Documents: C. J. Huff, Tina Smith bury allegations of lawbreaking, insurance fraud

The possibility is real that the Joplin R-8 Board of Education, without discussion, will change policy tonight to allow Superintendent C. J. Huff complete control over the hiring,firing, and pay of all support personnel, as well as administrative staff pay.

If that happens, the responsibility of caring for the safety and well-being of staff and students lies solely in the hands of C. J. Huff and his administrative staff, primarily Chief Operating Officer Tina Smith and Building Projects Manager Mike Johnson.

In the January 24 Turner Report, I printed the following document, which was provided \by former R-8 employee Luther Hunt to the Missouri Division of Employment Security:

Documents filed with the Missouri Division of Employment Security paint a portrait of an R-8 Administration that purposely chose to ignore allegations of lawbreaking, insurance fraud, verbal harassment, and disregard of federal, state, and local safety regulations against one of their own.

Not only did Superintendent C. J. Huff and R-8 Human Resources Director Tina Smith sweep the accusations against Buildings, Grounds, and Transportation Director Mike Johnson (now in charge of the building project) under the table, but after the whistleblower, environmental control worker Luther Hunt resigned because of the corrosive atmosphere, Ms. Smith took steps to deny Hunt unemployment benefits, according to the documents.

Hunt had documented his allegations in a 10-page letter to Huff, dated August 23, 2011, and sent to the superintendent by certified mail.

In the documentation, he presented to the Division of Employment Security, Hunt provided a timeline for what happened after he sent the letter to Huff. That documentation is provided below:

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

I was employed by the Joplin R-8 School District from March of 2007 through November 2011. Although I greatly enjoyed my job, the actions of the Director of Buildings, Grounds, and Transportation, and the subsequent inaction of the District Administration created an intolerable atmosphere. The bulk of my complaint can be found inthe attached letter. The events subsequent to this letter led me to feel that I had little choice but to terminate my employment. The following is a timeline of these events.

August 23, 2011 (Tuesday)

8:52 a.m.

I sent a ten-page letter, by certified mail, to Dr. C. J. Huff outlining concerns about Mike Johnson and requesting an investigation into Mr. Johnson's activities.

September 2, 2011 (Friday)

3:15 p.m.

After waiting more than two weeks, I called Dr. Huff's office. As he was not available, I left a message with his secretary, Tiny Bridges.

4:28 p.m.

I received a telephone call from Tina Smith (HR director). She said that she had spoken with Dr. Huff about the letter and that he directed her to request a copy of the asbestos documents referenced in the letters. Since Monday was Labor Day I asked her if I could deliver the documents on Tuesday the sixth. She said that would be fine.

4:38 p.m.

I received a telephone call from Dr. Huff. I told him of the conversation I had just had with Tina Smith and I asked him if he or she would be handling this matter. He said that they both would. He also said that he would speak with Mr. Johnson about the letter, and then he would meet with me. He said, "We will get this matter resolved." I told him that several other people were concerned about Mr. Johnson's behavior, including principals. His tone changed from cordial to irritated and he then abruptly said we would deal with the matter later.

September 6, 2011 (Tuesday)

8:54 a.m.

My wife, Ashley Hunt, hand delivered the asbestos documents letters to Tina Smith.

4:00 p.m.

I called Tina Smith and confirmed that she had received the asbestos documents that morning. SHe said that she did and asked if I would meet with her in her office at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday.

September 8, 2011 (Thursday)

I met with Tina Smith at the Administration Building. She said that she had read my letter and asked me several questions concerning points of clarification. She referred to the letter as a "complaint." She asked me if the basis of my "complaint" was a "hostile work environment." I agreed that that was at the heart of my personal issues with the situation. I reiterated that given the nature of the testimony that I had given in the letter, there there should be someinvestigation. I told her that from my standpoint there were two main issues: One if the allegations in my letter were true, and two, given the validity of the statements, either the current Administration condoned Mr. Johnson's behavior or it did not. I knew the statements in my letter to be true, and that I would have to wait and see the Administration's response to know if his behavior was with the consent of management.

I conveyed to Ms. Smith that part of my concern was the well known close relationship between Dr. Huff and Mr. Johnson. The two had reportedly attended professional athletic events in St. Louis, Seattle, and other cities while "looking at other schools as models." Although I was not personally a witness to this relationship, it would explain the "blind eye" toward Mr. Johnson's behavior and the bravado Mr. Johnson displayed in his questionable actions. I expressed these concerns to Ms. Smith. I told her of several instances where Mr. Johnson had used his power to get even with his detractors and that I believed that he would exact revenge on me and/or those around me.

She assured me that everything that I had reported would be confidential. I told her that seemed unlikely for two reasons. First, Dr. Huff had already told me that he would discuss the matter with Mr. Johnson and that given the issues in the letter, I was the only employee that could have written the letter. Second, I told Ms. Smith that Mr. Johnson was currently right outside of her window and that he could see me sitting there talking to her after hours and behind closed doors. She told me that he would probably think I was there for some other reason.

She told me to take a "wait and see" approach and that she and Dr. Huff would look into the matter.

September 21, 2011 (Wednesday)

Tina Smith called me at home and asked if "everything was going okay.' I told her that nothing had changed. She again told me to be patient and take a "wait and see" approach.

September 26, 2011 (Monday)

Mike Johnson called a meeting for al of skill craft and announced that he would be leaving hisposition at Buildings, Grounds and Transportation. He said that he would have an office at the new Administrative Building, and would be taking a position funded by FEMA for three years where he would be overseeing the demolition and replacement of district buildings damaged by the May 22, 2011 tornado.

November 7, 2011 (Monday)

Kent Larson assumed the position of Director of Buildings, Grounds, and Transportation.

Note: Although it appeared that Mr. Johnson had been removed from Buildings, Grounds, and Transportation, there were a few situations that would lead one to believe that this was not truly the case. Earlier in the year, Mr. Johnson had a large office built for himself (Director of BGT at the time). Rather than being housed in the office of the director, the new director, Kent Larson, was being housed in the old smaller office that used to be the director's office. Mr. Johnson retained his office at BGT. Mr. Johnson also kept the company truck that was designated for the director and Mr. Larson was given an older company truck.

In addition to this, Pete Coleman told me and others that Mr. Johnson was telling him that he was "still runing the show." Officially (according to the R-8 website) the new director would no longer report directly to Dr. Huff (as Mike Johnson did) but would report to Jason Cravens (director of instructional services).

November 9, 2011 (Wednesday)

During working hours, I was riding with my lead-man Pete Coleman. He received a call from Tina Smith on his cell phone. He was discussing paint supplies and colors with her. After the call, he explained to me that she had hired him "under the table" to paint her house. It seemed inappropriate for her to conduct personal business with an an employee over the phone and it appeared to be an obvious conflict of interest.

November 5, 2011 (Friday)

Pete Coleman handed me a letter, signed by Kent Larson, requiring that the other asbestos worker and I each work four ten-hour days and one weekend starting November 29, 2011. Pete Coleman told me that he knew that this letter had come from Mr. Johnson. This made sense in that the reason for the hours was related to the demolition of R-8 buildings. (This work was previously covered by temporary employees from Manpower.) One of the main reasons that I worked at this job was the hours: Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. This change in hours was unilateral with no input from those affected. I was and am convinced that this was the first in a series of punitive actions originating with Mr. Johnson.

Later this day, Dave Pettit called the other asbestos worker and me into his office. He gave us a request from Mike Johnson asking us to go into the destroyed Joplin High School. The purpose was to ascertain the accessbility to the band room for asbestos testing. The building was structuraly unsound and possibly contaminated with asbestos, mold, and other hazards. My partner and I decided against going in.

Note: A few days later, my partner and I escorted an outside contractor to the building. He donned a protective Tyvek suit and respirator. He tested band instruments and sheet music. Subsequently, my partner told me that 16 of the 20 samples that were taken came back contaminated with asbestos; this is just the dust that had settled on the items.

November 16, 2011 (Wednesday)

I tendered my resignation letter to Kent Larson. When I handed ti to him first thing in the morning, he smiled and said, "Great!" This response seemed odd to me.

Later that day, Mr. Pettit asked me to come into his office. I was standing by the reception desk approximately five feet from his open door. He had Mr. Larson in his office. I overheard Mr. Larson telling him that "we should be prepared for the whistleblower...we will have most of the buildings demolished by the time he can do anything." After Mr. Larson left, Mr. Pettit invited me into his office and wished me well in my future endeavors.

Note: It was not my intention to eavesdrop. However, hearing my name naturally caused me to focus on the words following my name.

It should also be noted that in the interim between my resignation and termination date my partner told me that management was trying to cover its tracks. The aforementioned asbestos letters were requested yet again. He also told me that Mr. :Pettit had asked him to change the original date from September 2009 to September 2011. My partner told him that he did not know how to do this.

Also, since I announced my departure, several other meetings were held regarding the demolition of the buildings. Although I was excluded from these meetings, I was informed that the schedule that I was being asked to work was no longer the case.

November 30, 2011

Last day of employment

The preceding account is to the best of my knowledge. It is not all inclusive as remembrances of events do not all simultaneously surface with regard to the last five years. It is important to note that there are many others who have suffered through this regime. While employed with the district, I never received any reprimands or official disciplinary actions. I endured an ever increasingly hostile situation. I tried to address these issues through the proper channels only to find out that they were squarely and inextricably tied to Mr. Johnson.

Perhaps one reason for this cohesiveness is a pending lawsuit by former custodial supervisor George Morris. I recently discovered this wrongful termination suit while researching pending suits against Mr. Johnson. The school district is named as a co-defendant in this open case. This might explain why they will not conduct an open investigation into his activities. Such an investigation might also implicate others.

Another wrongful termination case involving Mr. Johnson involves former lead carpenter Brian Long. While I cannot find an official record of this case, is is widely believed that Mr. Long won a settlement out of court for back pay and punitive damages in the amount of $98,000. Again, I have no proof of this. But if it did happen and they are covering it up, it would be relevant in the Morris case, my situation, and the plight of those still under the current management. When I mentioned this case to Tina Smith, she simply smiled.

In summation, I would very much like to have my job back. There are some really wonderful people that worked and work there. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is so toxic and Mike Johnson, with the aid and support of management, has targeted me and those around me. I am still reeling from this experience, and I do not know what I should do next. I wish the appropriate agencies would step in and address this situation.