In this video, board members Leslie Rasmussen and Sara Jonas discuss the "Culture of Kindness" resolution. Jonas states she authored the resolution. Her deposition under oath states differently. Read below for additional details of this story.
Jonas testifies she is not the author of the resolution
In late 2022, a lawsuit against the Forest Hills School District suing to rescind the controversial and divisive 'Culture of Kindness' resolution was brought forth.
Community members widely panned the document as harmful to staff & students, and risky to the district. Despite protests, emails asking for the resolution to be rescinded, national and international negative news coverage, damage to their personal reputations and expensive lawsuits as well as the predictable impact to voter turnout to the levy vote in May - Board members Hausfeld, Bibb, and Stewart seem inexplicably committed to this misguided Resolution.
Recently, depositions were taken from Superintendent Larry Hook, Board Member Sara Jonas, and Board member Dr. Leslie Rasmussen. Depositions are available for the public to read here.
Cincinnati Enquirer's Education reporter, Maddie Mitchell, published an article Wednesday, February 15 2023, following up with a summary of the depositions.
The depositions are disheartening. The statements taken under oath expose conflicting claims of that the Resolution is "unenforceable", but per the depositions, incidents of enforcement and attempted enforcement have occurred against staff & students causing demonstrable harm - the depositions outline at least four instances of action taken against staff and students.
The resolution has also brought negative press to the district locally, nationally and internationally.. In addition to our local press, national & international media went viral as a TikTok video of Sara Jonas defending "Anti-anti-racism" had over 5 million views and thousands of comments. Nationally, Newsweek covered the video, and an article in the Herald Sun, an Australian publication, ensured international scrutiny as well.
Sara Jonas reportedly received emailed threats following the publications of her actions, which this group vehemently condemns. Knowing all of this, any reasonable person would question why the board insists on defending the document at all ... but there may be some insight in page 130 of Sara Jonas' deposition.
When questioned about the origins of the document, Sara Jonas under oath stated she merely 'typed' the Resolution - a clear conflict with her public statement at a public board meeting, June 22, 2022 (audio available on YouTube, at 1:32:00) where she claimed, "I am the one who authored it."
Jonas' states that Megan Fullen, a community member, 'helped draft' the Resolution of Kindness on page 130 of the deposition. Jonas explains Megan Fullen began helping with the drafting of the Resolution as early as November, 2021. Jonas also explains they often met at Fullen's home.
This date is not long after the election - and Jonas' admission to the timing of their meetings which extended from November 2021 to mid-2022 overlapped another accusation of misconduct by members of the board: a violation of the open meetings act by meeting as a group at the Fullen's home. Photographs of board members were captured by a neighbors' camera of several arriving & staying for several hours in Fullen's home, an accusation that was denied by all parties and defended as 'a brunch'.
The origins of this document & the motivation behind it are further clouded by the district's legal defense, claiming "legislative privilege" - which they use to object to any question related to the motivation behind the document. A convenient argument which may provide cover for the actual author - as Sara Jonas may not be able to respond to motivations since she only "typed" the document.
Wherever the idea for the Resolution originated, all others in the district live with the consequences of the outcome - including staff, students, the community through the damage to the district brand, and the insurance premiums which certainly will go up (According to a statement in Superintendent Hook's deposition, insurance covers the legal fees & any financial remedies related to legal decisions against the district), not to mention the damage to the reputations of board members Bibb, Hausfeld, Jonas and Stewart.
It is impossible to see the District's strategy behind sustaining this fight when the only recordable outcomes to date have been negative to all involved, and, will be irrecoverable should the defense of the Resolution impact Levy voter turnout and ultimately defund the District.
If the board had any strategic sense at all and truly wanted the levy to pass - they'd see the unforced error they've made by continuing to defend it, and scrap the Resolution. If the board's intent is truly to protect ALL students, they'd start by focusing on garnering additional support to fund the district to ensure there are enough teachers for reasonably-sized classrooms, compelling courses, challenging projects and programs and support for those students with special challenges and learning needs. If the board's intent is to fund this district, they'd do anything and everything to pass the levy, including set aside any and all activity related to this Resolution or similar policies - that distracts or impacts the district's need to pass the levy in May.
If you are not a paid subscriber to the Cincinnati Enquirer, we highly recommend a subscription to encourage continued coverage of education topics in Ohio. A link to a gifted subscriber's copy of the article is also located here.
Offer of support for a Levy in May 2023
Last week, our organization sent an email extending an offer to the board to meet and engage in a strategy to pass a levy, beginning with ideas on levy structure and ways to regain community trust. To date, we have not heard back. Our intent is this: We desire a healthy District, and we are willing to partner with the board to pass a levy and hope the community will also rise to the occasion. We do not intend to stop the important oversight of the boards’ actions; we believe it is the only thing that has helped the community have visibility and enabled residents to provide their voices to encourage the board to arrive at the conclusion to consider a levy. We hope to hear back from Board President Hausfeld, but we will proceed as we see fit if the board chooses not to accept our olive branch on this shared vision of passing a successful levy.
Dear FHSD Administration & Members of the Board,
On behalf of the board of FHSD, we would like to convey our support of a levy for the district to be on the ballot in May of 2023.
We observe however, that our approach to support district excellence by providing community oversight has made our relationship with the board and administration a difficult one to navigate, and we understand the challenge that proceeding together may pose.
We believe it is imperative for the success of a levy that we find common ground to execute a reasonable and community-supported path to reinforcing the on-going financial solvency of Forest Hills.
Community trust with the board was never high, but it is at an all-time low at the moment. To pass a levy, a bridge to span the gap likely needs to begin with us; the first step is for Advocate FHSD to offer our willingness to the board to discuss ways we can provide support for intentional actions by the district leaders to restore trust with the community to lay the foundation of work to pass a levy for the Forest Hills School District in 2023.
Building trust is an act of humility, and one we recognize will not come at a cost somewhere else. Humility is a pure demonstration of courage as one acknowledges a problem exists and then takes steps to address it through reasonable means with authentic intent.
We would like to meet with the Superintendent and the Board President to discuss ways to collaborate on ideas of how we might help the board pass levy once some good faith efforts by the board are made, through a stronger communication strategy & a few conciliatory moves.
For reference of how else we might assist, we share here informal gathered feedback which we openly share here from a large and engaged portion of our resident population to guide our recommendations. A recent survey posted on Facebook suggests these three options have the most support:
Once the effort to restore trust is underway, we believe that presenting options for a levy aligned to the community’s support is the only reasonable way for this district to proceed, and hope to assist if you are willing to partner to do so.
We look forward to hearing from you,
Sincerely, the board at Advocate FHSD
Thank you for advocating with us!
THE FHSD 2021 FINANCIAL REPORT
The current school board has stated on multiple occasions that financial problems have been inherited from the previous school board. Alana Cropper is the District Treasurer and has worked under many boards, including the present one. She has done a great job attempting to educate this school board about the district financials. Alana has even presented multiple options for an operating levy in either 2022 or 2023 to avoid large cuts and last resorts like consolidation. Her explanation can be found in a video from the April 6, 2022 Work Session. We would now like to present the 2021 Financial Report to you for your consideration:
Dear Superintendent Hook and Forest Hills Board Members,
Our community is one that deeply cares for district excellence.
Two weeks ago, the community was made broadly aware of the intent of the board to re-shape the face of this beloved district and that conversations, both in person and virtual, have been happening between the board and Elevar representative Rich Neumann since March.
Following the community feedback during and after the public board meeting September 21, Superintendent Larry Hook issued a letter with this commitment claiming “You can be sure that factual, reliable information on this topic will come from myself and the district. We will share more details as they become available.”
To date, no new facts, details, or clarity to the decision-making process or proposal have been provided to the community, despite a plan being presented for 2 hours to the board members in executive session following the public meeting September 21. Communication from Elevar CEO also re-directs community inquiries to the district for the details of the plan.
This community deserves more than an email asking us to trust them with such an important decision, when to date, all activity has been secretive, and requested records have not been shared.
To prevent a further loss of trust in the district leadership at a time when the need for transparency is paramount, we respectfully request that the district issue a fact sheet or share the plan as it was outlined to them by Elevar in executive session.
Thank you for advocating for district excellence with us,
Advocate FHSD Board Chairs
Kimberly Olthoff, Sara Sudkamp, Sean Martin, Kristen Kalonick, Katie Quehl
Advocate FHSD’s Statement in Response to Katie Stewart’s 9/21/2022 Motion
At the 9/21/2022 regular meeting of the Forest Hills School District (FHSD) Board of Education, Katie Stewart motioned to vote on limiting the use of school restrooms to the gender listed on a student’s birth certificate. This goes against Advocate FHSD’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) commitment defined below.
Celebrating the Whole Person:
Advocate FHSD is passionate about supporting a school district that celebrates every student and faculty member's uniqueness as a human being. Creating a supportive and accepting environment for students and faculty who are diverse in age, gender, identity, race, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability, ethnicity, belief, etc. is important and the right thing to do. We expect this from the Forest Hills School District and will continue to advocate for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility at all times.
The practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different ages, genders, identities, races, sexual orientations, physical or mental abilities, ethnicities, beliefs, etc.
The fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals while recognizing that each person has unique circumstances and needs that require different resources to reach their full potential.
Recognizing, appreciating, and celebrating a person's diverse perspective and the unique point-of-view that they bring to the overall group or community.
Design, construction, development, and maintenance of facilities, information and communication technology, programs, and services so that all people can fully and independently use them.
This motion does not align with our definition of equity and fails to create a supportive and accepting environment within the FHSD schools.
According to GLSEN research, 60 percent of transgender students report being prohibited from using the bathroom or locker room that aligns with their gender identity. Over three-quarters (76 percent) of transgender students felt unsafe at school because of their gender; and transgender people (specifically trans girls and women) are at very high risk of experiencing violence throughout their lives, starting even before adolescence.
We are responsible for our student’s achievement levels as well as their mental health. We are tasked with caring for the whole child as parents and educators. Research shows no correlation between these types of restrictive bathroom policies and safety for non-transgender individuals. Policies like the one proposed by Katie Stewart harm transgender students in both the areas of academics and mental health. This kind of policy will undoubtedly cause severe anxiety and depression due to the increased verbal and physical abuse transgender students will experience from peers. The fear of being singled out by other students every time a trans child is forced to use a “special restroom” or a restroom that prioritizes the gender assigned at birth is insurmountable.
Therefore, Advocate FHSD denounces this motion and any future policy that violates human rights and po2266 in the Forest Hills School District policy manual. We will also continue to advocate for trans students according to our DEIA commitment with the full weight of the community behind us.
Board members Bibb, Hausfeld, and Jonas campaigned on the importance of transparency; their actions to date regarding the challenging financial situation this district faces have been veiled, obfuscated, and in some cases, intentionally clandestine to avoid the public scrutiny of their under-supported efforts to reduce the operating budget through consolidation of schools.
Their secretive efforts to meet beyond the eyes of the public were first observed at the beginning of 2022, when they were captured on camera spending hours inside the home of a supporter, avoiding the large-group meeting structure and convincing only themselves that they were flying below the radar.
At the April board meeting, Board president Hausfeld and member Bibb made statements during that hinted at an effort to bring the discussion into the sunshine as part of a committee during Agenda item 16.0, board comments. As of the date of this writing September 21, and the update October 7th, no committee has been formed.
In June, a FOIA request unearthed an email from Board Member Jonas to then Superintendent Scot Prebles, admonishing him for supporting the PTO/PTA activities by several schools to build outdoor classrooms, where Jonas wrote on June 2, 2022, “how can you approve this plan when the board is discussing consolidation?”
Community members have pointed out that Facilities Manager John Eckert, along with one other staff member in the FHSD administration have attended at least one meeting with employees of downtown-Cincinnati-based Elevar, a design firm that has worked with Cincinnati Public Schools and St. Bernard-Elmwood. According to their website, Former FHSD Board Member and real estate developer Rich Neumann is employed by Elevar as a consultant.
According to these community members, the conversations with Elevar outline the intent–which was not openly communicated to the public– to sell Anderson High School and move its 1200 students to a single-high school at the site of Turpin High School and Mercer Elementary.
Along with Mercer, all district students would be redistricted, affecting everyone in our district.
The former Anderson High School property would likely be re-zoned to mixed-use, and developers may plan to build commercial property, some residential spaces, and office spaces in order to generate additional funding through a financial vehicle called a TIF, or Tax Increment Financing.
Consultant, community member and development investor Rich Neumann (self-written bio here) has been heavily involved in the process, serving as a go-between for the board members Bibb, Hausfeld and Jonas to avoid oversight & scrutiny of their discussions. Mr. Neumann has been communicating via text to personal phones, and through administrative members of the district.
This may be a violation of the open meetings act and sunshine laws, something Mr. Neumann was fined for during his term on the school board in 2010, where there was a passionate community debate at that time over proposed consolidation options as well. See the article by the Cincinnati Enquirer in 2010 here.
Neumann served two non-consecutive terms on the FHSD board. He lost a bid for a seat following his campaign in 2013. His interest in the One High School vision appears to be a passion project, regardless of the community’s broader views. He was quoted in the Forest Hills Journal (a now defunct publication) in October of 2013 saying, “I have always believed a one high school configuration would be in the long-term best interest of the district”. He further stated, “Reducing the number of buildings and improving the quality of those that remain will decrease. The district voters disagreed, and Neumann lost his bid for a seat on the FHSD school board in November 2013.
On a past P3 development stadium project for Neumann’s former company Mandalay Baseball, the organization was accused of “veiled secrecy” on the project (see article, by the Star News Online). In this article in the Star News Online, he stated, "we’ve been transparent when it has been legally necessary, but there’s no reason to be transparent when it could negatively impact negotiations for the deal.”
The effort to sell any Real Property is governed by Ohio Law 3313.41, and requires an arduous process and strict adherence to the detailed process before property over $2,500 may be sold. We understand it is possible that the board has already met with attorneys, architects and possibly with developers to discuss the sale outside of the governing process guidelines.
The sale process, which requires 2 weeks of public notice, allows charter schools first right of refusal for the property under Ohio guidelines. A private sale is only possible after an auction has occurred.
Currently, land surrounding Anderson High School is zoned as residential; changing the zoning requires approval by the county after they’ve compared the plan to the community initiative. The process to approve a zoning change involves the Hamilton County Commissioners office, the Township Trustees (all of whom have met with Elevar prior to the September 21 board meeting), and ultimately the buyer who would request the change.
A per-student acreage minimum is outlined by the Ohio School Design Manual to establish a single high school, as outlined in the research performed by committees in 2014. To support the existing ~2200 high school students, it is advised that35 acres plus 1 acre for every 100 students is the recommended baseline. To meet this, the District would need roughly 60-65 acres of land, an acreage confirmed in the 2015 plan documents. Requiring an additional 12-17 acres to the existing 48+ acres at the current Turpin / Mercer location. Has the board or the developers approached owners of adjacent land, such as the Knights of Columbus (16.7 acres), private property behind Mercer (~6.0 acres)? Are those acres even ‘usable’ for development to meet the requirements?
In addition, what is the environmental impact of further development? The Hillside Trust has already stepped in to preserve the hillside adjacent to Turpin toward Clough and prevent damage to the hill and to Clough Creek (and the history of the Miller-Leuser house). How would further development of the land by Turpin affect the stability of the hillside? Has this been studied?
How would the additional traffic on Clough Pike or any modifications to existing roadways impact Clough Creek? Has the board or the consultants considered the environmental impact by reviewing the environmental impact study from 2020? Have any additional studies taken place?
Traffic Implications & Township Investment
Would there be an additional investment be required of the township or Hamilton County to shore up Clough Creek to support additional traffic?
The most recent study of Clough Pike demonstrates that the road already faces many issues with vehicle accidents and traffic backups, which are busiest during commuting to work and school in the mornings. How would they solve this issue by adding twice as many students arriving before 8 a.m.?
Would officials need to revisit the 5-mile connector, to reduce traffic through the Clough Creek bottle-neck? Would that eliminate the 5-mile trail, which is widely used by many in the community and part of the overall trails network in the Township’s strategic plan?
Impact on Finances and School Resources
Our district already holds a debt on a bond approved in 2014, that still has a balance of over $90M. Buildings are typically held as collateral, with liens being held on the property, often requiring any monies earned from the sale of the asset to be fully applied to the remaining bond amount, which would prevent any use of funds to support any new buildings, development of existing buildings or, the purchase or lease of trailer classrooms. Has the board considered the impact of adding another bond to their plan to earn perceived lower operating costs?
Mercer currently holds roughly 700 students, including those with the most challenging needs. Often, students from other district schools on a 504/IEP are served at Mercer, where our most specialized support is provided. Will those resources be built at another school? Where would that money come from, if not another bond requiring community approval?
Additionally, AHS is a population of roughly 1100-1200, which exceeds the population of Mercer. The current building and square footage requirements for students K-6 are less than that for high-school-age students. Is there a plan to develop Mercer further? If so, how? Would we add to the building or expand the footprint with additional buildings? Where will funding for that come from, if not another bond levy, adding to our existing burden?
There are active construction sites in Anderson and planned for Newtown, which would bring additional families into the community, needing more schools and classrooms, not fewer. With schools already at 85-90% capacity, closing Mercer and re-districting those students completely ignores the growth this community is expected to see. Has the board, the administration, or the developer considered the need to serve those new students in their plan?
The stadium at Turpin, the gym at Turpin, and the fields at Turpin are not large enough to host a combined audience of spectators should the schools merge. In addition, fewer students would be able to participate in sports with a combined high school. What is the emotional and academic impact to the students with fewer in-school sports and activities they can participate in?
History Repeats Itself
The Forest Hills School District has been here before, and soundly rejected the ideas proposed for consolidation. Historical articles are available, and archived for your reference
Last night at the 8/17/2022 regular meeting of the Forest Hills School District Board of Education, Dr. Leslie Rasmussen proposed a motion to repeal the "Resolution to Create a Culture of Kindness and Equal Opportunity for All Students and Staff." The motion came after the board was presented with a change.org petition signed by just over 3,000 residents of the Forest Hills School District. In a surprise move, board member Katie Stewart — who originally voted AGAINST the resolution — refused to second the motion to repeal it. This has led to speculation that she is actually for the resolution that censors students and teachers from talking about diversity of all kinds in the classroom, essentially erasing the ability for students to get to know each other and create understanding and empathy.
Honesty for Ohio Education put out a statement early this morning condemning the lack of action at the board meeting. Advocate FHSD supports and highlights this statement. The resolution is no good for the students and the overall reputation of our beloved school dstrict.
It is clear that the Forest Hills community does not want the toxic ‘Culture of Kindness’ resolution poisoning their schools. This brazen act of disrespect for the students, families and educators by refusing to hold a vote against the resolution is yet another attempt by extremist elected officials to hold honest education hostage and weaponize race and identity,” says Cynthia Peeples, founding director of Honesty for Ohio Education.
Welcome to AdvocateFHSD! We’re so happy to have you here. Strong public schools = strong communities. Here, we strive to engage and inform the FHSD community, and empower residents to be the best advocates for our students, teachers, administrators, and district.