The Costs Of Hinsdale D-86's Failed Legal Fight

HINSDALE, IL — The Hinsdale High School District 86 board spent nearly $10,000 to unsuccessfully defend itself against a complaint that members illegally voted on whether to close schools.

Last November, the board voted 4-3 against a proposal for schools to go fully remote for two weeks, but it gave the public no notice it would hold such a vote. The state's open meetings law requires such notice.

Patch published a story questioning the legality of the vote and contacted the Elmhurst-based Citizen Advocacy Center, which later filed a complaint with the attorney general's office.

In July, the attorney general's office found the board acted improperly by voting on an issue that was not on its meeting agenda.

Recently, resident Yvonne Mayer filed a public records requests for the district's legal bills in the matter. They amounted to $9,553.

The money went to the Arlington Heights-based Hodges Loizzi law firm, which serves many school districts. The firm's Steven Richart represented the district in the recent matter. His specialties include the Open Meetings Act, according to the firm's website.

During last week's board meeting, Mayer asked the board to sever its relationship with Hodges Loizzi. She noted the firm also represented the board when its then-president, Nancy Pollak, prevented three speakers from commenting during public input amid the fierce debate over changes to the science curriculum.

The commenters filed a federal lawsuit alleging First Amendment violations, which the district ended up settling. It admitted it should have let the residents speak. Under the settlement, the district paid the other side's legal bills. The total amount for both sides was about $43,000.

Mayer said the board should let the law firm's costs sink in.

"Your board needs to change law firms to one that would properly educate you on open governance laws," Mayer said. "Why continue lining the pockets of a law firm that continues giving you bad advice on open governance issues?"

In a letter to the attorney general, Richart argued that Superintendent Tammy Prentiss already had the power to close schools because of a board resolution related to the pandemic, so the board's vote was irrelevant. At the same time, he conceded the board would have been displeased if she acted contrary to the vote.

Richart also acknowledged that the wording of then-board President Kevin Camden gave indications that the board was the decision-maker.

"To be sure, the Board President did at times seem to speak as if the final decision on this matter rested with the board, and he referred to the Board as 'voting' on the matter," Richart said. "But neither the courts nor the Attorney General's office have always deemed every 'vote' as an action."

Mayer said Richart's arguments had no merit.

"Instead of admitting the prior board's mistake, your attorney responded to the attorney general's office with a convoluted, nonsensical and losing argument that no violation had occurred because Ms. Prentiss could have ignored the board's illegal vote. Ridiculous," Mayer said.

Mayer said it was disturbing that Richart tried to minimize the attorney general's ruling in his late July presentation.

In an interview with Patch, Richart said it was false to say that the board gave no notice about the issue of closing schools on its agenda. He noted the issue was discussed under the "Return to School Update" item, which had been a regular item on the agenda for three months.

"The pandemic required fast decisions," he said. "The board is incredibly transparent."

Richart also said the district changed its practice after the Citizen Advocacy Center filed its complaint, providing more specificity on the agenda. He said the district let the center know of this development, but the center proceeded with its complaint. That required the district to respond, causing the legal bills to mount, he said.

After the April election, a new majority took control of the board. Camden lost in his re-election bid.

In June 2020, Pollak resigned immediately, shortly after the district settled the First Amendment lawsuit. She said she was moving out of state.