Henry Williams - Professional...Liar

Anyone who grew up in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and into the 1990s in North St. Louis County could tell you the truth about school rivalries and the commitment by teachers, school boards, and school superintendents. If you went to public or parochial schools, you knew what you were up against when you had friends at a rival school.

If, for example, you grew up in the Normandy School District, attending Normandy High School, and had friends in the Ferguson-Florissant District (McCluer, McCluer North and eventually even Berkeley - I guess - was absorbed in there as well), you had a definitive rivalry, as you would even within the Hazelwood District (East, Central, West- and all the different junior highs), or over in Riverview Gardens where it was slightly less complicated, as well as Jennings or Ritenour, even Pattonville. Back then, you could belong to a parochial school, Catholic or Lutheran, and have a friendly rivalry in sports and academics. That went on to the high schools of the day, too - with Rosary and Aquinas and Mercy all being separate high schools before consolidation of the Catholic high schools. It was a good old set of rivalries which maintained a healthy respect for each other whether you were talking sports, music, or academics. North St. Louis County --- we called it North County or sometimes Norco (there was a highly charged soccer and athletic group known as the Norco League) --- was almost always separate from the city's Public High League in sports and academics. We who grew up in North County did have friends in the city, maybe even went to some sporting events at city high schools now and then, but the rivalry didn't seem to exist in the same manner as between PHL schools or "Suburban North" schools. But more to the point is that there was a time when the city and county schools were quite separate, as if the border was adhered to strictly.

Then the desegregation case came.
In effect, it was a victory for ending some of the racial divides which had long been held, in part because of the borderlines, not only of city and county, but district to district.


Before it appears that I'm going to focus on race --- it's clearly not the focus of this blog. The focus is on the Riverview Gardens School District, and specifically Dr. Henry Williams, the deposed superintendent who was found guilty --- CONVICTED --- of stealing money from this once-great North County school district. I can say that because I grew up there, lived there for 30 years, and although the past 5 years were a blur I have at least kept somewhat informed about the occasional inner-workings of the RGSD. Long after I was gone, I had a classmate on the board of education, former teachers who are still employed there, friends who went back to teach there, others who sent their children there - quoting one - "before it got too bad and we decided to move."


There are some obvious black-white issues here, but not because Dr. Williams happens to be of African-American heritage and previous superintendents were caucasians. No, the black-and-white issues facing Riverview Gardens are because of some key distinctions. These distinctions would also include the facts: after desegregation began, Riverview Gardens saw an influx of city residents and near-city residents even though RGSD was not forced to partake in busing --- it had a diverse enough population. It had growth throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and another local superintendent, Dr. Chris Wright - now the superintendent of the Hazelwood District - was brought in to continue what had been a long legacy of old guard ways and discipline. Things were changing in society, had changed in the residential makeup and business makeup throughout the RGSD, and Dr. Wright would do little about the slow decline. Dr. Wright is a white female, just to note for those who think I am going to totally ignore race and gender just because I am not focusing upon those things. Dr. Wright moved on - flew the coop. But also among the problems was that "white flight" truly happened again. Once upon a time in St. Louis "white flight" happened in the city. Where I grew up, there were very few African-American families - my neighbors were Caucasians until 1976 when a black family moved into our area. My siblings and I played with them even though their house was three blocks away. My mom and their mom were engaged in a friendly relationship, and if I were to ask my mom if she was the only mom in our elementary school to have a friendship with that woman...well...I would hesitate to ask because I would be ashamed to hear the outcome may be the answer "yes". Unfortunately for this very nice family and our community, they were treated poorly by their immediate neighbors and the family soon found out that discrimination was alive eight years after the Civil Rights Movement impacted the United States. These are the kinds of things I saw and experienced from a "white male who had black friends" standpoint as a youth. And it is why I have a perspective that is broader than being just some white male or black male who lived his life only in the 1980s. I have a bigger picture than someone who didn't live in the Riverview Gardens School District or my own piece of that district back in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s. My 21st Century perspective is slightly skewed, since I moved away at the end of the 20th Century - into the city of St. Louis - but I will maintain that I could see what was happening. One of my co-workers of many years STILL lives in the district. We have discussed the school district and area often and openly. And I will reveal that this person and I both have been --- news reporters and editors for a living. So, we can ask probing questions of people and get answers that some won't bother to ask because they're not reporters. After the discussions we have had, I have come to a realization that there is one axis point --- Dr. Williams brought some of the greatest problems to the district by misusing his power and not acting upon what was obvious in a manner consistent with a professional educator.



Let me do it this way --- it's much more inflammatory:
Dr. Henry Williams IS A CROOK.



That having been stated, Dr. Henry Williams' crookedness came from a personal weakness. He loves to gamble. He took risks - still takes them. Having come with a few good credentials to the RGSD, Dr. Williams was expected to help the student population come to grips with the changing colors of the residency. I say this in an oxymoronic way: skin colors, hair colors - even age - played a part in the way the academics started falling short of the levels it had long held. ACT scores, other testing methods were showing declines. This was due to the sheer numbers of children who started attending Riverview Gardens schools several years after they had begun their academic careers in the city schools - the city schools which had already been failing. But it was a combination of so many things which led to Dr. Williams having a level of frustration - perhaps while not trying to give him an excuse, he was somewhat driven to push his mind away from the problems he faced each day - in his JOB!!!


See - told you there was really NO excuse. It was his JOB to deal with the situation with regard to stemming the decline of higher-level academics. It was his JOB to figure out, with help of his support staff (including the girlfriend he nepotismly - if that's a word...well, it is now - hired), how to bring the learning back up to where it must be as mandated by state regulations.


Henry Williams response was to frequently go to gamble his earnings away. Williams' girlfriend must have realized there was a problem - but she apparently didn't do much to stop him. And they were already under scrutiny as their relationship was out in the media. But if someone is dealing with a gambling problem --- and we now know it was a problem addiction which Henry Williams could not simply stop --- there should have been a few signs BEFORE he took money from the district. We're not talking the office surplus - call it "the kitty" or "mad money" or whatever --- it was reported as Williams taking hundreds of thousands of dollars which he apparently funneled into his retirement account --- I'd say "allegedly" but he was CONVICTED so that deems it apparent and not alleged --- and overcharged the district on the business trips he took during his tenure at the helm of Riverview Gardens School District.



Let me go to THE CONVICTIONS: two counts of felony theft; three counts of tax fraud. He was initially sentenced to spend ten years in jail, but the judge suspended that sentence and gave Williams 30 days in jail and was ordered to pay restitution of $102,724.87 to the Riverview Gardens School District.



Online sources show his gambling habit began before he started as RGSD superintendent. The superintendent of schools with a gambling habit went frequently to Ameristar Casino and Harrah's at Maryland Heights, and probably others - well over 900 times during his tenure at the Riverview Gardens School District. I'm fairly sure that if we confronted Williams he would deny or "no comment" us to death, just before shoving us out of the way. Do a web search for the video of Dr. Williams knocking the microphone of a TV reporter out of his hands. Dr. Williams cannot even hold his temper ON CAMERA.



Frankly, Henry, my parents still pay tax money to the district, but the district cannot afford much because you not only didn't do the job you were supposed to do, but you lied about paying attention to detail. Well, except the detail of funneling the money to your insurance fund --- you were pretty detailed there. And yet you couldn't hide that from the investigators who eventually caught up with you.

What is sad is this public statement Williams made in 2007:

"I am deeply saddened and utterly dismayed by my recent mistreatment by the Riverview Gardens School Board and the reverberations that their actions have had on government officials and the local media," he said. "Without question, this is certainly not the first time that sensational allegations have been levied against an individual, only later to be proven false when scrutinized and sanitized by the light of truth."

WOW --- what a line of complete and utter crap. Perhaps that's being kind. I may have sanitized the light of truth a bit, Henry.

Now --- having read more than a dozen online versions of what has happened in the past ten days --- I can easily state correctly that Henry Williams tried to short the payback money.
I say tried because the prosecutor was about to have him sent back to the judge so the judge could have him put into jail for the ten years he was originally to receive until the nice person with the gavel took pity on Williams and sentenced him to shock time, probation and restitution...but...the rest of the money showed up a few days later. That doesn't mean Henry Williams is off the hook. But his attorney made a claim to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the amount of restitution was overstated. Overstated?

Is it an overstatement to say that Henry Williams is only looking out for himself?

My assertion is NOT an overstatement.

I DARE HENRY WILLIAMS TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST ME. I ABSOLUTELY DARE HIM. I am not slandering this man --- I am merely stating facts, including the fact that he is only looking out for himself. Poor attorney - the attorney is charged with trying to make a client sound not guilty - who has to work for Dr. Henry Williams --- must be an enthralling moment to pick up the check from Williams...as long as it cashes.

Judge Maura McShane may still hear more about this case. If so, will she send the 67-year-old Williams to jail where he'll spend ten years, or will she seize his monetary assets? Or both?



Let's hope Henry Williams doesn't gamble any more. If he tried, I believe that as a convicted felon he would automatically be jailed. Either way, that may STOP altogether the restitution.



Frankly, Dr. Henry Williams --- I believe --- will more likely not pay the restitution so that he GETS SENT TO PRISON. Let's face it --- unless the judge seizes his assets and has them sold in lieu of restitution --- Henry Williams won't care if he lies about where his monetary assets are held --- so he won't care if he EVER pays any more to the district. He's a loser. A sorry liar.



I only hope that whatever happens, the Riverview Gardens students can improve their scores, their learning, and their overall situation despite the legacy the professional LIAR Dr. Henry Williams has left them.





Please --- don't be liars, kids. Tell the truth!

Sudafed

I wrote Missouri Representative Jeff Roorda yesterday. He is apparently considering the introduction of legislation to further restrict the ability of residents to purchase the over-the-counter pharmaceutical known as pseudoephedrine - most would recognize the name Sudafed - by making it a prescription-only medicine in Missouri. His reason is that some people feel the current laws restricting the sales of pseudoephedrine are not stringent enough to dissuade those who use the ingredients in the drug to make methamphetamine.

I argue that a law which would force me and other citizens in Missouri to go to the medical doctors offices and seek a prescription for pseudoephedrine would only cost more money, not stop the trade of methamphetamine in Missouri.

Like so many other Missourians, especially in a depression like this one, I cannot afford to go to a doctor. I cannot afford the time off my job to go to the doctor and beg for the doctor to prescribe that which I can already purchase and find relief. The doctor visit, dear representatives, will only occur IF YOU PAY FOR IT. I cannot pay for an appointment at the doctor. The pseudoephedrine costs me more than enough, thank you very much. There is no reason to take away my rights as a citizen to legally purchase this medicine over-the-counter as I have done for more than 20 years. That would be violating my trust in the system - a healthcare system which is already more than flawed. This would add a layer of expense and intrusive behavior on the part of legislators and result in nothing better for the communities of Missouri.

I applaud the efforts to crack down on the use of methamphetamine. Missouri is the meth capitol, and law enforcement task forces have been used to spearhead an effort against the proliferation of this illegal drug and the manufacture of meth. But that does not equate the same as restricting the over-the-counter purchase ability. Were it as simple as restricting the ability to purchase the drug in Missouri to the extreme Rep. Roorda is proposing, then the meth activity would completely cease. It is not going to happen with the stroke of a pen at the governor's office, I argue, as the state does not have closed borders, closed interstates, closed highways, closed roads, and is not closed to the rest of the nation. Therefore, the proliferation of meth will continue in the state of Missouri for one main reason: Missouri is in the center of the country, located exactly where those who both manufacture and distribute such drugs will STILL BE LOCATED after such a measure would be put into law. The means to get the pseudoephedrine are too complex to stop it with additional local restrictions. The substances used to manufacture meth would continue to pour over the Missouri borders regardless of a newer, tougher measure.

Why? Because law enforcement does not do enough law enforcement. This is where the legislation should be focused. Get the proper money to the law enforcement agencies to combat the meth problem.

Rep. Roorda may argue that I am incorrect --- I would expect that from a man who was in law enforcement. However, statistics would also bear the fact that if we are in such a state where the proliferation of the manufacturing of meth has continued for more than a decade, then it will lessen only incrementally to the ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS. The existing laws, Rep. Roorda argues, are not strong enough. Ahem, Mr. Roorda. I cannot see how you or any law official can tell me that it is not strong enough and make the citizens of the state believe you if nobody is going to enforce the law. Enforce it first...deal a blow to those who move from point A to point B and blow up houses, make their drugs, stash their drugs, sell their drugs, and make money off their drug distribution. As a law enforcer, you were charged with making sure the public safety is upheld by striking out against the criminal element. It is not being upheld.

Again --- I represent the non-criminal element. I represent the citizenry who use over-the-counter pseudoephedrine in a law-biding manner, place my name upon the sheet stating that I am purchasing the medicine for personal use, and have consistently bought this product with only true intentions of using it to breathe easier. Were the newer versions of Sudafed --- the P-E versions --- working for me, I'd purchase that and not worry about your legislation as much. But to introduce a law which has a direct bearing on the health of our citizens means to see both sides of the picture. BOTH SIDES INCLUDES THE LAW-BIDING CITIZENS who already do their part by purchasing the products for their own use.

Law-biding citizens who use pseudoephedrine would already be aware of the meth problem and would turn in those who attempt to thwart the proper process. I know I would turn in a stranger who came up to me and asked me to buy Sudafed for them. If the problem is that you don't believe everyone else is doing the same --- turning in the offenders --- take your plea to the media, not to the legislative floor.

We need a war on meth at the street level - now - and NOT in the state capitol.