In fact, Nathaniel has accused district administrators of trying to work an underhanded, quid pro quo deal with Speights’ family, alleging that Fritz offered to urge prosecutors to drop two misdemeanor criminal charges against the teen if he and his mother collaborated with the district in its case against the teacher.  FALSE
There was not an agreement to advocate for a student in court in return for his mother's cooperation with a District employee termination action.  The student and parent were always cooperative with the District's investigator, and consistently asserted to District personnel that they felt wronged by the District's teacher.


The district has denied the allegations, but, in his Sept. 30 deposition for the DOAH case, Fritz admitted that he went to court and told County Judge Joe Wild that the district had no desire to press charges against Speights. FALSE

The District never wanted to press charges against the student and went to court to validate that the situation was being resolved amicably between the parties.  The District never felt that criminal charges were necessary.  Dr. Fritz supervises the Risk Management department for the District and is responsible for Property and Casualty Insurance.  As a result, it is within his scope of responsibility to speak on behalf of the District regarding its interests in property damage.


The parent of the referenced student has authorized the District to share information with the public about these events.