Hinsdale D-86 Board Members Denied Public Records

HINSDALE, IL — Hinsdale High School District 86 last week denied the request of two of its own board members for board emails about last year's contract for "antiracist" consultants.

Board members Peggy James and Debbie Levinthal filed their public records request with the district Nov. 2. Patch did so for the same documents earlier this same day.

Last month, Hinsdale resident Yvonne Mayer received the emails, but all 42 pages were redacted, except salutations and the names of the writers. The records indicated that James and Levinthal sent some of the emails.

In the board members' request, they said they permitted the release of their entire emails without any redactions.

No law bars the board members themselves from releasing the emails. Patch has texted both members about whether they plan to do so. Neither has responded.

Under the state's open records law, the district can choose to keep secret emails by board members about upcoming decisions on policies and proposals. Such materials are known as "predecisional."

But in the case of last year's "antiracist" contract, it had been expired for months by the time board members apparently emailed about it in August and September. This was about the time when the new contract, which the board majority approved in mid-August, was under fire because of a tweet by one of the consultants seen as anti-police. The consultants later agreed to be terminated.

In its response to Patch, the district said that "while the redacted materials reference a past contract, they consist of opinions and recommendations for future policies or actions."

Citing a state appeals court decision, the district said the exemption to keep such records secret is "intended to protect the communications process and encourage frank and open discussion among agency employees."

To the board members, the district said the law does not include any language that allows individual members of public bodies to waive the exemption on behalf of the public entity, "even as to their own writings."

"In any event, you are not the only author of the redacted materials in the responsive documents," the district said.

Under the open records law, the district was required to indicate who was involved in the decision to deny the records. The district failed to include this information in its denials.

Given the legal citations, the denial was likely the work of a lawyer. The district's law firm is Arlington Heights' Hodges Loizzi, where Steven Richart has represented the district on open government issues. Richart has not returned calls for comment.

It remains unclear why the former contract has attracted the scrutiny of the board. It may be that unlike this year, the older contract was signed by the superintendent, but never went before the board. The agreement cost taxpayers $69,300.

A district spokesman said last month the contract was included in the overall budget approved by the board. But neither of the consultants, Anew Collective Consulting or Saxman Consultant, could be found in the online 2019-20 budget document.

The district's website did not indicate if there was a more detailed budget document that may list specific contracts.