CCT WARNING: Maj. Danny wrote this bad boy. He is smarter than most of us. He is THOROUGH! Detailed! Watch out, try and shoot holes in his logic. I DOUBLE DOG Dare Ya!
If you read it all, you’re doing better than I did. But wow, Geesh, this stuff is convincing. If AFTER READING IT ALL you disagree with his argument that he has a case that needs heard, you will definitely be in the MINORITY!
31 October 2022
An Open Letter to the Ozark School Board:
Given the school board’s recent Town Hall meeting in which you committed to hearing and answering
public concerns, I am moved to try once more to bring your attention to a gross abuse of authority
within the Ozark School District and the rampant dishonesty that attended it.
As every one of my previous attempts to solicit your attention to this matter has been met with either silence or hostility, I am making this an open letter for public consideration, in hopes that your recent overtures toward satisfying public concerns may move you to reconsider matters you declined to address when you characterized them as a private concern.
This letter and your response to it, or lack thereof, will surely serve as a valuable public case study in how both the school district and the school board operate.
- Resignation – I have learned that several school board members have recently speculated in
dialogue with community members that my resignation from teaching in the Ozark School District
was very possibly motivated out of concern for the embarrassing public exposure I would face if my
case were to receive an administrative hearing. This is deliberately dishonest, given that I provided
reasons for resigning in my resignation letter. Furthermore, it is absurd, given that I have repeatedly
petitioned both district administrators and the school board for a hearing. I would not petition a
hearing whose public exposure I feared. Moreover, a hearing would only be held if I contested my
dismissal from the school district. So if I wanted to avoid the public spectacle of a hearing, I could
do so simply by not requesting one. Finally, the board had already provided clear evidence that it
would not ever grant me the requested hearing, despite its being required by both state law and
school board policy.
Lest there be any further confusion on this issue, I offer the following grounds for my resignation:
a. My Notice of Deficiency (NoD) made it clear that there was no way I would be permitted to
continue teaching in the Ozark School District. Dr. Carson assured me beforehand that no one in
his 18 years in district administration had ever survived a NoD. Furthermore, my NoD was full of
gross distortions of truth and outright fabrications clearly concocted to make a case for firing
me. When I pointed out numerous falsehoods to Mr. Chambers and Dr. Brownfield, they
showed absolutely no interest. Mr. Chambers also confirmed to me during the NoD reading
that I WOULD be fired for any single instance of conduct the district didn’t like, given that they
could simply label it “unprofessional” and thereby characterize it as a violation of the terms of
my NoD.
b. The school district had already foreshadowed the harassment they intended if I attempted to
remain a teacher. They had warned me that they intended to put an administrator in my
classroom every time I taught, or at least as often as they could sustain, ostensibly to
“supervise” my teaching.
c. The school district prohibited me from sponsoring the Raider team for a full year. That meant
there would be no raider program for a full year, thus forfeiting the tremendous momentum the
team had developed, having just won two consecutive national championships. The only way
for the team to survive was for me to depart.
d. If I waited for the district to fire me, I would miss the opportunity to apply for a new teaching
position for the following school year. Given that there was only one JROTC position open
within driving distance of my home, not pursuing that position while it was vacant would
effectively force me to either relocate my family or cease teaching JROTC.
Hearing – I have learned that Ms. Orr, our school board president, recently explained to a concerned
community member that the district was anxious to provide me a hearing, and was even expediting
the process to ensure it. This, again, is deliberate dishonesty. Both Missouri Revised Statutes
(RSMo) § 105.264 and Board Policy GCPD: Suspension of Professional Staff Members require that
any employee on administrative leave for more than 30 days be given a hearing before the 60th day
of administrative leave. When that deadline passed, I asked Dr. Bauman about the district’s plans
for this hearing. In the ensuing email exchange, he provided a litany of preposterous excuses for not
offering a hearing. As I demonstrated the falsehood of each one, he generated a new one, making
clear that the real issue was simply that the district was not willing to obey this law or policy and
grant me a hearing.
I then appealed directly to the school board for a hearing, as follows:
From: Danny Cazier
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 7:17 AM
To: ‘TomBass@OzarkTigers.org’ TomBass@OzarkTigers.org; ‘AndyHedgpeth@OzarkTigers.org’
AndyHedgpeth@OzarkTigers.org; ‘AaronJohns@OzarkTigers.org’ AaronJohns@OzarkTigers.org;
‘JeffLaney@OzarkTigers.org’ JeffLaney@OzarkTigers.org; ‘ShaneNelson@OzarkTigers.org’ShaneNelson@OzarkTigers.org; ‘SarahAdams-Orr@OzarkTigers.org’ ; ‘PattyQuessenberry@OzarkTigers.org’ PattyQuessenberry@OzarkTigers.org
Cc: ‘Chris Bauman’ chrisbauman@ozarktigers.org
Subject: Request for hearing on my case
Members of the Ozark Board of Education,
I suspect you have all been informed that I am presently on administrative leave pending investigation. I
shared the rough parameters of my case with you by email on 13 January when I sought audience with
you to request you review the District’s handling of my case. I received no response from you and Dr.
Bauman denied my request for audience with you. District Policy seems to reserve to the Board, not the
superintendent, the determination as to whether one may address the School Board. I am now more
formally requesting you review my case.
District Policy GCPD, “Suspension of Professional Staff Members,” requires: “If an employee is not removed from administrative leave within 30 days of being placed on leave, the district will hold a hearing within 60 days of the date the employee was first placed on leave.” Shortly after this time limit expired with no mention of a hearing, I petitioned Dr. Bauman about this hearing. He has refused it three times now, each time on dubious grounds. In his last denial, he referenced the provision in Policy GCPD that the hearing could be continued up to 180 days “for good cause.” He alleged “Good cause includes continuing the hearing while an investigation is ongoing pending a decision about what action should be taken.” He shortly thereafter added, “The final decisions regarding the outcome of the investigation have not been reached. However, we anticipate that we will be able to provide you with notice of those decisions by the end of next week.” His projected notification timeline has passed and I have not yet been notified. I have been assured several times since 10 January that the investigation was near resolution.
I have lost confidence in such pronouncements. As Dr. Bauman’s latest stated reason for postponing the hearing was that the investigation wasn’t complete yet, then his subsequent announcement that the investigation was nearly complete should have warranted scheduling the hearing. Given his refusal to arrange it, I am now petitioning you directly to schedule the required hearing on my case.
It continues to be my absolute conviction that my case amounts to nothing more than illegal retaliation against me. I believe I have ample evidence to demonstrate this truth to any impartial audience. I also remain convinced that Dr. Bauman is the primary source of this hostile agenda. That said, I still believe that Dr. Bauman is fundamentally a good person who passionately loves the Ozark School District and has its best interests at heart. I believe he works tirelessly for the good of the District.
Nevertheless, he wields power wrongly, not just beyond the parameters of good judgment but beyond the legal limits to his authority.
I don’t presume Dr. Bauman’s abusive leadership stems from deliberate self-interest or any other base motive. I attribute the problem to a corrupt leadership style rather than a corrupt soul. I don’t believe there is any animus between us personally. There is just a difference of understanding about the appropriate use of power and the limits of his authority.
Dr. Bauman has a “my way or the highway” attitude that that seems to justify to him his treatment of District employees. This attitude seems to have infected other administrators across the District as well, causing many otherwise good leaders to become complicit in a widespread pattern of abuse.
Whether he is well intentioned or not, however, the impact, however, remains the same: the District suffers. For the sake of our schools, this dynamic must be corrected.
I predict you will see an avalanche of information in the very near future testifying to recurring abuses of power across the District, most of which abuses originate at the District office. I have become aware of numerous teachers, and reports of far more, who are at various stages of willingness to go on the record about their experiences.
Many remain intimidated.
But I believe that as they find how common their experience is and as they see others speaking up, they will be emboldened to share their stories as well.
Your primary source of information about the school district comes via the superintendent. As the concerns I am voicing center on him, you cannot afford to let his be the only voice you consider on this matter. If you ignore these concerns, then you enable his continued erosion of the culture of a school district we all love.
If I am wrong, the evidence will vindicate him. If I am right, the truth will astonish you. It is most unfortunate that we are in this situation, but it is better to confront it than deny it. We cannot afford to resist truth, just because it is unpleasant or difficult to deal with.
There is a major problem brewing within our school district which is causing substantial damage, even if unseen.
The safe working environment necessary for our schools to thrive is being severely degraded.
If you decline to hear my story, then I have only two options left: surrender or pursue relief elsewhere.
The only two other avenues available to me are the courts and public awareness.
I am not willing to abandon this.
I have already accepted the certainty of my being fired. That outcome has already been made clear to me. While this is an unfortunate position for me, it is also empowering. It means I have nothing to lose, so nothing to fear.
I remain committed to Ozark schools and would like to see my forced departure become a catalyst for change.
I love Ozark schools and will not stand idle while the quality of our schools is being degraded by abuse of power at the top.
I understand that you are not at liberty to respond to my email individually. I still request the courtesy of your assurance that you have received it.
Respectfully,
Major Danny Cazier
As I was summoned later that same day to meet with district administrators to receive my Notice of Deficiency, it does not directly reflect on the school board that I received no response to this email, other than the requested acknowledgement of receipt, before announcing two days later my intent to resign. However, the fact that nearly three months had passed between my having been placed on administrative leave and my announcing my resignation, it cannot possibly be said that the board was expediting my hearing and eager to hear my side of the story, as Ms. Orr also claimed.
And since Dr. Bauman had been clear that they were going to postpone my hearing to the last possible moment permissible by law (but would do so for reasons NOT supported by law), it is clear that the district was NOT trying to afford me a hearing, let alone an expedited one.
If one considers that perhaps the school board wasn’t aware of the requirement for a hearing until I
brought it to the board’s attention, then one might think that perhaps the board really was
interested in hearing my story and was expediting the hearing.
My announcement, two days later, of my intent to resign at the end of the semester might then have cut short their planning.
First, as only 48 hours elapsed between my first email to the board and my letter of resignation, I can’t
imagine that the board really gave any attention to expediting my hearing. My letter of resignation
on 2 March 2022 reiterated the requirement that the board afford me a hearing. The very next day,
I received the following in an email from Mr. Bass, the board president at the time.
This email will respond to your request for a hearing before the Board of Education in connection with
your administrative leave. In accordance with Section 105.264.2(1) of the Missouri Revised Statutes, the
hearing requirement “may be continued for good cause shown but shall not be continued past one
hundred eighty days from the date the employee was placed on administrative leave.” The hearing
requirement was originally continued for good cause due to the continuing investigation. Currently, the
district has good cause not to conduct a hearing prior to the 180-day deadline because you have submitted and the Board has accepted your resignation, and you have demonstrated a continuing unwillingness to comply with a
dministrative directives both inside and outside the classroom.
This is decisive evidence AGAINST Ms. Orr’s claim that the board was anxious to hear my story
and was working to expedite my hearing. Furthermore, after my 10 May 2022 email to Ms. Orr and
Ms. Quessenberry (newly elected as board president and vice president) requesting attention to my
case, Ms. Orr sent me the following by email:
This email will respond to your continuing requests to meet with the Board of Education. These requests
have included requests to speak to the Board in open and/or closed session during a scheduled meeting
of the Board, and to meet with one or more Board members outside of Board meetings. The Board has
reviewed, in detail, the large volume of information pertaining to your situation, including the information
you have provided, and is in full support of the administration. Therefore, this email is to inform you that
this matter is permanently closed. Accordingly, the Board, whether collectively or individually, will not
engage in further discussion with you regarding your personnel issues or anything related to those
issues. This applies to all communications, whether in person, via email, during or outside of Board
meetings, or through any other means. Further attempts to discuss your personnel situation with the
Board will receive no reply.
There is no room for any school board member to claim, let alone the author of the email above,
that they had interest in hearing my story and were expediting a hearing for me. That is blatant
falsehood and is readily contradicted by the evidence.
Since my departure from the school district, Ms. Orr and other board members have claimed that
my resignation from the district invalidated the requirement for the hearing. There is NOTHING in
the language of the law that supports this interpretation. Nor was this interpretation proffered
when I announced my future resignation and renewed my plea for a hearing. Furthermore, if one
insisted on adopting this position, it would have plausibility only after my resignation was effective,
not when it was announced.
Neither RSMo § 105.264 or Board Policy GCPD require that the employee to whom a hearing is
owed still be suspended. Both simply state that if in an employee is on administrative leave for
more than 30 days, then a hearing must be held before the 60th day. That they don’t even require that the leave still be in effect is pretty strong argument against the claim that announcement of a
future resignation terminates the requirement to provide a hearing. Furthermore the wording in
the state law reads “Notwithstanding any provision of law . . . a hearing shall be held within 60 days
from the date the employee was placed on such leave.” That “Notwithstanding” language seems to
suggest a pretty strong bulwark was intended against employers’ excuses for not holding a hearing.
There can be no question that the board was fully aware 1) of the requirement for a hearing, and 2)
of my interest in a hearing. In fact, I remain interested in a hearing. The board has been derelict in
its duty to follow law and its own policy on this regard. Nevertheless, I am quite happy to still
participate in a public hearing of sufficient length to allow me to present the abundant and
compelling evidence of senior administrator’s deliberate dishonesty and abuse of authority in my
departure from the Ozark School District. There is nothing precluding the school board from
scheduling this hearing. This hearing would give the school board the opportunity to learn the truth
of the matter on my case, either vindicating the superintendent or giving the school board the
opportunity to reign in a tyrannical superintendent. The board has absolutely nothing to lose by
granting me the requested hearing.
On second thought, there is a better way forward. I call on the school board to commission an
independent investigation of Ozark School District’s senior administrator’s handling of teacher
discipline cases. At this point, there is too little grounds for public confidence in the integrity of a
school board inquiry into the case. The board has been provided ample evidence of the
superintendent’s (and other senior administrators’) misconduct against multiple teachers and has
chosen to do ignore it. Some board members even pretended to the public in a Town Hall meeting
that they were not aware of any teachers having claims against senior district administrators. The
board has reiterated its absolute confidence in the superintendent and its confidence that the
accusations of harassment are false, all while refusing to investigate any of the claims against him.
Thus its claims about him are rooted in ignorance rather than evidence. Furthermore, at the recent
town hall meeting, the school board made the following two claims:
• The board has but one employee it is responsible for supervising: the superintendent.
• It is not the board’s job to investigate complaints against the superintendent.
With the board’s bold pronouncement that it will not consider evidence against him, the
appropriate course now, both to determine the legitimacy of accusations made against the
superintendent and to restore a degree of public confidence in the school board is to appoint an
independent investigator to consider the evidence of his abuse, harassment, and retaliation.
- Presentation – My suspension was occasioned by a presentation I gave to first-year JROTC cadets on
the topic of “Personal Appearance, Personal Identity, and Value.” The school district accused it of
being inappropriate. I have three times petitioned the school district to allow me to present the
material to administrators so that they can be informed of the actual content, not just the presumed
content. I have also three times informed senior administrators that material they claimed was part
of the class was not, in fact, part of the class presentation. District administrators have refused to
remove from their supposed “evidence” the portion of the slides I have assured them were not part
of the presentation. They solicited these slides from me via a colleague under false pretenses. The
district has also declined my numerous requests to show them what I actually taught, favoring
instead a fictionalized version of my presentation.
Several board members have recently commented to concerned community members that they had
seen the material I presented in class and that it was highly inappropriate. As the school district declined my every offer to educate them on the actual content of the presentation, I recently took the opportunity to present the material, in the same content and format as I presented it in class, to approximately three dozen concerned community members. They have now seen it and universally affirm its propriety for teaching to cadets. School board members were all invited to attend my recent presentation of this material. Only one chose to attend. And he affirmed that the content was far removed from what he had been led to believe I presented in class. I thus accuse the superintendent of deliberately manipulating the content he provided to the school board as the substance of my presentation. In addition to not removing the content I have repeatedly informed the district was not part of the presentation, it now appears certain that the district deliberately planted additional material into my presentation slides as “evidence” against me before showing it to the school board, in order to ensure the school board would develop an unfavorable attitude toward my presentation. That he would do so is strong indication that the superintendent was well aware that my slides were not inappropriate in the way he needed them to be to prosecute his campaign against me.
- Evidence – I have petitioned the school district for a copy of all of the derogatory information that
they furnished the school board about me. The district declined to provide this information, on the
pretext that there is no legal requirement for them to do so. In fact, the district has refused every
information request I have made in an effort to defend myself against its allegations. The district
may be right that they are not required to produce this information. But whether or not there is a
legal requirement to disclose this information, any genuine interest in discovering the truth and
respecting due process would by themselves be sufficient to prompt disclosure. That the district
repeatedly refuses to do so is compelling indication of its sinister agenda. - Investigation – Rather than prolong this letter to include all the details I have rehearsed elsewhere, I
simply reiterate that this investigation was an obvious sham from the outset. If any board members
have interest in the evidence of this, I invite them to peruse the following link in my public narrative:
https://www.majorcazier.com/bad-faith-investigation/. - Due process – Given the compelling evidence of this being a bad-faith investigation, it is no surprise
that the evidence is equally abundant that nothing approaching due process was ever intended for
this investigation. As my exposé on this point is even longer than that of the investigation’s having
been conducted in bad faith, I again invite any interested board members to consider the evidence I
offer in my public narrative: https://www.majorcazier.com/denial-of-due-process/. - Relationship – The relationship between the school board and the superintendent is too close. It is
clear that he does not feel particularly accountable to the school board. Rather, he recognizes that
he controls the school board. Whatever information he feeds the board, the board accepts. This
dynamic is ripe for exploitation, leaving school board members complicit in his misconduct due to
their reluctance to consider honestly any evidence other than his own.
The school board has repeatedly expressed their high confidence in the superintendent. And yet
the board has also acknowledged that they have no grounds for this confidence. When the board
refuses to hear and consider claims against the superintendent, then the board has no grounds for
affirming his performance. The board has no way of knowing whether he is, in fact, as good as they
claim if they won’t consider the evidence to the contrary. When the board has the opportunity to consider evidence against him and declines to do so, they lose the standing they need to be able to honestly affirm his integrity.
- Disclosure – The school board has attempted to make much of my supposed refusal to let them
share the truth of my story with the general public. Ms. Orr has recently referred to this in
conversations with concerned members of the public. To correct the record, I offer that
IMMEDIATELY (within 5 minutes) after Mr. Bass, the board president at the time, requested that I
sign a disclosure agreement so that the school district could release information about my case
directly to the public, I emailed him back to inquire whether the disclosures would be restricted to
information I had already received or whether new disclosures would be made of allegations I had
not yet encountered. Although he gave me only a 24-hour deadline to respond, promising that if I
didn’t then the district would release a slanderous allegation that I was concealing the truth and
preventing their disclosure, HE DID NOT RESPOND TO MY INQUIRY FOR FOUR DAYS, thus
practically guaranteeing that I would not be able to sign the agreement and that the district could
commence with its slander campaign. When he eventually responded, HE STILL DID NOT ANSWER
THE QUESTION. He indicated that their intended disclosure would be “basically everything we have
in information.” Without knowing whether I had yet encountered all of this, it was imprudent to
invite the district to defame me to the public with false allegations the district had no interest in
verifying the truth of. I then informed him of this and proposed instead that the district appoint
an arbiter to hear both sides of the story. I affirmed that I would gladly consent to disclosing all
information to him/her. HE DECLINED TO RESPOND.
Despite the fact that the board president hadn’t even responded to my request for clarification
about their intended disclosure, as soon as the forewarned deadline arrived, 24 hours later, the
district began publicly releasing the following slanderous statement in response to any inquiries or
public comments about my situation:
The information that has been provided is incomplete and/or inaccurate. However, the district cannot
provide complete or accurate information without the written consent of Major Cazier. The district has
offered Major Cazier the opportunity to provide written consent to disclosure of records and oral
information related to his performance and conduct, and he has declined to provide that consent. We are
disappointed that we have been prevented from disclosing the records and related information that
would provide a clear and accurate record of what has occurred in connection with Mr. Cazier’s
employment and resignation.” - Neutrality – Board members have repeatedly claimed that they are prohibited from hearing from
school district employees under investigation on the grounds that they might eventually have to
hold a hearing on that employee’s case, and hearing details of the case in advance might bias them.
This is clearly something the school’s attorney has told them. And it serves one person’s agenda
alone: the superintendent’s. I offer the following counter-argument against this claim:
• The school board is the ONLY recourse available to address concerns about the
superintendent. If the board won’t hear those concerns, then no wonder he acts as if his
authority is unlimited. If the board refuses to consider evidence of his misconduct, then his
authority IS unlimited.
• Board Policy GCPD: Suspension of Professional Staff Members REQUIRES that the
superintendent update the school board monthly on the status of any teacher under
investigation. So the board is already hearing derogatory information about such teachers.
I cite, as evidence, the email from Mr. Bass, the board president at the time, one day after I
expressed my intent to resign. In denying my reiterated request for a hearing, he states “you have demonstrated a continuing unwillingness to comply with administrative directives both inside and outside the classroom.” This reveals that the board was already receiving derogatory information about me. If impartiality is required, then it would obligate them to hear exculpatory information as well. The only way board member bias would be a problem is if they are biased AGAINST the teacher. But the purpose of hearing out a teacher’s complaint would be to provide exculpatory (CCT note: I have to look this word up! Plus, I need to make me a snack ’bout now) evidence to vindicate the teacher. The only bias doing so could generate would be a bias IN FAVOR OF the teacher. If there was evidence of a bias AGAINST the teacher, then the teacher would have grounds for appealing the outcome of an administrative hearing to the court system. But a teacher would never appeal a hearing on the grounds that the school board was biased IN HIS/HER FAVOR! The only one who could do that would be the school district. And since the school board is sovereign over the school district, it couldn’t even happen then. They wouldn’t file an appeal to the local courts on the grounds that they themselves were too charitable toward a teacher! As noted previously, state law and school board policy both REQUIRE that a hearing be held for a teacher suspended more than 30 days. This isn’t the final administrative hearing that a teacher may demand AFTER being terminated. This is an in-progress hearing, whose purpose, according to Missouri State Teacher’s Association attorney, Scott Smith, is to discourage school districts from leaving teachers on administrative leave for an extended period of time without properly investigating the circumstances for that leave of absence. If that is correct, then the law is clearly directing the school board to entertain exculpatory information about an accused teacher. As the law REQUIRES this in-progress hearing, it cannot be true that school board members must decline to hear exculpatory information from teachers lest they (board members) then be too biased to fulfill their potential subsequent role at an administrative, post-termination hearing. An administrative hearing is only provided if a teacher requests it AFTER he/she is terminated. It would be so much more reasonable to avoid the termination by hearing the teacher out before then. None of this suggests that the board’s role is to review the complaints of every disgruntled teacher. The need for the school board to get involved only arises when it is senior district administrators that are being accused of illegal and unethical treatment of district teachers.
HE AIN’T THROUGH YET, Y’ALL!
School board members have drawn a clear delineation between teachers who are under
investigation and those who are not, welcoming input from the latter while declining any
information from the former. This is a curious distinction to make. Only teachers being
targeted by false investigations will have meaningful insight into the dishonesty of those
investigations. While teachers not under investigation surely have valuable perspective, the
most important information about senior administrator misconduct will almost ALWAYS
come from those who discovered this misconduct while they were under investigation.
- Recourse – During the recent Town Hall meeting, Mr. Laney alleged to the public that there are
multiple layers of protection for a teacher who believes he/she is being targeted inappropriately by
district administrators. Board members have sometimes suggested that the Missouri Teacher
Tenure Act (MTTA) is one such layer of protection. As I explained in my question to the board that
evening, the MTTA provides only procedural protection, not substantive protection. This means that
a teacher can appeal a firing only if the district did not follow the prescribed procedure. A teacher
cannot appeal on the grounds that the allegations of misconduct were all false.
Mr. Laney further alleged that targeted teachers could easily file a lawsuit against the district if they
were mistreated. I have approached two attorneys about doing so. The first estimated final case
costs to me to be approximately $65,000, based on a similar case the attorney had previously
brought. The other attorney indicated he would require $40,000 just to start the case. This is
beyond the reach of most teachers. Mr. Laney expressed to me that attorneys are willing to take on
such cases on a contingency fee basis. That has not been my experience. Attorneys can only afford
to do that if they belong to large firms wherein they can absorb the lost time/wages if the case
doesn’t go in their favor. Stand-alone attorneys cannot afford this risk to their livelihood. And large
law firms don’t have interest in the relatively small reward likely to be achieved in a case of this kind.
After the Town Hall meeting, I invited Mr. Laney to share with me a single recourse available to a
teacher that falls outside of an appeal to the school board (since that clearly wasn’t possible) and a
lawsuit (since that was cost prohibitive). He refused to do so, alleging that he wouldn’t talk to me
about my case. This is absurd for a couple of reasons. First, it wasn’t a question about my case.
Second, there is no prohibition against his talking to me about my case. In fact, to every question I
asked him after the town hall meeting, he simply reiterated his refusal to talk to me about my
case because I no longer work for the school district. (Notice how that was also the same excuse
the board used when I DID work for the school district.)
A school board member likewise suggested during the Town Hall that the teacher’s union is a source
of recourse. This is also false (but probably innocently so rather than deliberately so). The Missouri
State Teacher’s Association can offer legal advice. They can offer a representative to sit in (as silent
audience) during meetings with district administrators. They can even offer legal representation in a
termination hearing. That is entirely ineffective, especially when the school district has an attorney
on permanent retainer guiding their steps to ensure they can get away with whatever malfeasance
they desire.
As a legal case, my situation with the school best fits under the protection of the Whistleblower’s
Protection Act. This act requires that a litigant establish four distinct elements in court. The first
three elements are easily proven. The fourth criteria requires that the litigant demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that there is a causal connection between the whistleblowing and
the negative personnel action that followed. When the school district has unrestricted access to
attorney to guide their steps, they will always ensure that that last element is extremely difficult
to prove. All they have to do is start alleging falsehoods and documenting those falsehoods.
Their documentation subsequently counts as the evidence of those allegations, even though the
documentation itself is a complete fabrication.
- School attorney – It is clear that the school attorney works for the superintendent. It is equally clear
that the attorney’s role is to clear the way for the superintendent to do whatever it is he wants to
do, provided that some legal context can be found to protect the superintendent in his agenda.
When the school attorney counsels the school board a particular way, it is naïve to presume that
said counsel constitutes anything more than a strategy to get away with whatever it is the
superintendent seeks to accomplish. It surely does not represent the proper way to proceed. It
surely doesn’t represent ethical guidance on how to proceed. It is nothing more than a strategic
approach to thwart future legal challenge. When the school attorney counsels the school board on
its role with respect to complaints about the superintendent, it is important that the school board
remembers that the attorney works for the superintendent, not for the board.
- Manipulation – The superintendent has been deliberately manipulating the school board’s beliefs.
He has been lying to the board and providing fabricated “evidence” to convince the board of his lies.
The board has accepted unquestioningly both his stories and his attorney’s counsel not to evaluate
any counter-evidence against him. The board has been derelict in its duty to supervise him, hold
him accountable, learn the truth, and act accordingly. - Abuse and retaliation – This whole case reduces to retaliation for my standing my ground when our
superintendent exceeded his authority. I have already made that case to the school board directly
in email. The board may revisit it again here: https://www.majorcazier.com/history-of-district-
conflict-with-jrotc/. The superintendent has been allowed to reign unchecked for far too long. This
has contributed to his sense of unlimited control. It has bolstered his ego, making any challenges to
his authority a personal insult. That the school board doesn’t see this is no surprise. He isn’t going
to act this way toward the board. Remember, liars don’t lie to everyone. Bullies don’t bully
everyone. Cheats don’t cheat everyone. Each is abusive only to a small percentage of their regular
contacts. Second, the board refuses to see it. The board has refused to listen to any evidence,
despite the growing chorus of voices demanding attention.
- Final pay – As a testament to the superintendent’s bad-faith dealings with me, I submit that the
district continues to withhold part of my salary for my last year teaching. The difference amounts to
approximately $1300. It would be inconsequential to the school district. And yet, it is one more
opportunity for the school district to assert that it has powers and teachers are powerless to do
anything about it.
JROTC teaching contracts with the school run from July to June, as do those of all other teachers.
However, JROTC minimum pay is set by the Army on a calendar that runs January to December.
Thus each January, the Army announces a new minimum required pay for each instructor. The
school district’s contract with the Army requires that the school pay the teacher this much. Schools
commonly wait until the last pay period (June) to provide the additional pay increase for the
preceding 6 months. Ozark School District also pays JROTC instructors a stipend for the JROTC
teams that we coach outside of school hours. This stipend is always separate from the minimum
instructor pay. However, Ozark School District decided this year to withhold the additional pay
increase they are required to provide for my last six months of teaching. They take refuge in the
fact that my coaching stipend exceeded the amount that they owed me, so they would consider my
contract fulfilled. The only way they can consider my teaching contract fulfilled is by taking from my
coaching stipend, which then leaves my coaching stipend contract unfulfilled. They have never
before taken this approach. They certainly didn’t do so this year with the other two JROTC
instructors. They took this approach toward me simply out of their continued hostility toward me
and the resistance I continue to show to their abuse of authority.
In light of all of the concerns I have laid out here, I reiterate my call to the Ozark School District Board
of Education to appoint an independent investigator to look into the abundant evidence of the abuse I
and other teachers have experienced. I reiterate that your indifference to my case and that of other
teachers who have likewise appealed to you for redress disqualifies you from being able to investigate
this issue with the faith and confidence of the public in whatever outcome you might reach.
Sincerely,
Danny Cazier
Postscript: I am appending to this letter a copy of the letter which I submitted to the school board
leadership on 10 May 2022. The only response I received to this letter was the board president’s email
to me the following day, which included:
This email will respond to your continuing requests to meet with the Board of Education. . . . Accordingly,
the Board, whether collectively or individually, will not engage in further discussion with you regarding
your personnel issues or anything related to those issues. This applies to all communications, whether in
person, via email, during or outside of Board meetings, or through any other means. Further attempts to
discuss your personnel situation with the Board will receive no reply.
I call on the school board to reconsider its refusal to consider the questions presented in the email
below.
From: Danny Cazier
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 10:22 AM
To: ‘SarahAdams-Orr@OzarkTigers.org’ SarahAdams-Orr@OzarkTigers.org;
‘PattyQuessenberry@OzarkTigers.org’ PattyQuessenberry@OzarkTigers.org
Subject: Difficult questions about my case
Ms. Adams-Orr, Ms. Quessenberry,
Although I am departing the school district, I continue to have grave concerns about how my case has
been handled by the District and ignored by the Board. I offer some questions for your consideration
which I would appreciate as your viewing as more than mere rhetorical questions.
- When inviting me to resign several months ago, Dr. Carson informed that if I did not then I would
receive a Notice of Deficiency. He further informed me that no on survives a Notice of Deficiency. Or
rather, in his eighteen years at the District office, no one had recovered from one. They all end up
being fired or resigning under pressure. If this is true, that no one survives a Notice of Deficiency,
what does this say about the school district? When Mr. Chambers read me my Notice of Deficiency,
he assured me that the district’s goal was to see me return to good standing and have a long and
successful future with the District. The content of the Notice of Deficiency demonstrated that his
assertion was wholly disingenuous. The putative purpose of this notice is to give teachers an
opportunity to reform their conduct before being terminated. What does it say about the school
district – or the teacher’s confidence in their administrators – that it has evidently NEVER succeeded
in fulfilling this purpose in the past 18 years? - If you have taken the time to read the abbreviated background I have previously provided you on my
case, do you believe I was acting within my authority to:
• Resist being directed to coach an extracurricular team on top of the one I was already coaching,
while not being paid for either one, and still learning my teaching position?
• Invite JROTC parents to share with the District their thoughts on the District’s plan to relocate
JROTC to the Ozark Innovation Center?
• Report to the Army the District’s directive that we ignore elements of Army JROTC uniform
regulations?
If you believe I was NOT within my authority in any one of those instances, would you please
elaborate, given that the default interpretation is that I was well within my authority.
- Do you presume that the timing of my last act of resistance and my suspension a week later bear any
relationship to each other? Or do you presume their timing to be complete coincidence? Do you
presume my resistance had ANY impact on the subsequent handling of the case? - The stated purpose of my suspension was to enable the school district to investigate a concern about
one particular lesson I taught. Do you believe that an honest investigation into that particular lesson
would take three months and would dredge up every bit of dirt they could dredge up or make up on
me over the duration of my employment in the District? - Do you believe that an honest investigation into one particular lesson I taught would decline to allow
me to hear the charges or weigh in on them for more than two weeks? - Do you believe that an honest investigation into one particular lesson I taught would decline to
interview any of the audience, students or teachers, to that lesson? - What degree of due process ought to be afforded an accused teacher?
- Do you believe an accused teacher should have access to the evidence of charges against him/her,
especially when he/she alleges that the charges range from deliberately distorted to blatantly false? - Whatever level of confidence you have in our present District administrators, do you believe there
are sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent their simply making up outlandish claims and
discharging a District employee on the basis of those claims? If you believe such safeguards exist,
would you kindly point them out to me? - Do you believe the Board can gain an honest perspective on a disputed case by hearing only the
District administrators’ perspective on it (i.e., not also allowing the targeted teacher to prevent an
alternative narrative)? - What degree of “evidence” should the District have before raising an allegation? To what degree
should the District attempt to verify an allegation against a District employee before asserting it as
true? - What degree of integrity should be required in a Professional Improvement Plan or Notice of
Deficiency? Is it acceptable for a District employee providing a PIP to respond to the targeted
teacher’s protests of “that claim is absolutely false and nothing even remotely like that ever
happened” with “It doesn’t matter whether it is true as long as you don’t do it in the future”? - Does the District have the authority to prohibit me from participating in ALL extra-curricular activities
with ANY student in the District, even when the activity (e.g., Boy Scouts, Sunday School, youth
soccer, etc.) is not school-sponsored? If so, could you please explain the source of that authority?
I believe all of these questions will prove difficult and uncomfortable. All of them allude to glaring
impropriety in the District’s campaign against me. And there are many more I would happily raise if you
are open to considering the possibility that we really do have a malicious, tyrannical administration.
Despite the difficulty of these questions, I would your appreciate your making a genuine effort to answer
them.
Thank you,
MAJ Danny Cazier
Christian County Trumpet Weighs In
WHEW! DID YOU GET ALL THAT? THERE WILL BE A QUIZ in the NEXT ARTICLE…JK…Just Kidding…
I believe this guy. If you have never met him, you need to. He is SUPER honest and complete in his information. The stupid school board and administration done screwed with the WRONG Army officer this time, yessir!
THANK YOU for sharing this!!!!