La Grange School Official's Ethics Questioned

LA GRANGE, IL — A La Grange School District 102 board member last week suggested a board member was acting unethically in connection with the district's coronavirus testing program.

Other board members, however, argued such an allegation should go to the district's lawyer and superintendent before being aired publicly.

At last week's board meeting, member Bessie Boyd read a statement about her concerns with member Ed Campbell's involvement in District 102's testing program. Campbell called Boyd's allegations "meritless."

Campbell played a big role in starting the program last fall. He formed SafeGuard Screening LLC to extend the concept of screening to other districts. For his efforts, Campbell, a microbiologist and immunologist at Loyola University in Chicago, has received national publicity, including on NPR.

But Boyd, a retired elementary school principal, said she was concerned Campbell was using the lab results from the district in his sales presentations to other districts. This has allowed him to market his company and win sizable contracts, she said.

"This may not be a concern to anyone but me," Boyd told the board. "But I ask the board, are we allowing this precedent of unethical practice to be set by our school board members? For example, if Dr. Campbell were not a board member directly connected to this project, would he have any access to the data and background information in order to make his presentations that open doors to his multi-million dollar contracts?"

While Campbell has abstained from votes on District 102's screening program, she said, he has voted yes in votes on intergovernmental agreements with other districts related to coronavirus testing.

"Did Dr. Campbell profit financially through the use of the district's screening data, which is funded by taxpayer dollars?" she asked.

Board President Michael Melendez said the matter should have gone first to the district's lawyer because Boyd alleged unethical behavior.

"I know you have questions. Those are fair questions," Melendez said. "They certainly can be reviewed."

Board member Scott Wugazzer said it was inappropriate for Boyd to bring up the issue in a public meeting before it went through the superintendent and attorney. He called it a "direct attack on a person."

Boyd disagreed.

"It's not a direct attack; it's a question," she said. "These are taxpayer dollars that were used to get the data."

When Campbell himself tried to speak up, Wugazzer said it wasn't a good idea because Boyd shouldn't have read the statement in the first place.

Member Leah Werab agreed that it was the wrong forum to discuss the matter, but said she did not want to tell Campbell whether he could speak or not.

Campbell said he did not provide any confidential data to other districts. He said they were interested in District 102's online data about the coronavirus.

As for the intergovernmental agreements, he said they have probably saved the district's own testing program tens of thousands of dollars.

"So pardon me if I look at the convenience of the timing of this statement and the recent vote that left people disaffected," he said, referring to the board's vote against additional in-person learning.

Board member Brian Anderson said he respected both Campbell and Boyd. He said he did not believe Boyd would let herself do or say something based on the outcome of a vote.

"I think you have every right to defend yourself, and I think Bessie has every right to make her statement," Anderson told Campbell.

In a statement to Patch on Tuesday, Campbell said he announced in open session last year that he was starting a company to provide saliva surveillance to other districts.

"I did not show any confidential data to anyone, and any data I showed to interested districts was publicly available and had been shown in our own open session, as well as meetings in 105 and with D96 officials that ultimately joined into an intergovernmental agreement with D102, which I did not benefit from in any way," Campbell said in an email.

He said Boyd's comments were "highly inappropriate" and that he was disappointed she chose an open session to make "meritless" allegations.

"I am firm in my belief that she chose to do this due to my recent position related to reopening schools full time after spring break and because of the upcoming election," Campbell said. "I am certain that she has been in discussion with voices in our community that were disappointed in that recent decision in formulating her effort to impugn my integrity in the way she did."

He said he was fine with the district's lawyer reviewing his actions.

In an interview with Patch, Boyd said she has expressed concern with Campbell's arrangement at open board meetings since August. She said the coming election and the outcome of the vote on in-person learning had nothing to do with her statement.

"I don't have any hidden agenda," Boyd said.

She said if the school district's attorney determines Campbell's arrangement is fine, she said she would accept that.

In the April 6 election, Campbell is one of four candidates vying for three seats on the District 102 board.