Whistleblower tells St. Louis County commissioners RMHC contracts lack oversight, asks for audit

St. Louis County Board of Commissioners · February 10, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A public commenter accused Range Mental Health Center of exclusive school contracts and a conflict of interest on the local advisory council, asking the St. Louis County Board to order a performance audit and reconstitute the advisory council.

Devin Fowler, a retired Marine and professional investigator, told the St. Louis County Board of Commissioners during public comment that the Iron Range is a "behavioral health care desert" and urged the board to act on what he described as systemic oversight failures at Range Mental Health Center (RMHC).

Fowler said RMHC holds exclusive contracts with schools on the Iron Range and that the provider "push[es] a peer support model as a catchall," which he called insufficient for students with disabilities. He said only 32 percent of students are proficient in math in the region and said the deficit is especially damaging for students with autism spectrum disorder.

Fowler alleged oversight is compromised because "Cassandra Kotnick, a supervisor at RMHC, sits on the local advisory council," which he characterized as a conflict of interest that lets a provider "advise the board on how to oversee themselves." He said he has recorded admissions and internal emails documenting failures and asked the board to: 1) order a performance audit of RMHC contracts to ensure clinical compliance, and 2) reconstitute the local advisory council to remove members with direct financial conflicts of interest. He left his business card with the clerk and requested written follow-up by email by the end of the week.

The statements were made during the public comment portion of the meeting; the transcript does not record an immediate response from the board or a formal motion. The commenter said he would escalate to state and federal oversight if no action is taken.

Next steps: The board did not take a formal vote on Fowler’s requests during the public comment period recorded in the transcript. Fowler’s requests—an audit and changes to the advisory council—are specific, actionable items the board could address in future proceedings.