Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?


Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.


She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.


She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.


These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.


That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.


They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.


As I understand it (just from reading the various articles linked in this thread, including FCPS’s summary), she was given unrestricted access to an unencrypted USB drive (or a number of drives). Once FCPS makes thee drive(s) accessible to her without restriction, she can look through them without restriction (and download, etc.). That’s not theft.


The literal quote from FCPS states that the data was not given to her. She took it from somewhere in the office.


And yet, they didn’t press charges alleging theft. Hmmmm.


They still could, let's stay tuned.


Lol. The intelligence level (or lack there of) of this area never ceases to amaze me.


We are trying to have a civil discussion here. No need for you to be a kunt about it.


If repeating the same false info over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for 73 pages in hopes that will make it true is “civil”…well then, mea culpa (that means my bad)
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?


Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.


She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.


She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.


These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.


That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.


They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.


As I understand it (just from reading the various articles linked in this thread, including FCPS’s summary), she was given unrestricted access to an unencrypted USB drive (or a number of drives). Once FCPS makes thee drive(s) accessible to her without restriction, she can look through them without restriction (and download, etc.). That’s not theft.


The literal quote from FCPS states that the data was not given to her. She took it from somewhere in the office.


And yet, they didn’t press charges alleging theft. Hmmmm.


They still could, let's stay tuned.


Lol. The intelligence level (or lack there of) of this area never ceases to amaze me.


We are trying to have a civil discussion here. No need for you to be a kunt about it.


If repeating the same false info over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for 73 pages in hopes that will make it true is “civil”…well then, mea culpa (that means my bad)


Nothing I’ve posted is false.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?


Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.


She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.


She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.


These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.


That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.


They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.


As I understand it (just from reading the various articles linked in this thread, including FCPS’s summary), she was given unrestricted access to an unencrypted USB drive (or a number of drives). Once FCPS makes thee drive(s) accessible to her without restriction, she can look through them without restriction (and download, etc.). That’s not theft.


The literal quote from FCPS states that the data was not given to her. She took it from somewhere in the office.


And yet, they didn’t press charges alleging theft. Hmmmm.


They still could, let's stay tuned.


Lol. The intelligence level (or lack there of) of this area never ceases to amaze me.


We are trying to have a civil discussion here. No need for you to be a kunt about it.


If repeating the same false info over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for 73 pages in hopes that will make it true is “civil”…well then, mea culpa (that means my bad)


Nothing I’ve posted is false.


Then I guess it wasn’t directed to you then, now was it?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?


Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.


She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.


She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.


These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.


That doesn’t matter under the law. FCPS should have ensured that it only permitted her to access the specific information covered by her request. That’s a basic premise of responding to a FOIA request (give the minimum you need to provide) even absent the privacy obligations that also prohibited FCPS from disclosing other students” records. The requestor has no obligation to double-check what FCPS provided to make sure that it did not exceed the scope of the request. That’s FCPS’s duty not Oettinger’s

The ethics/morals of what Oettinger did can be argued separately. But that has no bearing on the law.


They did. See the above she stole data not provided to her.


As I understand it (just from reading the various articles linked in this thread, including FCPS’s summary), she was given unrestricted access to an unencrypted USB drive (or a number of drives). Once FCPS makes thee drive(s) accessible to her without restriction, she can look through them without restriction (and download, etc.). That’s not theft.


The literal quote from FCPS states that the data was not given to her. She took it from somewhere in the office.


And yet, they didn’t press charges alleging theft. Hmmmm.


They still could, let's stay tuned.


Lol. The intelligence level (or lack there of) of this area never ceases to amaze me.


We are trying to have a civil discussion here. No need for you to be a kunt about it.


If repeating the same false info over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for 73 pages in hopes that will make it true is “civil”…well then, mea culpa (that means my bad)


Nothing I’ve posted is false.


Then I guess it wasn’t directed to you then, now was it?


If you have nothing to add to the discussion then sit down.
Anonymous
Case closed:

"Oettinger said the lead investigator, Beth Waller, never contacted her. Waller did not return calls or emails seeking comment.

Reid’s letter to families stated that Oettinger and her attorney “provided declarations under oath and penalty of perjury stating they have deleted and do not have any of the identifiable student information that was involved in this incident.”

Oettinger said she wished the district had made greater efforts to clarify that she didn’t release any student’s private information. "

https://www.the74million.org/article/fairfax-district-urged-to-clean-up-student-privacy-protections/
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?


Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.


She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.


She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.


These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.


They were because they were given as part of a foia request. New to this, aren’t you?


Were they? Or it was left on a table and she took it?


Well, she’s not in jail, so….But I understand context clues. Call it a gift, call it a curse in 2023.


All I’m saying is that her claim that FCPS sent her wrong data is a little different than her taking data that wasn’t explicitly handed to her.


If they sent her data, she didn't steal it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing this FCPS link. I had not seen it. The fact that this was an " unusual review" says a lot. FCPS found the problem, which " occurred because older thumb drives containing unredacted files pulled to respond to the parent’s prior FERPA requests were unintentionally and unknowingly left within boxes accessible to the parent during her in‑person review." I guess the parent has had many FOIA requestions. Even though the parent knew our children's information was private and confidential, they " copied the files and removed them from FCPS property." How is this ok?


Callie made a data request.
FCPS responded by giving her a box of data, thumb drives, etc.
Callie made a valid request - it is FCPS as the Custodian of the Data who is responsible for giving the correct data out.
So, it is reasonable for Callie to expect this is the data that pertained to her request.

Is FCPS seriously that lazy? I have been a provider of many FOIA requests. The process is simple:
1. Define the scope
2. Gather the minimum materials to respond
3. Peer review of materials
4. Legal review of material
Its simple.


She took it without parents’ consent.

Then she distributed it to others, including a conservative think tank.

And she also published semi-redacted portions on her website; some families are identifiable via details provided.


She does not need anyone’s consent to publicize materials that she received via a FOIA (or similar sunshine law) request. The law is very clear on this issue.


These materials were not part of the FOIA request though.


They were because they were given as part of a foia request. New to this, aren’t you?


Were they? Or it was left on a table and she took it?


Well, she’s not in jail, so….But I understand context clues. Call it a gift, call it a curse in 2023.


All I’m saying is that her claim that FCPS sent her wrong data is a little different than her taking data that wasn’t explicitly handed to her.


If they sent her data, she didn't steal it.


She addresses many of these questions, with comment section in various posts on her non profit website: https://specialeducationaction.com/person/about-callie-oettinger/

Yes, fcps was that lazy. Fcps have her information that was for her child, but also included emails, which then has embedded attachments about her child, but also other attachments about others.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Fcps should stop waste money anywhere else and start hiring top IT company to manage its data security issues.


Lol, fcps does not hire IT people for their IT department!

I did an intern for fcps while in high school.
ALL of the IT people I met were previously in other government positions, but instead of being let go, they we're moved to fcps IT department, instead of fighting the union, or got there as a favor. A few were able to do ok in fcps IT, instead of managing a class room. Many do the bare minimum. Some take pride in their new role, and ok, and get by, even though they have no IT background. Interestingly, one of the smartest guys, was an ex cop that had a mental break down while he was on the force, so he instead got into fcps IT(no IT background). I remember he had facial ticks and severe anxiety, but was one of the few people in fcps IT that knew stuff, as he just kept working on something until he could figure it out.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:FCPS should be held accountable for their carelessness.

And Callie should also be held accountable for violating privacy of thousands of families.


And on page 65 of this thread, this statement sums it all up neatly. You can hand wave all you want (and that's been done REPEATEDLY over the past 65 pages) but this still holds true.


Exactly. 65 pages of back and forth. If you can find an attorney who will take your case, do it. What I’m seeing is a lot of people who I suspect already contacted an attorney and were told they don’t have a case who keep coming back here and “hand waving” hoping they can get some satisfaction for their misplaced anger.


People can be angry at multiple things.

FCPS? Of course.

Callie? She is 100% responsible for her own actions. Anger towards her is not misplaced.


It’s misplaced because nobody’s mad at the dozens of other parents who sifted through all the data that wasn’t about their kid to find the data about their kid and is likely sitting in an insecure manner on a desktop or server because they don’t have a defined disposal process or a strong security protocol because they are a person and not an organization, unlike Callie, who is a 501c3 and has a destruction protocol. I’m more upset that it’s sitting insecure on many people’s personal computers where one click on a malware link can put everything for sale on the dark web.


1. Callie is not a 501c3. She is the President of a Virginia Nonstock Corporation. The corporation is a separate legal entity from Callie.

2. As far as I can tell, Callie submitted the FOIA in her personal name, and was not acting in her capacity as Officer or Director of Special Education Action Inc. when she took the privileged data from FCPS and transferred it to SEA Inc. So Callie is legally exposed twice for her actions: once in her individual capacity and once in her capacity as Officer and Director of Special Education Action Inc.. The Directors of Special Education Action Inc. also have possible legal exposure if they failed their oversight duties as Directors. Hopefully Callie got them D&O insurance (but I somehow doubt it).

3. Non-profits don’t have “a destruction protocol” unless they are the Terminator. Most non-profits have “document retention policy”, but this is typically not a legal requirement. Nothing prevents the President of a non-profit to put stuff on the dark web, especially if her Board of Directors does not provide serious oversight.

4. The IRS DOES require non-profits to have a Conflict of Interest policy. For instance, using your official position in a non-profit to pursue a personal vendetta against FCPS (or pursue a specific political agenda) would be a potential COI. Failure to have or enforce your COI can result in a 501c3 losing tax-exempt status.

5. Callie (and the I-am-not-Callies that are on the Board of Directors or serve as Officers) were clearly not well-served by Legalzoom as they failed to register with the VDACS Office of Charitable and Regulatory Programs (https://cos.vdacs.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/char_search.cgi). Until they do, Special Education Action Inc. is not allowed to solicit donations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is subject to considerable penalties.

If Callie and the I-am-not-Callies can’t properly run their own lemonade stand in a legal manner, they probably should stop making inaccurate statements on this forum and be a lot more respectful of the public servants who are doing their best to serve the community.







Thank you! Since you are knowledgeable, can you help lead a group and an attorney to take any kind of legal action against Callie? Or to further publicize her non-profits non-compliance so she’ll face legal consequences? Even if her actions with FCPS aren’t illegal, they are immoral, unethical and she (and her advocacy group/followers) are appalling. Many would support any actions that bring her (and her associates) down.


Thank you for your kind words, and Merry Christmas everyone! Much of the back and forth on this forum is now moot, as Callie has declared under oath that she has deleted all the private information that was inadvertently provided to her by FCPS. Lesson 1: FCPS messed up. Lesson 2: After upsetting 35,000 of her neighbors, and needlessly wasting thousands (if not millions) of taxpayers' dollars to make her point, Callie eventually realized that it is smart to do the moral and ethical thing. Since Special Education Action, Inc. did not publish any private information (e.g., HIPAA), there is no reason to believe that they did anything illegal with regard to the data breach.

If you want, you can communicate your displeasure about Callie's actions to the Board of Directors of Special Education Action Incorporated (Entity ID 11354161), which is incorporated as a Virginia Nonstock [Non-Profit] Corporation. More likely than not, however, you have already been communicating with Callie or these 'I-am-not-Callies' on this forum. You also have the legal right to request a summary of the non-profit's financial statements (known as Form 990) for the last three years. Although their failure to respond to public requests to provide these statements risks the tax-exempt status of the organization, the details that Special Education Action Incorporated is required to report are limited, since their lemonade stand has a tiny budget. If you want to use snail mail, the names and addresses of these corporate officers and directors are publicly available on the website of the State Corporation Commission at https://cis.scc.virginia.gov/EntitySearch/Index.

Or you can email Callie using her organization's handy 'contact us' form to request their financial statements:
https://specialeducationaction.com/contact-special-education-action/

As far as I can tell, the only remaining legal issue is that Special Education Action Inc. solicits charitable contributions without being properly registered to do so. (Not all states require this, but Virginia does). Among other solicitations, Special Education Action Incorporated's website has a 'Please Donate' button and a donation form on its website. The words 'Please Donate' constitute a 'solicitation of a contribution' in Virginia. A VDACS database search suggests that Special Education Action Incorporated is NOT registered with VDACS Office of Charitable and Regulatory Programs (OCRP) as required by the Virginia Solicitation of Contributions Law: https://cos.vdacs.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/char_search.cgi

There is no need for anyone to hire a lawyer to address this issue. "Any person who willfully and knowingly violates or causes to be violated any provision of this chapter [i.e., the Virginia Solicitation of Contributions Law (VSOC)] ... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished for the first offense by a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 or by confinement in jail for not more than six months, or both, and for the second and any subsequent offense by a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,500 or by confinement in jail for not more than one year, or both... Whenever the Commissioner [of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services] has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter may have occurred, the Commissioner, upon his own motion or upon complaint of any person, may investigate any charitable or civic organization ... to determine whether such charitable or civic organization... has violated the provisions of this chapter. (VA Code § 57-59)

The Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services responsible for enforcement of this law is Mr. Joseph Guthrie (Phone: 804.786.3501, email: vdacs.commissioner@vdacs.virginia.gov). When you contact a senior state official with a request, it is good practice to inform your elected representatives (i.e., you state senator and state representative) so they can make sure the state government's executive branch follows up appropriately!
https://whosmy.virginiageneralassembly.gov/




Anonymous
I don’t have time to read through 70 pages. Is there a class action forming? If so, please post the information here I’d like to join it.
Anonymous
Except she sent the information to a reporter before she supposedly deleted it. How do we know if the reporter deleted it, or shared it with anyone else?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Except she sent the information to a reporter before she supposedly deleted it. How do we know if the reporter deleted it, or shared it with anyone else?


Just like you have no idea what every other parent has done with the data they were given that they shouldn’t have been. We can go round and round for years on this, but once fcps gives it out, it’s impossible to ever know where it goes from there. That is fact. Everything else is assumption.

This is why the criticality is for fcps to protect our kids’ data.
Anonymous
FCPS did not share anywhere in their official email about this that she gave ALL the data to a reporter. That is so dishonest.
Anonymous
Does anyone have the URL for where the data on the children were posted? We came back from our Christmas break to find this letter from FCPS. As far as I can tell this was a FERPA request for children with an IEP and special needs; however, my child has neither, so I don't even understand how her information was accidentally released. Other kids in her grade that we are friendly with didn't receive this letter so I know that this letter wasn't sent to every kid in FCPS or even most kids. If you have the URL, please post. It's almost 73 pages of discussion and hard to tell if the website was posted earlier. I didn't see the data on Callie's webpage.
Anonymous
The problem here is that the law didn't anticipate malevolent gadflies abusing the FOIA system like this and there is no statute that prevents the dissemination of the data once it has been released by the school system.

The law needs to be amended to take people like her into account.
Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Go to: