CRYSTAL LAKE, IL — Crystal Lake Elementary District 47 has canceled a committee meeting scheduled for Oct. 6 rather than spend taxpayer money fighting an emergency court request over whether the meeting must be open to the public, school officials said in a statement.
The district announced the cancellation Monday amid a lawsuit filed by District 47 parent Joe Keegan, who contends the Boundary Committee is subject to the Illinois Open Meetings Act.
Keegan filed an emergency motion Friday asking a McHenry County judge to prohibit the committee from holding its Oct. 6 meeting unless District 47 publicly posts notice and an agenda, opens the meeting to the public, allows attendees to record and address the committee and keeps written minutes.
If the district does not meet those requirements, Keegan wanted the court to prevent the meeting from occurring until further order.
District 47 said Monday it has instead decided not to hold the meeting.
"The District has decided to cancel the October 6 meeting rather than spend taxpayer dollars litigating, on an emergency basis, whether that single meeting may proceed," according to a district statement. "This decision is about responsible use of District resources. It is not about the merits of the lawsuit."
The district emphasized the cancellation does not represent a change in its position regarding the Boundary Committee.
District 47 maintains that the committee is an administrative advisory group created to provide information and input to Superintendent Kathy Hinz, rather than a committee of the Board of Education. The district therefore maintains the committee is not subject to the Open Meetings Act.
"Nothing about the cancellation of the October 6 meeting changes the District's position," the district said.
District officials said they plan to defend that position as the lawsuit proceeds rather than incur what they described as significant legal expenses to preserve a single meeting date.
Keegan told Patch his concerns began after District 47 emailed families in July about two proposals that could significantly restructure the district's elementary schools.
"I wanted to know who made those recommendations and how, so I asked the district for the Boundary Committee's meeting notices, agendas and minutes," Keegan said.
According to Keegan's emergency motion, District 47 subsequently provided a list of 14 Boundary Committee meetings held between April 8, 2024, and Aug. 4, 2026, but said no notices, agendas or minutes existed for them.
Keegan said that discovery changed the nature of his concerns.
"That is the point where this stopped being about boundaries for me," Keegan said. "A committee met fourteen times over seventeen months, produced the recommendation the Board votes on in November, and left no record of a single meeting."
District 47 disputes Keegan's contention that those meetings were required to comply with the Open Meetings Act.
At the center of the case is whether the Boundary Committee legally qualifies as a public body covered by the law.
Keegan points to the committee's membership, use of district staff and resources and role in the boundary process. His court filing says the committee has 21 members, including two members of the Board of Education.
The filing also cites District 47's March 2024 announcement stating the committee would include board members, administrators, staff, parents or guardians and community members and would review data, maps, resources and community feedback and "create final boundary recommendations for the board."
District 47 describes that relationship differently.
"The Committee is an administrative advisory group created to gather information and provide input to the Superintendent," the district said Monday. "It is not a committee of the Board of Education, and the District maintains that it is not subject to the Open Meetings Act."
Keegan acknowledged that disagreement and said it is ultimately a legal question for the court.
"The district disagrees and has put that position in writing," Keegan said. "That is the question the court decides."
Keegan said his concern extends beyond whether agendas and minutes were produced.
He said District 47 documents show committee members considered conventional boundary adjustments before moving toward the two proposals ultimately presented to families.
Keegan's court filing cites an Aug. 17 district presentation stating that the committee "looked at and discussed several simple shifts or boundary adjustments" before rejecting that approach.
"Nobody outside that room knows how that discussion actually went or what was weighed," Keegan told Patch.
Keegan said he separately wants District 47 to release its analysis of a conventional boundary redraw so parents can compare that approach with the two proposals currently under consideration.
That issue is distinct from what he is asking the court to do, he said.
"The lawsuit asks for records and open meetings," Keegan said. "It does not ask any court to redraw a boundary line."
Keegan said he has also developed two possible boundary redraws himself using publicly available information, but said he is not arguing that either should necessarily be adopted.
"If the public sees every option, including a simple redraw, and the feedback the Board hears is that people prefer one of the two current recommendations, then the Board should adopt it and I will live with that," Keegan said.
Keegan also has a personal stake in the boundary discussion.
He said his family lives less than a half-mile from West Elementary School and he has three younger children who could be affected by one of the proposals.
Under the grade-level center option, Keegan said his children would leave West after third grade and finish elementary school at South. Under the district's other proposal involving a Multilingual Language Academy, he said his children would remain at West.
Keegan said he does not want his family's circumstances to dictate which proposal he supports.
"If I were only looking out for my own family I would be pushing the Multilingual Language Academy as hard as I could," Keegan said. "It is the option that leaves my kids alone."
He said he instead wants families to have enough information to evaluate all of the alternatives and how they would affect students across the district.
The cancellation creates a new question for District 47's boundary process.
The district had previously identified Oct. 6 as the Boundary Committee's final meeting, when members were scheduled to review community and staff survey responses. A final presentation to the Board of Education was scheduled for Oct. 19, followed by a final board decision Nov. 16.
District 47 did not say in its statement whether canceling the Oct. 6 meeting will affect those dates or how the survey responses will now be reviewed.
The district's survey is scheduled to close Oct. 1.
Meanwhile, Keegan's underlying lawsuit remains pending. In addition to his Open Meetings Act claims, the case raises Freedom of Information Act claims involving records connected to the Boundary Committee.
Keegan's emergency motion also asks the court to require District 47 to preserve committee records, including sign-in sheets, meeting notes, presentations, maps, survey data, communications and material contained in electronic workspaces.
A hearing on the emergency motion is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday before McHenry County Judge David Gervais, according to Keegan.
The district said Monday that it "stands behind the structure and work" of the Boundary Committee and will defend its position through the normal course of litigation.
Sign up for free local newsletters and alerts for the
Crystal Lake Patch
Patch.com is the nationwide leader in hyperlocal news.
Visit Patch.com to find your town today.