Parent Post: I would like to address a posting from April 18th that stated that the fire marshals' office "sat" on the paperwork for the DCRU portables for 2 months. That is (I'll be nice) a "misstatement of fact". The state fire marshals' office was not even aware of the portables until a routine inspection of the main building on or around December 6, 2007. That is documented in paperwork from the state fire marshals' office and is in the possession of Dick Vrooman, Becky Wilkinson, and the "Edmond Sun”. I also have a copy of this. Your numbers do not add up since, upon the direction of Dick Vrooman and Becky Wilkinson, 2 classes of the fourth grade were moved into the portables on September 24, 2007.

I agree that no one should know everything but I expect the chief operations officer in charge of several construction projects for the school district to understand the need for building permits and minimal safety protections for these projects. I was not aware that Deer Creek can afford to place persons in such administrative positions and allow them to learn basic skills for their job description "on the job". Sure sounds like a recipe for major liability and potentially harmful to students.

Parent Post: I would like to respond to the following quote from a previous post:

"Dick Vrooman was misled by the person that purported to have knowledge on those issues...At some point as a supervisor, he has to ask the opinion of subordinates.  This one gave him bad info."

Exactly how do you know what this "subordinate" did or did not tell Dick Vrooman?  Where did you get this information?  I am in a position to know that this "subordinate" DID NOT give incorrect information to Dick Vrooman.  Please don't attack "subordinates" who are no longer here to defend themselves.  It's very convenient to pass the buck and blame others when we make mistakes, especially if those being blamed aren't around anymore.

Parent Post: Well, another "essay", but there are several questions and statements that really need addressed based on the multiple combined replies from the editor and the original complainant.  Mine are in 1 post, so it's longer.  Some of the issues are of timing and protocol and others are issues relating to the original topic.

To the complainant:

Regarding issues of timing and protocol, you made a couple of mistakes:

1. You mistook the date that my post was published - April 8th - with the date that I submitted it to the website - April 3rd @ 15:51.
    
   
2. You apparently failed to ask questions of the editor to verify when my post was submitted - April 3rd @ 15:51 - versus when your second post was published - April 8th.
    
   I submitted my first post on April 3rd @ 15:51.  It didn't show up very quickly, so I emailed the editor on April 4th @ 9:50 a short question: "Dear Mr Editor...just wondering if you are going to publish my post regarding the "bus driver 'hit' student" issue?".  I received a reply on April 4th @ 10:13 saying "We are in the process of moving into a larger office and it should be posted on Monday.  Please bear with us and we appreciate your patience."  So, I cut him some slack knowing what a pain office moves are.  Well, Monday came and went without my post being published.  But low and behold, on Tuesday, April 8th, your second post appeared and followed by my my first one.  Now, I have no idea when you emailed the editor your second post because I haven't asked.  But, my suggestions are: 1) the posts appear in the order they were submitted, _if_ they are not that way now, and 2)  the editor publish the submission time in addition to the time of posting.  Since I cannot control when my my posts are published in relation to when they\'re submitted or in relation to yours, you cannot accurately attack me for the timing since it's beyond my control.

Regarding the original point of the post:

1. It's interesting how you backed down from the yellow journalism technique of "my child was hit by a bus driver and barely anything happened" to the "oh, it was just a thump on the head to get his/her attention"
    
2. You revealed a whole lot to the district patrons when you talked about how Becky Wilkinson handled the "settlement."  You mentioned those involved in the meeting.  Was the head of the department with which you had an issue included in any & all meetings?  Perhaps you will answer that and let our district patrons know the (lack of) management skills and etiquette that our superintendent possesses.
    
3. What came out of the deputy's report?  Any criminal charges?  What was his opinion of the contact between the driver and your child?  Did he think it was child abuse?
    
4. Regarding the "stupid enough to publish the tape" comment, those words were chosen carefully with full intent of a double entendre.  I'm glad you noticed it.  I'm certainly no fan of the superintendent, but I give her just enough credit not to do that.  It's interesting to hear that a copy was attached to the deputy's report.  Seems to me that with the timing of it all that the other kids' faces could not have been blurred so there could well be some privacy issues.  I guess the use of the word never should have been conditioned with something like "until others have reviewed the tape."  I'm not a lawyer, but I certainly have to wonder what would happen if I showed up at Oklahoma County and asked to view the tape.  I can't see how they could legally let me see it.
    
5. The use of the term "debate" was quite appropriate.  At the time I sent in my post, things were not settled.  It's no longer a debate if you, the bus driver, Dick Vrooman, Becky W, and Lenis D all agree on the term that should be used to describe the contact.  If you say that you all have, then we'll all take your word on it.
   
   "I think that before parents decide to write an essay to submit to the post, without reading updated posts that state that an issue is solved/settled/worked out/over with, then readers should wonder why some want to continue to stir up dead issues that could continue to drive a wedge between an already seemingly divided district."  Quite frankly, I've already addressed this above, but want to point out that your update was published at the same time as mine which was well after mine was submitted.  You should have asked the editor when mine was submitted in relation to when your was published before you made this statement because it's wrong.  When I submitted my post, it was not a dead issue but a new one.

To the editor:

Regarding issues of timing and protocol:

You should have clarified in an "Our Reply" section in the latest complainant post the timing of my submission and follow up email so that things would be clear.  Your responsibilities of running this site include those, especially since the submitters don\'t have control over the timing of publishing the postings given this isn't a full blown BBS.

Regarding your points about my post:

1. "Our website posts many positive stories as well.  Maybe you chose not to read them or maybe your mind just jumped to a conclusion based on one fact?"  I have read many, many of the topics and posts on this site.  However, I wasn't talking about any of those, only this one.
    
2. "As for the school district, we guess they saw it as more than what you claim since they brought in an investigator to talk with the family involved."  They did this to placate the complainant.
   
   
3. "You state that Dick Vrooman would never put kids in harms way.  Maybe you should read the post about Rose Union’s portables lack of fire protection and you would realize that he has done that once before." I know far more about the portables situation than you know I do.  What you should know, or acknowledge if you already do know, is the fact that Dick Vrooman was misled by the person that purported to have knowledge on those issues.  Dick Vrooman doesn't know everything about all things.  At some point as a supervisor, he has to ask the opinion of subordinates.  This one gave him bad info.  Also, I don't know if it came through in the Edmond Sun article or not, but the state fire marshal sat on the paperwork that was quickly delivered to his office (once things was found to be out of order) for 2 months.  Mind you, the fire marshal didn't see things badly enough to evacuate the kids and still doesn't, but he sat on things for 2 months.  But, we digress.  We shouldn't hijack the original topic with this one.
    

Our Reply: First we take full responsibility on the timing of the post in this issue.

Second on to your points.

Point 1.  You called it an Internet Complaint Site.  Your intentions and meaning came through loud and clear. We are entitled to the same considerations that you are asking for.

Point 2.  Since when is following the law placating?

Point 3.  Dick Vrooman made a mistake.  No matter how he got there he made a mistake(and we are well aware of the facts surrounding this).  If he had just owned up to his mistake then it would be a dead issue.  In the end the point is still the same, the kids were put into harms way under Dick’s watch.

Unfortunately this entire issue was well onto its way to oblivion until you brought it back up.  If your would like to debate the tangential issues involved, feel free to call me or start a new topic thread so we can discuss the related issues. 

Parent Post: Well, if you would take the time to read the post before posting your own, you would’ve seen that I indeed clarified the word “hit” for the readers. I too agree that the visual rendered by the word “hit” leaves too much room for interpretation. Thus, I clarified that it was a thump. Honesty, yes, was in my post with specific clarification. Now, readers can't misinterpret a “thump”, you know, the kind your father or grandfather who listened to old time radio would give you to get your attention? That’s the truth.

As stated by you, "the school board isn’t stupid enough to publish the tape", which can be interpreted that they are indeed stupid, but not that stupid. Maybe you should choose your words differently. Yet, the tape CAN be released as long as they edit out the other children in the video and a copy was attached to the report filed by the sheriff’s office. The report is public record if you’d like to go get a copy for yourself. Further, using the word “never” is false on your part; let the pot not call the kettle black. Stating “the debate can never be resolved” is untrue, as I can give a copy of the tape to whomever as long as the other children are blurred out. I would also not use the word “debate” as it was settled as of 4-04 when I posted the update, thus no longer a debate except for those who continue to keep it as one.

I think that before parents decide to write an essay to submit to the post, without reading updated posts that state that an issue is solved/settled/worked out/over with, then readers should wonder why some want to continue to stir up dead issues that could continue to drive a wedge between an already seemingly divided district. Let’s let dead dogs lie and move forward, continue to grow, which is what I stated the district had been doing in my previous post!

Parent Post: Wow.  Now we have first-hand proof what a few misleading statements will do to the district patrons.

Internet complaint sites are the perfect forum to stir up the tar-and-fears crowd.  For those old enough to remember the radio days (or lucky enough to have parents & grandparents that shared their stories), they can compare how radio worked with complaint sites.  The actors spoke and made noises and everyone interpreted them in their own minds.  The villain was a figment of each person's imagination.  The hero was the most glorious character that a person could conjure up in their minds.  And no two were alike. It was just that person listening to that radio and no one else was in their world.  An explosive sound made them think of a gun even though no gun was really fired. They believed it even though they didn't see a gun fired.

Internet complaint sites are exactly like old time radio:  someone says something or makes a noise and everyone else interprets it in their own mind using their own imagination in front of their own computer.  They did not see it nor did they speak with anyone that had seen it.  They believe it because they WANT to believe it.  They picture in their mind the worst thing they could tolerate.

Everyone should admit what the first thought was that came into their mind when they read that a bus driver had hit a child.  I bet most people conjured up a good round-house punch from the classic barroom brawl.  For those that didn't, I bet a big part of those thought of a good slap to the face that a jilted lady gave to her male counterpart.  Now, stop to think about reality.  I'm sure this issue, like all important bus disciplinary issues, has been handled by the Transportation Supervisor.  Do you think for 1 second if what was described really happened that he, the man with the ultimate care and concern for your children, would keep the driver on the payroll?  How many readers had kids go through high school when Dick was in charge?  Is that the way he handled things?  Give the man and his group some credit!

The person that originally submitted this complaint should really reevaluate his/her choice of words.  Did the driver really "hit" the child? You've seen the tape.  Be honest. Just like you think "Something should be done in order to hold the driver's(sic) accountable for their actions", I think parents should  be held accountable for the accusations they make on DCS Post or other complaint sites.  Stirring up the tar-and-feathers crowd with misleading words is irresponsible and dishonest.

To the person that spoke up and suggested that the original complainant contact the DA: Have you seen the tape?  How do you know it's anywhere NEAR the Jessica Renaker case?  You should be careful about giving advice on matters of which you don't have intimate knowledge.

And to the editor:  First, I dare you to publish this.  I know it's your site and you have editorial rights over it being the owner, but be bold enough to balance out complaints with some objectivity.  Secondly, I challenge you to not believe everything people submit carte blanche.  There is a big difference in the stories between what the parents and the videos tell.  Ever have a child that told a "misleading" story whose truth was later revealed?  It happens all the time with bus incidents both with what kids say and parents say happened.

You stated "This is so wrong on in so many ways".  One of the worst wrongs in this topic is that you swallowed it all hook, line, and sinker.  Did you verify _anything_ she said?  Or, are you walking around passing out the lit torches, buckets of tar, and bundles of feathers?

Regarding your update on 4/3/2008, since it was posted after I started this:  Be careful stating the school district "violated several laws."  You don't know what they said to the parent.  You have no idea if they explained the process to the parent or they said anything specific to him/her about the consequences regarding the driver.  I realize you said in the following point 1 "If", but you made an unqualified statement above that.  You don't know what this "hit" really looked like.  You're saying no form of hitting is acceptable and you're correct.  The parent is labelling it a "hit" and I bet the district is not.  I haven't seen the tape since it's not publicly available.  Since the district isn't stupid enough to break the law and expose it, you'll only get 1 person's opinion and thus the debate can never be resolved.  So you have in front of you the major drawback and shortcoming of a complaint site - 1 person can freely and openly make an accusation and the other side cannot legally respond.  Nothing the respondent can ever say or do will satisfy the crowd because they cannot legally supply evidence to support their position.
 

Our Reply: Thanks for the post and the amusing radio analogy.  You did leave out a couple of important points though.  Our website posts many positive stories as well.  Maybe you chose not to read them or maybe your mind just jumped to a conclusion based on one fact?

As for the school district, we guess they saw it as more than what you claim since they brought in an investigator to talk with the family involved.  Imagine if they had done this from the beginning. Then you would have never read anything about this situation anywhere.  You state that Dick Vrooman would never put kids in harms way.  Maybe you should read the post about Rose Union’s portables lack of fire protection and you would realize that he has done that once before.

As for the law, it is what it is whether or not you want to see it for what it is. I know that you know that I know that you know this.

In the end, it is kind of ironic that you questioned just about everything yet everything you question came to be true.  Could it be that by making the situation public forced the school to do the right thing?  But then again what good would ever come out of openly discussing topics and concerns?

Parent Post: Well, I understand by reading numerous posts on here that those in administrative positions may not have done the right things in previous situations regarding child abuse. I would like to state what has been "settled" with regards to this specific incident.

The hit to my child's head was a "thump" and not an open-handed slap or fist punch. I agree that not even a thump is appropriate and no one should be allowed to touch another child, regardless of a thump, hit, punch, slap, or whatever word we want to use.

I was very frustrated with Mr. Vrooman, as he did not have the public skills to address this situation appropriately. Again, stating "we don't have enough paperwork in the district to write children up," which is definitely against procedure, did not settle with me. In addition, he told me he had a "stack of papers to get to” and "also driving a route due to a lack of drivers" and viewing the tape of the incident was in that stack of things to do. My response: if a child is hit then shouldn't this be moved to the top of that pile? Again, my frustrations were with him as a leader of his transportation team and his lack of a sense of urgency on this matter.

I have since spoke with the superintendant and Mrs. Derieux (sorry for misspelling) and they were very understanding, seemed very concerned about the issue and were proactive with dealing with me. In fact, today the superintendant called me in again with a sheriff deputy to make sure that we were all on the same page and I was comfortable with the outcome. My concern was that this incident would be brushed under the rug and could continue to happen.

Yet, the superintendant herself requested that the sheriff come in and listen to what happened and that he file an incident report so that it would indeed be documented. The report is public record and will hopefully serve as a deterrent for any future incidents from this driver or any other driver in our district.

I do not want to cause any problems within our district and in fact, I love it here; The education my children are getting is outstanding. I have no intentions of filing charges or taking this to another level.

Again, based on MY experience alone, I have been treated fairly and given more than the appropriate attention from the superintendant and especially Mrs. Derieux. Trust me, if I felt differently, I would definitely have no problem taking this to another level. I feel that maybe mistakes have been made in the past within our district and people are growing and learning from their mistakes. I want to move on and hope that this is never an issue again. I think we should all keep our eyes open to any new incidents but at the same time, move on and let our district be as great as it can be!
 

Our Reply: Thanks for the update.  The fact that the school district handled this the right way in the end is all that we can ask. 

Update: This is in response to several irrate emails from bogus email addresses defending the bus driver. Please remember that we reserve the right to post emails and for those that go against our policies and/or are particularly noxious with bogus emails, we are more likely not to post them.

The situation involving the student being hit is not a condemnation of bus drivers.  What is in question is the decision of one individual no matter what their position.  It is also another example of the school district mishandling a situation.

The school district MUST report any possible situation of child abuse to the proper authorities.  Then it is up to the proper authorities to investigate and determine whether or not the situation is criminal or not.  Had the school district followed proper procedure then this whole situation could have been handled without it going public.

The school district also violated several laws.

1. If they did indeed tell the family that the involved individual was going to receive a verbal warning.  By doing this the school district gives the perception that the school employee did something wrong.  Unfortunately if the individual involved did nothing wrong then he/she was labeled by the school district not the family. Take your anger out at the school district for their actions not the family.
2. They are required to report certain issues immediately to the proper state authorities. We believe this incident fell under that umbrella. From what we understand, the school did not report this to the proper authorities.

For the individuals who suggested debating how the employee hit the child, there is no form of hitting that is ever acceptable.  The school district has procedures in place for discipline.  None of which involve hitting a student in any form or fashion.

Parent Post: This is in response to the lady whose child was hit by the bus driver. Please contact the District Atty ASAP. This is illegal. It is very similar to the Jessica Renaker case, and should be reported. If DC administration allows this to happen they can be charged as well. Legally they should've notified the county immediately.

Parent Post:

I would like to see a post with regards to the transportation issue in our district. My son was hit on top of the head by a bus driver, #7, and I was told a verbal warning would be given. What?? In addition, I was told that we do not have enough drivers in the district to terminate him. So, the logic is to keep a "warm body" who obviously lacks any self control to be around children in a position because we don't have anyone else to fill it. When did it become appropriate for an adult in the school system to hit a child and only get a verbal warning?

I have watched the tape and it is blatant that my son did not deserve this. The driver was actually getting on to the child beside my son and the driver only wanted my son to move seats, so this was the driver's way of "getting my son's attention." I was told "we don't have enough paperwork in the district" to file a complaint for every incident that happens on the bus. So, again, the logic is to not follow the district's own procedure of write-ups but instead just hit the kid.

Something should be done in order to hold the driver's accountable for their actions. I understand the lack of bus drivers, but do not believe in keeping people in position to work with children if they do not have the skills to do so.

I ask that parent's talk with their kids about instances on the bus and for parent's to file complaints on these issues and do not just let it go. If enough complaints are filed, then hopefully we can weed out those not intended to work with our children. Or, a lawsuit will definitely result!
  

Our Reply

This is so wrong on in so many ways.  First of all a shortage of employees should never dictate that the district keep an employee who may be a threat to any student.  Secondly, they told you what the discipline would be.  That goes against everything the school board has said about personnel files being open to the public.  Another example of them talking out of both sides of their mouths.

We agree with you that everyone should be filing the necessary paperwork any time any thing happens to keep it from being swept under the rug by the district.  Hopefully there will be a change in the school board after tonight.