Hinsdale D-86 Still Resists Posting Video With Criticism Of Official

HINSDALE, IL – Two Hinsdale High School District 86 board members are questioning why the district won't post a meeting video to its online archive.

Meanwhile, internal emails show that the employee in charge of posting videos wanted to do so, but was told not to.

On Wednesday, the district released records related to the video issue to resident Yvonne Mayer. She forwarded them to Patch.

The meeting in question was Feb. 4. Its purpose was a closed session, but it also included public comments before and after the session.

Most of the commenters criticized Superintendent Tammy Prentiss over a controversy involving an anti-racism consultant. Many called for her ouster.

But the comments against Prentiss were no rougher than those at meetings with posted videos.

The district paid an outside vendor $165 to film the meeting. That was because the district's chief information officer, Keith Bockwoldt, who usually handles that function, had the day off.

The video has been placed in the district's online Freedom of Information Act portal. But it is much harder to find there amid dozens of other public records requests.

At the March 24 meeting, board member Debbie Levinthal asked why the video had not been posted.

Bockwoldt said that was his mistake and promised to post it. But it was not, although some residents say it was for a time.

In a March 31 email to board President Terri Walker, Levinthal noted the promise to post the video.

"(N)ow it is not posted," she said. "Bait and switch comes to mind."

In response, Walker said the district does not record special meetings with closed sessions as the purpose.

"As such, the video should not have been posted," she said. "The video is currently posted on the FOIA log. There is no bait (and) switch."

She did not explain why the district paid someone to film the meeting, but decided not to post it.

Levinthal, who ran as an ally of Walker in last April's election, disagreed with her.

"This is definitely bait and switch!" she said. "I was led to believe, along with the entire Board and community, on Thursday, March 24, 2022, that the video we were authorizing payment for ... was going to be posted on the archive."

Based on the promise during the meeting, Levinthal said, "there was no reason to believe Mr. Bockwoldt would be prohibited from following through on his intent to post the video to the archive."

She said Bockwoldt was not responsible for the bait and switch.

The district's public records also show board member Peggy James questioned why the district failed to post the video.

The district also released text messages from Bockwoldt's phone during the meeting.

Bockwoldt asked an unidentified co-worker to send him the Feb. 4 special meeting video.

His co-worker responded, "It was never intended to be recorded and therefore not released."

Bockwoldt said he just stated in the meeting he would post the video because he thought it was released.

The co-worker replied with a laughing emoji, saying, "She played you."

It was unclear whether the co-worker was referring to Levinthal or some other person.

In reply, Bockwoldt said the co-worker earlier had indicated the district was required to post the video if it had it.

The co-worker said the district was mandated to provide it in response to a public records request, but not post it in the meeting archive.

The school board plans to meet Thursday night. It would be another opportunity for Levinthal to ask officials about the status of the video.