potty trained. There
has been around "i or so ?accidents? this year. We continue to do our best, working with the He noted that he felt it necessary to
inform the mother that her child was not ready for school. Dr. Rogers immediately replied that she was concerned that the accidents could
involve medical issues he needed to be very care?rl. Mr. Hull also noted that ?we were bitten in the past over an issue similar to this; although
that was a more severe issue" and ?the school was attacked relentlessly over falsehoods put forth by that student's parents without the ability to
defend itself." Mr. Hull?s deep need to cast aspersions on a former MCA parent almost two and half years later is of serious concern. He did not
tell Dr. Rogers that he was the one to dismiss the Parker child without allowing for a meeting to take place so that parent(s) could discuss the
child?s medical issues. He thus loiowingly disregarded META policy, yet continues to blame the parents for his wrongful actions.

45

As if this crude Facebook posting were not enough, Mr.Whitehead posted another one
stating: ?This is a Joe Whitehead Show urine stream media alert [Ill He then described
how the local media had descended on MCA with irrelevant questions for him and Ms. Lichter.
He asserted that ?the intent of the whole attack? was among other things:

2. To promote the lunatic agenda of a handful of disgruntled parents who
want to shut down charter schools (with the support of the CCPS admin)
and do all that they can to damage MCA and all who bene?t from the
positive environment in which the students are thriving.

3. To further promote the agenda of the radical teachers union (CCEA)
and gin up hatred for charter schools.

He concludes that on his show ?Kelly Lichter and I will set the record in and
hear our SMACK DOWN of this anti-American lunatic driven 

Urine stream media alert? Lunatic agenda? Smack down? Anti-American? Promotion
of a radical teachers union agenda and gin up hatred for charter schools? This is
coming ?om the Assistant Principal of a school that emphasizes classical values and virtue-

Mrs. Parker wrote to Mr. Whitehead and he promised to help her. There is nothing lunatic or un-
American about that nor is there anything lunatic or tin?American about parents who voice their
concerns about administrators and administrative actions (which would be very much American).

Mr. Hull wrote that education should not be political. Everything about Mr. Whitehead?s
post is political, designed to be political, and is hostile and profoundly divisive in nature. No one
at MCA ever reprimanded him for the impropriety and uncivility of these posts. Would lvir. Hull
or Mr. Whitehead tolerate a student posting messages about ending the lease on another?s
life; calling people onwards and lunatics; using terminology such as the urine stream
media; or labeling others as un-American? In all likelihood the student would be severely
disciplined and such posts be deemed to he a violation of MCA social media policy set forth in
Policy SE 25.0 58 in the April 26, 2018, Policy Volume, and p. 59 January 23, 2019 Policy
volumes. Prior to the student social media guidelines of the policy, attention is called to the
sections dealing with Board Members and organizational employers).

Board Member Miller?s support of Mr. Whitehead?s comments is also unbe?tting a
School Board Member. To agree with such threatening statements is inherently wrong?il,
re?ects her lack of knowledge, treating a parent or parents in a demeaning way, and then
accusing a parent who did follow the rules as ?unpatriotic? is inappropriate to say the least.
Board Member Lichter?s encouraging others to let Mrs. Parker know how they feel was a form
of rabble-rousing and unbefitting a President of a School Board. In the Board Policy Manual (in
both Volumes at p. the following is provided:

Election to the Board of Directors carries with it a responsibility of
stewardship. The directors are the custodians of the integrity of Mason
Classical Academy; they hold in trust the school?s reputation as

created by its founders, and as developed by those who have shaped the

46

school in the past.

In the Pillars of Character Development, which a Board Member is called to sign is the Pillar of
Respect. Under that pillar is the following: ?To treat others and myself with kindness. To be
polite and considerate. To appreciate the good in others and myself and show compassion. To
treat others and preperty of others as I wish to be treated.? Board Members Miller and Lichter
acted contrary to their stewardship, respect toward others, and integrity toward the reputation of
MCA as enshrined in Board Policy and aspirational commitments.

Similarly, Board Policy SE 25-0 provides in the section on social media the following
?Board Members are organizational employees, are personally responsible for the content they
publish on?line. Your behavior should reflect the same standards of honesty, respect and
consideration that you use Board Members Miller and Lichter did not honor this
policy on their media postings nor did Mr. Whitehead whose conduct they condoned and
followed. These conclusions apply as well to Board Member Miller?s gratuitous demeaning of a
student connected to MCA and the students? parents- (Given the timing of the post, one eculd
easily ?gure out to whom it was directed).

Subsequent to the October 2018 NDN article, Mr. Hull wrote a detailed email on October
12, 2018, to MCA parents ?to combat the latest newspaper hit piece.? In it, he wrote: ?Children
should not have to worry about the details of their school behavior haunting them when they are
adults.? It would seem that his statement and the statements contained in Board Member
Miller?s posting of around the same time are very much at odds with one another. Both Board
Members faultered in their duty to serve the MCA community. Rather than trying to calm a
difficult situation to let everyone move on, they knowingly contributed to in?aming it. Board
Member Lichter took her re?isal to follow MCA policies and principles to a new level when she
resumed her attack on Mrs. Parker some three and a half years later. She accused her of
dishonesty, and her having association with District School Board Member Lucarelli as criminal.
She circled Ms. Parker?s face as a target as well as those of her children. Shen then followed up
with an attack on Ms. Lucarelli personally as a means to intimidate her. Her email attacks were
sent ?om her Mason Academy address.

In item ll of the Board Duties and Responsibilities (See, both noted policy volumes, at
5), it provides: ?Board Members as leaders of the School must have moral character and
embrace the values of democratic society.? Such values would constitutionally include freedom
of speech and freedom of association. To accuse a former MCA parent that her involvement in
someone?s campaign, and her association with the candidate is criminal, is a fundamental attack
on her First Amendment associational rights and the ability to vote for the candidate of her
choice, whether Mrs. Lichter liked it or not. To draw a circle around her and her children is a
form of wrongful targeting and intimidation that re?ects a dark element within the moral
character of the writer and damages the reputation of a school that seeks to uphold democratic
values and the importance of respect and virtue.

Equally important, Board Member Lichter?s emails calling another (Mrs. Parker and Ms.
Lucarelli) criminal potentially subjects her personally to an action for defamation. When words
on their face without the aid of extrinsic proof, are injurious, they are considered defamation El

4?

 and no proof of damages are needed to establish liability. See, Pun Spot of Florida, Inc. v.
Magical Midway of Central Florida, Ltd, 242 F. Supp 2d 1183, 1197 (MD. Fla. 2002 (Citing
Hoch v. Rissman, 742 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1999). If a false defamatory statements suggests
someone has committed a dishonest or illegal act, it is considered, for example, as slander 
See, Pun Spot of Florida, Inc, supra, at 1197'r and Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, 66 So.
2d 495, 497 (P la. 1953). Aside from the personal responsibility she bears for her statements, Ms.
Lichter has put the reputation and integrity of the Board and MCA itself at risk.

The Familyr Educational and Privacy Rights Act (PERPA)

The provisions of the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act (FERPA) are set forth
in 20 USC 1232 and its interpretive regulations set forth in 34 CPR ?99. 1, e_t The
provisions of PERPA are also incorporated into Florida law in PS ?1002.22 and 1002.221 and
PAC 2OUSC 1232(g)(b)(1) provides in pertinent part the following:

(1) No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any
educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting
the release of education records (or personally identi?able information
contained therein other than directory information, as de?ned in paragraph (5)
of subsection of students without the written consent of their parents

to any individual, agency, or organization, other than to the following:

(A) other school of?cials, including teachers within the educational institution
or local educational agency, who have been determined by such agency or
institution to have legitimate educational interests, including the educational
interests of the child for whom consent would otherwise be required;

(B) of?cials of other schools or school systems in which the student seeks

or intends to enroll, upon condition that the student?s parents be noti?ed of
the transfer, receive a copy of the record if desired, and have an opportunity
for a hearing to challenge the content of the record;

In this regard, 34 CPR ?99.30(a) provides:

The parent or eligible student shall provide a signed and dated written
consent before an educational agency or institution discloses personally
identi?able information from the student?s education records, except

as provided in ?99.3 l.

The written consent must:

(1) Specify the records that may be disclosed;

(2) State the purpose of the disclosure; and

(3) Identify the party or class of parties to whom the disclosure may be made.

In connection with Section 99.3 1 disclosure without consent would include the following
condition:

48

 The disclosure is to other school of?cials, including teachers,
within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has
determined to have legitimate educational interests.

With this in mind, Mr. Hull did not receive parental permission to disclose student
educational records (1) of the student whose record he posted relative to the Student of Virtue;
(2) of the student whose educational records were emailed to Dr. Rogers on December 1, 2017';
(3) of the student whose record was sent to the District School Board on August 30, 2018; (4) the
January 10, 2018, email obviously pertaining to the Donalds that was sent to Dr. Rogers; and (5)
the sending to Dr. Rogers the February 28, 2018, email chain between Mr. Hull, the Donalds,
and their child?s teacher involving the child?s educational situation at MCA. Mr. Hull?s sending
con?dential student educational infermation, without the written parental permission to do so, to
persons who were not in the zone or interests of persons who would otherwise have a legal right
of access to the student?s information, constituted a violation of FERPA for each improper
transmission. With respect to the foregoing, that would mean that he and MICA, violated FERPA

on ?ve separate occasions.

Moreover, when Mrs. Donalds sought access to the video that would evidence her son?s
alleged wrongdoing, Mr. hull responded by treating it as a public records request and informed
her that she would have to ?rst unite a check for $294.62 before the video could be processed.
But Mrs. Donald?s request was not a public records requests, but a FERPA request for a video
related to the discipline of her child. She had a right to access and view the video. In the Letter
to Wachter December 7, 2017, the USDOE Of?ce of Management (?the O?ice") addressed the
request for a video linked to student discipline. In it, the Of?ce determined that providing access
to the video, a District (or in this case a School) ?just provide the parents of a disciplined
student. . .with the opportunity to inspect and review the (E, @335, at p. 5). In this
context, in the Family Policy Compliance Of?ce FAQs on videos under FERPA, the following is
noted: provides parents and eligible students with the right to inspect and review the
students educational records and nothing in the FERPA statute or regulations permits educational
agencies and institutions to charge parent or eligible students for fees or costs associated with the
exercise of that right.? Mr. Hull and MCA, thus violated Mrs. Donalds rights under ERPA.

 

Similarly, when Mrs. Donalds questioned her being charged for the tracking documents
pertaining to her child, Ms. Van Vlyman informed her she was copying Mr. Hull because she
could not respond to Mrs. Donalds question. Neither Mrs. Van T\Ilyman nor Mr. Hull ever
replied to her. Thus, she was never provided access to the educational information she had a
right to review. Hence, MCA violated FERPA again. Accordingly, as a consequence of Nit.
Hull?s actions (and non-action in the case of the last matter), he and MCA violated FERPA on
seven (7) separate occasions thereby placing MCA at risk in connection with the receipt of

Federal and State funds.

Confusion of Boundaries

In item '7 of Board Duties and Responsibilities, it states ?Beard Members must take
particular care to separate the interests of the school from those of their own children. (Both
Policy Vols, at p. 5). This would certainly apply to a Principal and hisfher own children. Mr.

49

Hull knew that when he wrote to the Student of Virtue faculty review committee and wrote to
the Zuluagas, he had crossed the boundary into a need to control others and intimidation. Mr.
Hull?s threats toward the Zuluaga?s and their daughter, with the active support of Mr. Whitehead,
came two weeks after Mrs. Zuluaga ?led her grievance. It is thus unsettingly apparent that their
actions were at least partially in retaliation for the grievance, especially since Mrs. Zuluaga had
followed Board protocol.

Similar to the Zuluaga situation, is one involving former faculty member who left the
school at the end of 2016-2017 school year. In leaving, he gave Mr. Hull?s son a gift of books
including those by classical authors Ayn Rand and others. Mr. Hull attacked them in February
2018 in the form of a phone call followed by an Instagram message accusing them of mining his
son?s life. . .a remarkable statement given their well?wishes to him as a highly thought of student.

On July 4, 2018, the former faculty member wrote to Mr. Hull to cease and desist contact
him and his family. He pointedly wrote that ?unfortunately this message is made necessary by
repeated instances of harassment against my family, which you have initiated, now over a year
since we concluded our employment with Mason Classical Academy.? Mr. Hull refused to back
away and let it go. He decided to respond that day and did so in a sarcastic and accusatory
manner. He began his email as follows:

I find it interesting that you made many false claims here and sent them
to my work email address. I also find it interesting that you consider one
phone call and two identical lnstagram messages over a 6~m0nth period
?harassment?. I never pegged you for a millennial snowflake, but I?ve
been wrong before.

He then proceeded to attack him for ?undoing a life of character development of his parents,?
encouraging atheism, and providing him with wrong advice. He ended the email much like he
did in the Zuluaga situation demanding complete discontinuation of any communication udth his
son (which apparently had occurred months before). July 4, 2018, emailcommunications
between Mr. and Mr. Hull).

Mr. Hull?s attacks were not only uncivil and a violation of civility policy (Egg, 
Policy SE 48.the April 2018 Volume and 78 in the January 2019)"and
unprofessional, but they are unbecoming of an educational leader. He has certainly lost sight on
multiple occasions of the boundaries that should separate his personal life and his professional
life. While Mr. Hull may preach virtue, such attacks disclose something very different.

Finally, Mr. Hull?s commentaries on and criticisms of parenting styles and parenting
abilities are inappropriate and unprofessional and are source of division and resentment. They
are also potentially defamatory.

Civility Policy

In addition to the violations of Civility Policy SE 48.0 by Mr. Whitehead, Mrs. Lichter,
Ms. Miller, and Mr. Hull, attention needs to be called to the Facebook attack by Mr. Lichter that

50

has been previously noted. The Civility Policy applies to parents and patrons, just as it does to
staff. In this context, it provides the following:

All parents and patrons of Mason Classical Academy shall behave with
civility, fairness and respect in dealing with fellow parents, patrons,
staff members, students, and anyone else having business with the
school. Uncivil behaviors are prohibited. Uncivil behaviors shall be
de?ned as any behavior that is physically or verbally threatening,
either overtly or implicitly, as well as behaviors that are coercive,
intimidating, violent or harassing. Examples of uncivil behavior
including, but are not limited to: use of profanity; personally insulting
remarks; attacks on a person?s race, gender, nationality, religion,- or
sexual preference; or behavior that is out of control.

By any benchmark, Mr. Lichter?s comment were uncivil. He is a parent, founder, husband of the
Board President, and certainly a public person in the MCA community especially. His Faeebook
comments have no place in civil public discourse. They were threatening, demeaning, and crude.
Moreover, as will be seen in the next section, Mr. Lichter was the General Manager of CCMG.
His comments are hardly be?tting of one who has held himself out to the charter school
community in multiple districts as one who will provide community relations and governance
training.

Some Final Observations

ES. provides that ?each charter school?s governing board must appoint a
representative to facilitate parental involvement, provide access to information, assist parents and
others with questions or concerns, and resolve disputes.? Similarly, in the governance section of
the 201'? Charter Contract (Section 9), it is provided that governing bo ard of MCA must appoint
a representative and the language then tracks verbatim the above quote from the statute.

With this in mind, at the June 13, 2016, Board Meeting under New Business, Mr. Hull
recommends Ms. Turner as the liaison to parents. The Board voted to approve her as the liaison
to parents. . .However, the parents who spoke with the undersigned and other staff members when
asked reSponded they were unaware of the liaisrm position or who filled it. Ms. Tumer who, as
part of the position, had to attend Board Meetings per statute and charter, never reported on any

liaison work undertaken.

It appears the liaison has existed in name only much like the Student Advisory Council
which has never met to respond to parent issues and resolve parental disputes and grievances as
set forth in the 2013 Application (gee, pp. 68-69). Accordingly, the Board has let slide critical
components for dispute resolution.

While Mr. Hull may want to inform people that there has been only one grievance in four
years (which is not true), such a comment stresses form over substance. One grievance ?led
with Ms. Lichter as Board President, or with other Board Members, does not disclose the deeper
reality of numerous complaints, concerns, and grievances with in verbal or email form. The

51

depth of this issue is seen in District documents that track students who left other schools and
have enrolled in District or other schools. With respect to MCA, from August 1, 2014, to the
present, 614 students have le? to enroll in District schools, home education programs, or local
private schools. Thus, to ignore this reality would be to ignore the reality of unresolved con?ict
and concerns of many parents who to this day still admire the Hillsdale instructional model and

curriculum.

At the March 7, 2016, Board Meeting, during the course of a discussion pertaining to
parent survey results, Board Member Donalds suggested that there needed to be a ?customer
service? mindset which would de?ne parents as clients. Board Member Miller rejected the idea
arguing that ?it would compromise the environment for everyone involved.? Board
Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2016). it is unfortunate that the Board and the Administration did
not listen to Mr. Donalds. Much of the future parental con?ict could have been reduced or

resolved.
V11. The Issue of Potential Con?ict of Interest

As part of his Complaint on June 8, 2018, Mr. Baird notified the Of?ce of the
Inspector General that he was supplementing his Complaint concerning what appeared to
potential con?icts of interest involving Ms. Lichter, Mr. Hull,,and Ms. Smith in the formation of
a company named the ?Classical Charter Management Group, This additional
information was also received by the District?s Board Chair Mr. Terry for review. The
undersigned with the assistance of members staff have looked into the issue. The following will

set forth our ?ndings.

On September 25, 2017, Articles of Organization were ?led for the Classical Charter
Management Group, LLC, (?the Company? or Article Ill provides that ?the
Company is formed for the purpose of engaging in the business of consulting and managing
charter schools.? The effective date for the Company?s commencement was September 29,
2017. Article VI noted that the persons authorized to manage CCMG were Kelly B. Lichter,
David Hull, Jr., and Gena L. Smith. Ms. Lichter would serve as the Company?s Registered
Agent. On October 10, 2018, Florida?s Division of Corporation records show the Company was
reinstated to replace Kelly Lichter with Nicholas W. Lichter, as both a member and the new
Registered Agent of the Company. lvlr. Hull and Ms. Smith remained as members of the

Company.

The evidence shows that CCMG sought to provide censulting and management services
to several prospective charter schools seeking to replicate the MCA model in several Districts.
The name of the replicating school in each District is to be the ?American Classical Charter
Academy Applications for ACCA have been filed in Osceola, Lake, Polk, and

Hillsborough Counties.

A review of the Applications show CCMG as the school?s ApplicatiOns Central
Consultant of record. In the Applications one ?nds language such as is replicating the
governance model, academic structure and financial management of Mason Classical Academy,

a high performing school in Naples, Florida.

52

In the ?nal draft of Application for the Osceola School District, signed on
January 17', 2017, the Charter School?s President, there is detailed key person and their
respective roles in assisting the school. it is presented as follows:

 

Full Name

Current Job Title 3: Employer

Role with Proposed School

 

Mrs. Kelly Lichter

Chief Executive Of?cer
Classical Charter
Management Group

Community Relations and
Governance Training

 

 

 

 

Mr. David Hull Chief Operations Of?cer Principal and Teacher
Classical Charter Training and Monitoring
Management Group
Mrs. Gena Smith Chief Academic Of?cer Curriculum, instructional
Classical Charter Materials and Teacher

Management Group

 

 

Training and Monitoring

 

A year later, on January 23, 2019, and January 25, 2019, respectively, one ?nds, for
example, the company identi?ed in the Applications for Hillsborough and Lake County School
Districts and presented as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Full Name Current Job Title 8.: Employer Role with Proposed School
Mr. Niel: Lichter General Manager Community Relations and
Classical Charter Governance Training
Management Group
Mr. David Hull Chief Operations Of?cer Principal and Teacher
Classical Charter Training and Monitoring
Management Group
Mrs. Gena Smith Chief Academic Of?cer Curriculum, Instructional
Classical Charter Materials and Teacher
Management Group Training and Monitoring

 

The Company has also been assisting ACCA in Polk County as well.

As a threshold matter, since its founding Ms. Lichter as Board President, never
publicly disclosed at any Board Meeting her involvement in the Company or that she had formed
a partnership with two key employees of MCA, Mr. Hull and Ms. Smith, to develop charter
schools in other counties based on the MCA model- There is also no reference in the
applications that instructional and govemance models has been developed from Hillsdale
College?s models, training, and, tutelage. This is capecially important since Ms- Lichter, Mr.
Hull, and Ms. Smith (and even Mr. Lichter who is involved in the selling of a distinctive
instructional model as part of any Community relations and governance training) have
overlooked, or knowingly disregarded, MCA Policy 2.0, Curriculum Development, to which
they are bound. It provides the following: has a contract with Hillsdale College that
requires the use of the curriculum they provide-? The policy the quotes directly from the
contract which address two critical points for the purposes of this discussion (1) 
Corporation shall look to Hillsdale College as the ?rst and primary source of models, resources,

53

 

and guidance on the development and operation of Charter School?s academic program. . and
(2) ?Hillsdale College shall provide MCA Corporation a general model for a curriculum of a
charter (Manuals, both editions, at 108). It is also of concern how Ms. Lichter can
oversee Mr. Hull?s work at MCA while overseeing his work as her partner at CCMG.

Further, there has been no public and transparent Board Meeting discussion of Mr. Hull
and Ms. Smith going out of town and doing presentations to the different four school districts as
members of a consulting ?rm while employed at MCA, as well as all the training and preparation
time that would be involved overtime and the impact such time would have upon their work at
MCA. In this context, Ms. Smith is being held out as one involved in curriculum, instructional
materials, and teacher training and monitoring- Yet, what is not disclosed is that she has no
academic background, credentials, or certi?cation in curriculum and instruction or teacher
training. Indeed, she has not attended college and has neither academic training in these areas
nor served as a certi?ed classroom teacher. (And one does not know where Mr. Lichter has
received training or experience suf?cient to teacher the multiple ACCA Boards in the area of

governance).

Further, while MCA Board Member Lichter was the Chief Executive Of?cer of CCMG
?om September 29, 2017, until Mr. Lichter replaced her as the General Manager on October 10,
2013, regardless of the level of work undertaken during that time period, she voted to approve, at
the May 29, 2018, MCA Board Meeting the evaluation and bonus for her CCMG business
partner, Mr. Hull, as Principal of MCA without recusing herself or disclosing a possible con?ict
or concem for the appearance of impropriety. She also voted to approve the salary schedule the
terms and conditions for which would bene?t her CCMG business partner Gena Smith without
concern for disclosing their business relationship and its relationship to Ms. Lichter Board
Member status and Ms. Smith?s bene?cial employee status.

Ms. Lichter as Board President and Chief Executive Of?cer has
created, if not a con?ict of interest in her two roles, the appearance of impropriety in voting to
approve items that ?nancially bene?ted her partners Mr. Hull and Ms. Smith. And in the case of
Mr. Hull her voting to approve his 2018 evaluation would serve as an importance precondition
for his receiving a bonus as any MCA employee. Mr. Hull and Ms. Smith also have a
responsibility in all this by also chose to remain silent while governing bene?ts.

Mr. Baird?s concerns are well-founded.

Financial Issues and Best and Brightest Program

A. Financial Issues

In light of Mr. Baird?s Complaint, MCA through staff and legal counsel provided the
undersigned with a copy of the 2017-2018 Audit Findings for Agreed Upon Procedures for the
Governing Board as well as unaudited statements. The auditor reviews the policies and
procedures in place relative to governance and the FTE process. The Auditor reviewed general
sunshine law issues but did not address the Board?s Meeting Minutes over time and related

54

?ndings or the non-implementation of standing committees. MCA also provided unaudited
?nancials for review.

The undersigned discussed unaudited ?nancials vatith District staff in the Finance
Department. They advised that they did not have a problem with them nor MoCreedy 
Associates ?nancial statements provided by MCA through Ms. Turner. Given staff observations,
the undersigned will not question the acceptability of the submitted ?nancials.

B. Best and Brightest

In February 2019, the State of Florida Auditor General issued several ?ndings directed to
the District relative to appropriate teacher scholarship oversight. This included auditing District
Charter Soho ols. One of the ?ndings was for the District to determine the propriety of some 113
scholarships totaling $236,800 awarded to charter school teachers, and for any scholarships
awarded to ineligible recipients to take the appropriate action to recover and refund the amounts
to the FDOE.

In particular, the District was to review the documentation for the Best and Brightest
program for FY 201752018. The Districts Human Resource department in collaboration with the
District?s Administrative Director reviewed the matter and found MCA had failed to meet the
statutory requirements for appropriate documentation. For example, that following was found:

1. All documents submitted with the GROWTHWAN SCORE AND
FINAL EVALUATION SCORE are post?dated in March 2019. Therefore,
for the purposes of the SY 17~1 8 audit, they were not in compliance at

the time of the award request.

2. No valid documentation to support ?nal evaluationfcverall rating
placed on the roster for submission to the state for the scholarship money.

3. Roster appears to be re?ective of ONLY the Instructional/Professional
Practice rating (2f3rds of the Annual Performance Rating) which does not
Comply with the award requirements; rating re?ected on the roster is a
Partial rating and should not be awarded.

4. Post-dated GROWTHWAM SCORE AND FINAL EVALUATION
SCORE documents demonstrate that several teachers have been downgraded
By your own calculations, in their FINAL OVERALL
RATJNG once the GROWTHNAM score was calculated. Therefore,

The employee was OVERPAID on the original roster.

In its initial conclusions, MCA advised that is owed FDOE $20,800.00. Based on careful
roster review and other documentation, the District found that the original roster for SY 2017?
2018 Best and Brightest Teacher and Principal Scholarship Program for payment was submitted
inaccurately for 37out of 42 employees. There was NO SY 17~18 SUPPORT

55

DOCUNIENTATION demonstrating the overall FINAL EVLAUTION OVERALL
RATING listed on the roster at the time of submission to FLDOE.

As a consequence, the District found that initial findings were inaccurate. It was found
that MCA owes the State $137,6 00.00 which must be remitted. The lack of
documentation and appropriate oversight taken to manage the pro gram has placed a serious
?nancial obligation on MCA and places MCA at risk of ?rrther investigation by the State. The
District?s ?ndings were emailed to Mr. Hull on May 23, 2019. (SE the May 23, 2019, Memo
from Ms. Wenrich and Mr. Hull with accompanying documents).

IX. Faculty Concerns

ln Speaking with multiple faculty members, a series of repeating themes emerged that
must be taken into account as part of this investigative review. The discussions with such faulty
members occurred over different dates and times and included only the individual who had
agreed to come forward. There is no evidence of such persons speaking with other faculty
members in advance of the meeting. At no time did we disclose to any such faculty member the
names of those with whom we had spoken or with whom we anticipated speaking.

The themes are those that directly involve hit. Hull and are based on the direct
observations. and experiences of the given reporter. They may be set forth as follows:

(1) Mr. Hull was observed to yell at or berate teachers in front of the students and other
faculty and staff; 

(2) Mr. Hull talked condescendingly, often in a demeaning way, to faculty at multiple
faculty meets; .

(3) Mr. Hull was observed to hereto and shame students in front of other students,
teachers, and staff;

(4) The faculty reporters observed and experienced that if one disagreed with Mr. Hull,
he would become defensive, hold it against the person, and target the person with sarcastic
statements and comments;

(5) The faculty reporters noted that they were often observed by Ms. Smith, the School?s
Curriculum Coordinator. Reporting faculty conveyed that they were uncomfortable with it since
Ms. Smith had no education background, no teaching degree, or classroom teaching degree, and
did not attend college. The faculty were often not observed by Mr. Hull who, they felt, wrote up
evaluations based on Ms. Smith?s observations; and

(6) The faculty reporters observed, felt, and experience that it was often unsafe to speak
out which affected trust and created a polarized faculty.

These observations are given credence in light of the Zuluaga matter, the Student of Virtue
matter, Mr. Hull?s lecturing of District School Board Members, negative comments about

56

parents to third parties, and so on; all previously discussed. In addition, in the meeting with Mr.
Hull, he acknowledged that Ms. Smith undertook multiple observations of teachers and reported
them to him and that he relied upon them in addition to his own observations.

X. Miscellaneous Matters
A. The Alleged Investigation of the Baird Complaint Bv MCA

In the NDN article, it was reported that according to counsel, MCA had
conducted an internal investigation in lvir. Baird?s allegations and found them to be without
merit. Similarly, at the request of his client, counsel for MCA wrote to Mr. Baird the following:

Several correspondences you have sent to various parties have
been forwarded to my office for review. Mason reports that it
has conducted a thorough review of this matter. Wimesses were
interviewed and correspondence, including contemporaneously
written emails written by you, were reviewed.

At the meeting with the undersigned, Ms. Turner noted that she dissected the Complaint
and sent it to McCreedy 8r. Associates. Mr. Marshall stated he had looked at some ?nancial
documents. All three persons acknowledged that they did not interview anyone, conduct an
internal investigation of Mr. Baird?s Complaint or prepared any report in connection therewith.

B. Grievance Issue

In follow up to the grievance issues previoust discussed, it should be noted that MCA
parent Dr. Thomburg engaged in an approximate email correspondence ?'om 2017-2019 with
Mr. Hull, Mr. Whitehead, and Board Member Lichter concerning discipline involving his
children and other matters that he needed to address. His correspondence shows multiple efforts
to set up in-person meetings. Over: turn disciplinary decisions made, recognitions in some
instances (such as expressed by Mr. Whitehead) that the facts surrounded one of his children
needed amendment. (SE, the email history chain from Dr. Thornburg).

In March 2019, Dr. Thornburg sought to bring a disciplinary issue before the Board and
wrote Mr. Hull for direction, who then sent Dr. Thornburg?s request on to Board Member
Lichter. Her responses speaks volumes about the process and should be cited in its totality:

From: Kelly Lichter 

Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 8:46 AM

To: hrianthornburg@vahoo.com

Cc: David Hull Joe Whitehead 
Fishhane, Jon (Jonathan) charterschool@hillsdale.edu

Subject: Parent Grievance

57

Dr. Thornburg,

Good morning! Principal Hull forwarded me an email from you this
merning. You said, "How can the Board be reached? I cannot ?nd their email
addresses or telephone numbers on the MCA website. I cannot reach them if they are

not reachable."

You did not seem to have any trouble finding Jon Fishbane's email address or the email

address for the Barney Charter School Initiative. The Board is listed
here: You are able to email the board members directly.

Also, the parent grievance procedure is located right under the parent tab on the

website: 
ermREC lD=490980. If you take a look at the policy, you will notice that it

does not say to contact the Collier School District, Hillsdale College or the Naples Daily
News before you address your concerns with the Board of Directors.

In the last 4+ years, the MCA Board has only had one of?cial parent grievance.
Fortunately most issues are resolved before it needs to come before the Board. I think
this is a testament to the incredible and compassionate faculty and staff we are blessed
to have at MCA. Unfortunately we still have parents who choose to undermine our
school by siandering MCA to the Collier County School District, Hillsdale College and

The Naples Daily News.

If you feel your concerns have not been resolved, please follow Policy SE 53.0
lD=224620&tvoe=d&termRE



The MCA Board of Directors takes all concerns very seriously. Please let me know if
you have any questions.

It is hard to imagine that one would feel that he/she would receive a fair hearing after receiving a
communication such as this.

XI. Conclusions and 

A. Prelimina_ry Comments

The instructional model and curriculum provided by Hillsdale College is a very sound
one that has enabled the School to academically thrive at a high level. The instructional model
and curriculum should not be tampered with and be allowed to continue. Indeed, Hillsdale
College should continue and even enhance its professional development and training programs.
The undersigned investigator has no interest in, or recommending the closure of MCA. Far from
it. While recommendations of a different sort Will be made, the academic program, the
continued presence of a concerned and excellent faculty, and the development of an eager
student learning community should continue on.

58

B. Board Members Lichter and Miller

The record shows that Ms. Lichter and Ms. Miller violated the law, MCA policy, engaged
in improper social media and email communications, violated MCA Board norms and values
they are called upon to follow and model, disregarded the terms of the 2012 Application and
breached the terms of the Charter Agreement by their actions. They faultered in their oversight
of the Administration in disregarding the multiple committee that were required. They faultered
in their oversight of policy implementation, Board Meeting Minutes, and attacks on parents and
community members they chose to target. Their actions and behaviors are unbe?tting of a Board
Member of a School (whether public or private).

Accordingly, it is recommended that they resign immediately. The Board should be
reconstituted with a minimum of ?ve (5) Board Members. A reconstituted Board should
immediately invite Dr. Carpenter for training as well as invite Hillsdale educators to meet with
them for the benefit and growth of the School.

In this regard, a reconstitute Board should immediately proceed with setting up vital
standing committees pursuant to 2012 Application, policy, and recommendations of Dr.
Carpenter for the future well-being of MCA. These committees should at a minimum including
the following ones: (1) Finance Committee; (2) School Advisory Council, (3) Audit Committee;
and (4) Employment Committee. These committees should be responsible to, and held
accountable by the Board and in consultation with administrative, parents, and business
community leadership. The attention to accountability at all levels is important.

in this context, at the July 1, 2016, Board Meeting, Mr. Donalds objected to the
approving of Mr. Hull?s contract- The Minutes show that the Board had removed key language
recommended by counsel. He insisted that the Minutes record his objection. It reads as follows:

voted against Principal Hull?s contract because I thought the
language provided by the Board attorney under section 9 subsection

5 should have remained in the contract. The language states ?any

other action on the part of the Principal which is detrimental or has

a material adverse effect upon the business or reputation of the School.?

It is unfortunate that the Board did not listen to him.

A reconstituted Board should also review its grievance procedures, put into place
effective con?ict resolution matters, work to treat parents as clients, and so on.

Finally, based on review of the enormous number of departing students from MCA, it is
clear from District records and parental concerns that MCA has to revisit its ESE delivery system
in terms of evaluations, preparation implementation and oversight, 504 plans, and careful
gifted tested. For example, District records show some 45 students with 504 plans left MCA.
While these are operational, it is important that a reconstituted Board should be aware of this.

59

C. Mr. Hull and Mr. Whitehead
(1) Mr- Hull

The records shows that Mu. Hull has violated Federal and State law, MCA policy, the
Code of Professional Conduct, and mismanaged the Best and Brightest Program. He has thus
placed MCA at serious ?nancial and reputational risk.

Moreover, he has engaged in a pattern of divisive, destructive, and intimidating behaviors
toward parents, faculty, and students that is of considerable concern especially given that some
of them have been based on personal need and interest. His decision to serve as an education
consultant on management company for charter schools in other Districts has taken him away
from MCA and created a divided attention. in the process of advancing his consultancy to have
charter schools replicate the MCA program, he and the company have not disclosed that it is
predicated on the Hillsdale Model which is a violation of MCA policy. He is thus a risk of
creating dual loyalties in the process.

it is recognized that Mr. Hull has done and contributed good things for MCA and the
MCA community. Nevertheless, the above referenced actions and behaviors cast a long and dark
shadow over the good work thereby affecting the School and its well?being.

Accordingly, it is recommended that he resign his position. It is recognized that he has 4
years left on his contract. If he chooses not to, a reconstituted Board should place him
immediately on probation with careful monitoring and oversight. Mr- Donalds? concerns about
removing contractual accountability provisions are as serous now as it was when he ?rst express
them to the Board. 

In addition, if Mr. Hull continues his work, given the foregoing, it is recommended that
he receive professional development work and training in the following areas: (1) social and
emotional learning; (2) boundary training; (3) con?ict resolution and etfective interpersonal
relations training; (4) supervisory and management techniques; and (5) an intensive seminar at
Hillsdale on classical ethics and virtues that is both intellectually based but also involve
experiential learning so the virtues are deeply mtegrated and internalized.

(2) Whitehead

Mr. Wintehead?s social media campaigns, involvement and his usage of his police
background to intimidate others is of serious concern. His actions are against Board policy, the
Code of Ethics, aspirational norms and so on. He also needs to cease and desist using his radio
show to use MCA as an opportunity to advance his political and social views.

The record shows that he has helped many people. Many parents who left MCA felt
there were times he was someone they could turn to. Mr. Whitehead should be placed on
probation and be provided with intensive training of the sort recommended for Mr. Hull as well
trainings unique for the work an Assistant Principal do es including training in the areas of
curriculum and instruction and attendance and discipline.

50

Finally, it is recommended that there be training for all: Board Members, administration,
faculty and parents on the content of MCA policies.

Dated this 30th day of May, 2019.

Xian. Lime
Fishbane
strict General Counsel of Collier County
5775 Osceola Trail
Naples, FL 34109

(239) 377?0498

61