Woman jailed for sending kids to suburban school

[Bakustra]

Akron News article

DOWNTOWN AKRON — A West Akron woman is serving 10 days in jail after a jury convicted her of two felony counts of tampering with records in order to send her children to Copley-Fairlawn City Schools.

At the Jan. 18 sentencing of Kelley Williams-Bolar, Summit County Common Pleas Court Judge Patricia Cosgrove handed down a sentence of five years in prison for each count, to be served concurrently. She then, in consideration of Williams-Bolar’s lack of a police record, suspended the sentence and placed her on two years of community control.

However, the judge added she felt some jail time is appropriate in the case, and she sentenced the defendant to 10 days in the Summit County Jail.

According to court records, Williams-Bolar, 40, is a resident of Hartford Avenue in West Akron, located in the Akron Public Schools’ Buchtel Cluster. She used the address of her father’s home in Copley on multiple forms to establish residency there, according to court documents, even though she maintained a home through the Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority.

Prior to the sentencing, Cosgrove said she spent a lot of time considering the sentence but felt some punishment was necessary in the case.

“These forms were filled out over a period of years,” she said. “I understand trying to do the best for your children, but the ends don’t justify the means.”

Williams-Bolar said she had “no intention at all” of trying to deceive school officials.

“I need to be there for my kids,” she told the judge before sentencing.

Her attorney, Kerry O’Brien, asked the judge to consider community control because of Williams-Bolar’s clean record. Assistant Summit County Prosecutor Terri Burnside said the state was not opposed to community control for the defendant.

Cosgrove said she hopes the sentence serves as a deterrent and will make others “think twice” before trying to enroll their children in districts where they do not live. She also sentenced Williams-Bolar to 80 hours of community service.

The judge noted that Williams-Bolar, who is enrolled in college and studying to become a teacher, will not be able to get a teaching license in Ohio because of her felony convictions. She said she weighed that when considering the sentence.

An emotional Williams-Bolar was led from the courtroom after her lawyer asked when her 10-day sentence would begin and the judge said immediately.

In addition to the charges of tampering with records, Williams-Bolar additionally was charged with grand theft because she did not pay charges the Copley-Fairlawn City Schools levied against her. The jury failed to reach a unanimous decision in that case and in a case against her father, Edward Williams, for aiding and abetting his daughter.

This is slightly abridged, with the choice parts bolded.

So, what we have is a woman (guess her race! Go on, guess it!) who lives in the projects and who registered her children under her father's suburban residence to get into a high-quality suburban school, while she worked toward a teaching degree so she could leave poverty. She now will not be able to find a teaching job, and she and her children will almost certainly remain poor.

While she did undoubtedly commit fraud, does the punishment fit the crime in this case? Is it really justifiable to negate her educational efforts and attempts to leave poverty? Of course, it doesn't really matter because in these United States, there is no structural poverty and so she must have had some fault that made her poor.

[Stofsk]

While she did undoubtedly commit fraud, does the punishment fit the crime in this case? Is it really justifiable to negate her educational efforts and attempts to leave poverty?

Nope. There's nothing about this case that doesn't stink.

Sounds like the Judge was unsympathetic, which might have influenced the juries' verdict. I hope this gets appealed.

[Mr Bean]

The punishment in this case was two years of community service. The fact that jail time was ever considered was a mistake even if it did not end up happening. Do I support what she did? No in the logical sense I don't support this kind of thing in general. There's always the option of going together on a house, I damn well know enough Hispanics and four Vietnamese families who went in together in the same house in order to make sure they went to our much better school by moving out of the inner city to the suburbs to and using the house as their address.

On the other hand look at my advice, "No no ma'am you just need to game the system smarter" Not "Don't do this" but "don't do this so you will be caught as easily"

[Simon_Jester]

In a system that does not encourage people to improve their situation, and in some ways actively discourages attempts at improvement by creating and then ignoring problems like structural poverty, advising people to game the system is perfectly reasonable.

Gaming the system is only a vice when the system itself is virtuous.

[Broomstick]

It's not unknown for people in the projects to send their kids to actually live with relatives in the suburbs for purposes of schooling. If she had done that, if her kids lived with their grandfather, in the district, no law would have been broken.

True, this is not an ideal solution but it would have gained the same results without breaking the law.

That said - although she did commit fraud a verdict that prevents her from earning a living in her chosen field in this particular case does seem excessive. Or maybe the concept that all felonies are equal and people with felonies on their record should be permanently barred from vast categories of employment is part of the problem.

I have sympathy for her, as at one point my parents did send one of my sisters and me to a school district we did not live in for several months. I never asked what subterfuge was used, although it involved spending quite a bit a time at someone else's house (I was boarding the school bus from their stop), cautioning me to not say anything to anyone about where we really lived, and ended when we moved into the actual neighborhood. So yeah, I've been there, done that. What's unusual is not what she did, but that she got caught.

[Molyneux]

I didn't start to get pissed about this until I saw that the conviction will stop her from getting a teaching license.
I really would like to get a chance to ask the judge what the hell she was thinking. Did she even blink when she ruined a woman's chance to improve herself?

[Broomstick]

The judge may not have had much choice. If an offense is a felony a judge can't arbitrarily change it to a misdemeanor. Changing it to a suspended sentence may have been the only option for leniency under the law.

[Captain Seafort]

I really would like to get a chance to ask the judge what the hell she was thinking. Did she even blink when she ruined a woman's chance to improve herself?

What's the judge got to do with it? The problem is with the blanket ban that came with her conviction, not the sentencing.

[General Zod]

According to Ohio law record tampering is a third degree felony only if it's a government record, which unfortunately seems to be the case here. It's possible she could appeal and get it dropped to a misdemeanor, but it doesn't look likely.

[Highlord Laan]

So, what we have is a woman (guess her race! Go on, guess it!) who lives in the projects and who registered her children under her father's suburban residence to get into a high-quality suburban school, while she worked toward a teaching degree so she could leave poverty. She now will not be able to find a teaching job, and she and her children will almost certainly remain poor.

While she did undoubtedly commit fraud, does the punishment fit the crime in this case? Is it really justifiable to negate her educational efforts and attempts to leave poverty? Of course, it doesn't really matter because in these United States, there is no structural poverty and so she must have had some fault that made her poor.

"How dare you attempt to get around the societal roadblocks we built to keep your kind in your place! Back to the curb, lesser creature! To to gulag with you!"

Pretty much the entire basis the US boiled down to it's base parts. Those that "deserve" to be prosperous have already been born into it, everyone is trash and/or servants.

[erik_t]

Pretty much the entire basis the US boiled down to it's base parts. Those that "deserve" to be prosperous have already been born into it, everyone is trash and/or servants.

Or, you know, that committing fraud is bad and must be dissuaded through punishment. Either/or.

[Highlord Laan]

Pretty much the entire basis the US boiled down to it's base parts. Those that "deserve" to be prosperous have already been born into it, everyone is trash and/or servants.

Or, you know, that committing fraud is bad and must be dissuaded through punishment. Either/or.

The fact that fraud had to be committed just so a woman and her kids could have a fighting chance at getting out of the shithole they're forced to live in means nothing at all, no sir.

Meanwhile, the scum that writes the laws go to commit fraud every day get to stay in power, because they're rich, white, and own everyone that owes them favors. Damn stright the status quo will be enforced at all costs. Anything else would be unamerican.

[Broomstick]

Yes, just ignore the fact that sending her kids to leave with their grandfather for a few years might have provided and entirely legal way to play the system in their favor. Maybe she could have moved in with her dad, too. My sister and my dad live under the same roof now. It's not an unknown arrangement in the US.

[Bakustra]

Pretty much the entire basis the US boiled down to it's base parts. Those that "deserve" to be prosperous have already been born into it, everyone is trash and/or servants.

Or, you know, that committing fraud is bad and must be dissuaded through punishment. Either/or.

I agree, but I don't think that the punishment really fits the crime in this case. Not to mention that she was also charged with grand theft for tuition costs, which is frankly excessive.

[Broomstick]

I agree, but I don't think that the punishment really fits the crime in this case. Not to mention that she was also charged with grand theft for tuition costs, which is frankly excessive.

"Grand theft" is usually based on a dollar amount. For tuition, it can easily run into the thousands of dollars, which is well into "grand theft" levels.

Charging her with grand theft and felony fraud isn't a decision of the judge or the lawyers - these things are determined by the people who write and pass the laws.

[Aaron]

Yes, just ignore the fact that sending her kids to leave with their grandfather for a few years might have provided and entirely legal way to play the system in their favor. Maybe she could have moved in with her dad, too. My sister and my dad live under the same roof now. It's not an unknown arrangement in the US.

Maybe it simply wasn't possible.

[Bakustra]

I agree, but I don't think that the punishment really fits the crime in this case. Not to mention that she was also charged with grand theft for tuition costs, which is frankly excessive.

"Grand theft" is usually based on a dollar amount. For tuition, it can easily run into the thousands of dollars, which is well into "grand theft" levels.

Charging her with grand theft and felony fraud isn't a decision of the judge or the lawyers - these things are determined by the people who write and pass the laws.

Except that she didn't steal anything, seeing as her father actually lived in the district and actually paid his property taxes and both she and her father paid the other state and federal taxes that go to finance education. So I don't really see how you can say that she stole the cost of a tuition, unless you're just trying to rub salt into the wound/focus on punishment over rehabilitation.

[Broomstick]

Because the children's legal residence was NOT that suburban address yes she broke the law. Law is not about what you think is right, proper, or justified. It's about what's written down and approved by the legislature. The kids weren't legal residents of the district, therefore, attending school there was against the law and did represent theft of educational resources.

True, there might have been some issue with moving in with her dad - but we don't know either way, you're just making an assumption.

True, a lot of us think the punishment is excessive in this situation but only you are denying she broke the law.

As I said, my own family faced this at one point (1975, if you want the exact year) and did what we did fully cognizant we were, in fact, breaking the law In fact, my parents WERE caught in the case of my older sister, but were able to pay the tuition owed without being dragged into court. It was thousands of dollars, even back in 1975. The district chose not to prosecute, but they certainly could have. My parents did that for the same reason that woman did - the educational system where we were living was terrible, and they wanted better for us. I get it. This isn't uncommon. The thing is, she got caught. I feel bad for her, but that's the penalty.

[Bakustra]

Because the children's legal residence was NOT that suburban address yes she broke the law. Law is not about what you think is right, proper, or justified. It's about what's written down and approved by the legislature. The kids weren't legal residents of the district, therefore, attending school there was against the law and did represent theft of educational resources.

True, there might have been some issue with moving in with her dad - but we don't know either way, you're just making an assumption.

True, a lot of us think the punishment is excessive in this situation but only you are denying she broke the law.

As I said, my own family faced this at one point (1975, if you want the exact year) and did what we did fully cognizant we were, in fact, breaking the law In fact, my parents WERE caught in the case of my older sister, but were able to pay the tuition owed without being dragged into court. It was thousands of dollars, even back in 1975. The district chose not to prosecute, but they certainly could have. My parents did that for the same reason that woman did - the educational system where we were living was terrible, and they wanted better for us. I get it. This isn't uncommon. The thing is, she got caught. I feel bad for her, but that's the penalty.

Broomstick, you've been infected, with a disease. This disease causes you to only see what you want to see, though in your case you feel compelled to throw in personal anecdotes. That reminds of the time that I overthrew the kingdom of Zanzibar aided by only a trained macaw... but you ignore what I am actually saying, which is that claiming that she stole the full cost of tuition is ludicrous, seeing as tuition is paid for by taxes which were in this case paid. The school did not lose any money. She did break the law, but I dispute whether the response is appropriate for the crime committed. This is something that would understand, were your mind not obsessed with petty victories and small triumphs.

[erik_t]

Or, you know, that committing fraud is bad and must be dissuaded through punishment. Either/or.

I agree, but I don't think that the punishment really fits the crime in this case. Not to mention that she was also charged with grand theft for tuition costs, which is frankly excessive.

I don't necessarily disagree with your first statement; I believe the latter has been handled already. However, treating this prosecution as representative of intentional class warfare is asinine.

[spartasman]

Just how exactly is becoming a teacher supposed to raise her out of poverty, anyway? Not that it's not commendable, but a teachers salary does not pave the way to the suburbs.

Other than that, she did break the law doing what she was doing, but the judge making an example out of her is disgusting to me.

[Bakustra]

Or, you know, that committing fraud is bad and must be dissuaded through punishment. Either/or.

I agree, but I don't think that the punishment really fits the crime in this case. Not to mention that she was also charged with grand theft for tuition costs, which is frankly excessive.

I don't necessarily disagree with your first statement; I believe the latter has been handled already. However, treating this prosecution as representative of intentional class warfare is asinine.

Laan's a buffoon, but this prosecution is something that would frankly only realistically affect the poor, so I don't really think that you can outright discount the class disparity in this.

Just how exactly is becoming a teacher supposed to raise her out of poverty, anyway? Not that it's not commendable, but a teachers salary does not pave the way to the suburbs.

Other than that, she did break the law doing what she was doing, but the judge making an example out of her is disgusting to me.

It's a steady income, which may well be more than she has currently, and more importantly, it's a job that she can realistically attain, unlike many other better-paying positions.

[Terralthra]

Broomstick, you've been infected, with a disease. This disease causes you to only see what you want to see, though in your case you feel compelled to throw in personal anecdotes. That reminds of the time that I overthrew the kingdom of Zanzibar aided by only a trained macaw... but you ignore what I am actually saying, which is that claiming that she stole the full cost of tuition is ludicrous, seeing as tuition is paid for by taxes which were in this case paid. The school did not lose any money. She did break the law, but I dispute whether the response is appropriate for the crime committed. This is something that would understand, were your mind not obsessed with petty victories and small triumphs.

And as luck would have it, she wasn't convicted of grand theft for the "stolen" tuition, possibly for exactly those reasons. So, how about you (and everyone else mewling about it) climb off the soapbox on that one?

[Bakustra]

Broomstick, you've been infected, with a disease. This disease causes you to only see what you want to see, though in your case you feel compelled to throw in personal anecdotes. That reminds of the time that I overthrew the kingdom of Zanzibar aided by only a trained macaw... but you ignore what I am actually saying, which is that claiming that she stole the full cost of tuition is ludicrous, seeing as tuition is paid for by taxes which were in this case paid. The school did not lose any money. She did break the law, but I dispute whether the response is appropriate for the crime committed. This is something that would understand, were your mind not obsessed with petty victories and small triumphs.

And as luck would have it, she wasn't convicted of grand theft for the "stolen" tuition, possibly for exactly those reasons. So, how about you (and everyone else mewling about it) climb off the soapbox on that one?

Except that the charges were brought in the first place and it was considered reasonable by the prosecution. I'll jump down off the soapbox if you'll get off that high horse, bub.

[Chardok]

I think we're ignoring a....thing here. As a father, one who is doing miles better financially at the VERY least, than his ex-wife who ultimately has primary custody of our daughter, how in the poopsock did a judge allow a child to be placed with a woman who is in the projects/ghettos/whatever struggling to get by so much so that she feels compelled to LIE to SAVE her child from the neighoborhood where they live, as opposed to an (obviously) more well-off and (apparently) more intelligent (he does live in a good school district in a HOUSE so it's very probable that both of those were intentional) father?

God I hate the F*ing Child welfare system in this country.