D-86 Board Violated Open Meetings Law: State

HINSDALE, IL – The Hinsdale High School District 86 board gave the public no notice that it planned to vote last fall on the superintendent’s recommendation for the schools to go entirely remote for two weeks.

At the time, Patch wrote a story looking into the issue about why the board failed to provide notice, which is required under the state’s open meetings law. The district defended the handling of the vote.

Late last week, the attorney general found that District 86 violated the Open Meetings Act.

In November, the board voted 4-3 against the superintendent's proposed two-week “adaptive pause” as coronavirus cases increased. After Patch’s story, the Elmhurst-based Citizen Advocacy Center filed a complaint with the attorney general against the board.

In its response, the district’s law firm, Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick and Kohn, argued the board had already given Superintendent Tammy Prentiss authority to make decisions on the pandemic. Because of that, the law firm contended, the board’s vote was not final action and only served as guidance for the superintendent.

“(A)lthough the Superintendent ultimately decided to forego the adaptive pause, she could just as well have decided to implement the adaptive pause – while her employer may not have been pleased with such an action, it would have fallen under her authority and discretion (under a previous board resolution),” the law firm said.

The district further argued that the public had notice that the issue was on the agenda under the item, “Return to School Update.” The meaning of that item, the district said, was “abundantly clear, and the community unquestionably understands the nature of the subject – namely, keeping the public apprised of any updates concerning its ongoing efforts to manage the return to school by students and staff during this unprecedented pandemic.”

In a letter last week, the attorney general’s office disagreed with the district’s arguments.

“Because the District did not proceed with the adaptive pause, there is at least an appearance that the Board made the final decision on the question,” the office said. “The administration brought the Board a proposal for its deliberation and decision on the discrete question of whether to pause in-person learning for two weeks, a change that would be consequential for families throughout the District.

“Regardless of whether the Superintendent was truly free to disregard the direction of the Board that employs her, the Board took it upon itself to vote in open session to reject the proposal, constituting the Board’s final say on the matter,” the attorney general’s office said.

The district, the attorney general said, should have included an agenda item indicating that the board may vote on the adaptive pause.

The office asked the board to be mindful of the need to list the general subject matter of any potential action items on its meeting agendas before taking final action.

A District 86 spokesman did not return a message for comment Monday on the attorney general’s letter.

Back in November, Kevin Camden was the board's president. Camden and two other incumbents lost in the April 6 election, with a new majority assuming control of the board.