D303 Ethics Violation Report Opinion Delivered

This article is a follow up to the D303 School Board ethics violation. Dr. Pearson selected a D303 internal legal firm, Hodges Loizzi Eisenhammer Rodick & Kohn LLP, to conduct the ethics investigation into the breach of Policy 2:105 Ethics and Gift Ban. An attorney assigned to the ethics investigation, Mr. Eisenhammer, investigated and provided an opinion in this case. He was asked to determine whether the actions of Mrs. Hewell and Mr. Manheim breached board policy regarding elections (Policy 2:105).
These are the complaints:

1. Mrs. Hewell obtained signatures on district property from five board members.
2. Mrs. Hewell circulated and obtained signatures for board member Mr. Manheim.
3. Mr. Manheim submitted one page of signatures that was circulated by Mrs. Hewell on his behalf.

On March 11, Mr. Eisenhammer delivered his opinion to Dr. Pearson. (D303 Ethics Investigation Report) This opinion was not read by Dr. Pearson at the Board meeting on March 11 and was posted to the D303 Facebook page. Is this a public process for a public position like board member?
As in her 2005 OMA violation, Mrs. Hewell received another pass by an overseeing authority. On the last two pages of the document the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which states, “After the conclusion of a Board meeting, but while still on the premises of the District’s Administration Center, Board President Hewell circulated her Petition for Nomination to obtain signatures from her fellow Board members.” He continues to explain in the 3rd section that, “President Hewell’s circulation of her own nominating petition constituted a Prohibited Political Activity...Therefore, this activity violated Board Policy.”
Mr. Eisenhammer does not address Mr. Manheim in terms of allowing Mrs. Hewell to circulate a page of his petition. He exonerates the five board members, including Mr. Manheim, who signed Mrs. Hewell’s petition stating, “Signing a nominating petition is not an activity in furtherance of an effort to influence a nomination.”
Mr. Eisenhammer painted all board members with one brush in his final recommendation. The final recommendation is as follows, “that President Hewell and all of the other Board members be required to review Board Policy 2:105….a Board in-service be held every two years to ensure violations do not occur.” The ethics advisor only interviewed two Board members, Mrs. Hewell and Mr. Manheim, for this investigation. Not all board members signed Mrs. Hewell petition on district property, yet they must all go through training.
Mr. Eisenhammer also states, “the violation was a minor unintentional violation under Board Policy 2:105.” Under oath on January 4th, Mrs. Hewell stated that our Board policy is a guideline not law and she was familiar with the Ethics and Gift Ban Policy. It is concerning that Mrs. Hewell has 16 years experience on the board and President of the Board for 2 years yet does not know, understand, or follow Board Policy which is Law.