- She and her daughters live in Akron subsidized housing
- For 2 years she sent her 2 children to a school located in the Copley-Fairlawn school district where her father lived
- She falsified records, claiming they partially resided with their grandfather
- In a statement given by her father she decided to send her children there for safety issues, not for a better education. Via Change.org:
Edward Williams, Kelley Williams-Bolar's father, called to clarify that her decision to enroll her children in the suburban district had nothing to do with the academic quality of the school and was because of safety issues. Williams-Bolar's house had been broken into and she'd had to file 12 different police reports due to crime in the area, he said.
- Private investigators filmed her dropping her kids off to a bus stop near her fathers home
- When the district realized she what was going on they began sending her bills for $800 a month in school tuition, they claim she ignored the bills
- The district says she owes $30,500 to cover the cost of the education that was provided
- Prosecutors charged her with multiple felonies, including grand theft and tampering with records
- She was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days in jail, 80 hours of community service and 3 years probation
- She is currently a teaching assistant for special needs children and pursuing her teaching degree
- Under Ohio state law she will no longer be allowed to obtain a teaching license since she has a felony criminal record
Kelly pays rent, which goes towards school taxes in her district, but her kids don't actually go to that school. Her father pays school taxes in his district, but doesn't have any children to attend his school. Why not split the loss by making Kelley pay the difference between her district's taxes and her father's? That would be a simple solution to the problem, that doesn't involve a mother's hard work going down the drain.
My other issue with this story are the charges; the prosecutor has discretion when filing them. The law is black and white, but his decisions are not. They are based on his own personal views coupled with precedented cases. He could have decided to charge her with a misdemeanor, which would not have affected her ability to obtain a teaching license (which I am assuming she will need to be able to afford to move from the projects). It would have allowed her to be punished for breaking the law, without jeopardizing her career and livelihood. The jury would have still found her guilty and the judge could have delivered a more appropriate sentence.
What do you think? Did the punishment fit the crime?
Appalled From Boyland,