St Charles D303 School Board Candidate Objection Hearing

On January 4th, 2019 the objection hearing was held by the Kane County Electoral Board. The election board consisted of two representatives from the offices of the Honorable John Cunningham Kane County Clerk and Honorable Joseph McMahon Kane County State’s Attorney and the Honorable Thomas Hartwell Circuit Court Clerk in person. Danielle Penman objected to the nomination papers of Kathleen Hewell, Nicholas Manheim, and Rebecca McCabe. After both parties were placed under oath, testimony was heard. The first hearing was the objection of Kathleen Hewell’s nomination paper for election. Neither party had an attorney present and represented themselves. Mrs. Penman stated that after reviewing Mrs. Hewell’s signatures that she used her office as current president of D303 school board to campaign for re-election for herself and for Mr. Manheim, a current board member. She further explained that Mrs. Hewell had used her office to campaign in 2015 election but it has been overlooked along with a 2005 Open Meetings Act violation. St. Charles D303 School Board Policy 2:105 Ethics and Gift Ban Section 2 prohibits current school board members from using their office to campaign for election for themselves and for others. Mrs. Penman also presented additional evidence citing, “a history of violations” and “nothing has changed for the last 15 years for the St. Charles District 303 community”. Mrs. Penman also stressed that “if the Board created Board Policy they should know and follow the rules themselves”. List of objections and evidence includes:

• Mrs. Hewell obtained signatures from five (5) current board members (Mrs. Linkimer, Mr. Manheim, Mr. Nowling, Mrs. Fairgrieve, and Mr. McNally).
• Mrs. Hewell circulated and obtained signatures for another current school board member Mr. Nicholas Manheim.
• Mrs. Hewell’s 2015 Nomination Papers. James Gaffney (board member) circulated petition for nominating page for Kathleen Hewell.
• 2005 Open Meetings Act violation as per article “No Trust in D303” in Kane County Chronicle June 27, 2007. Violated Open Meetings Act, violated public trust, and attempted to intimidate fellow Board Members.

Mrs. Hewell asked the court to strike the objections as non-material. She stated that Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB) and D303 Board Policy are not election law but merely descriptions and guidelines created internally and have no bearing in this case. She explained, IASB told her this policy “does not take away civic rights” When asked to clarify her statement, Mrs. Hewell could not explain in detail the role of IASB in terms of monitoring the Board and could not give an example of exactly what the Ethics and Gift Ban policy means or in which case it would apply. Mrs. Hewell reiterated that these are “only policies” and “do not apply to an election”. She stated she asked for the Board Members signatures and did not require them to sign her petition after a Board Meeting. Mrs. Hewell explained that “board members sign each other’s petitions out of respect for each other”. She described the objections as “egregious accusations” and that in the past “everyone (previous Board Members) does it, not to throw anyone under the bus.” Mrs. Hewell explained that at the time of the violation the Board complied with all the State’s Attorney’s office requests and an attorney monitored all Board Meetings for six months. She denied the veracity of the details described in the "No Trust in D303” article. https://www.kcchronicle.com/ar...This is an excerpt from the article. “In this case, the school board knowingly denied the public the right to know how its tax dollars were being spent. The board members who were in the room that night and who still are on the board today – James Gaffney, Christopher Hansen and Kathleen Hewell – should immediately resign their seats so the board can begin to try to regain the public trust.” The judges after hearing arguments for both sides took a short recess and reviewed the case and received legal advice from their lawyers who were present at the hearing. They then re-convened and explained that they need more time to make a decision in this case. The decision will be read in person on January 8 at 1pm.
The second hearing was the objection of Nicholas Manheim’s nomination paper for election. The election board read a communication from Mr. Manheim stating he could not attend the hearing because he was on a family vacation. Mrs. Penman stated that upon review Mr. Manheim’s nomination petition, he allowed the current President of the School Board, Mrs. Kathleen Hewell, to obtain signatures on his behalf and that page should not be valid. She also asked that the invalid signatures she found and checked against the voter registration walking list be removed and invalid. Mrs. Penman stated that “Mr. Manheim would have less signatures than what is required”. Further explaining that “St. Charles D303 School Board Policy 2:105 Ethics and Gift Ban Section 2 prohibits current school board members from using their office to campaign for office for themselves and for others”. She also quoted the IASB code of conduct #2 “I will avoid any conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety which could result from my position, and will not use my board membership for personal gain or publicity.” List of objections includes:

• Mr. Manheim obtained only 47 valid signatures from current registered voters according to the walking list if page 7 is invalid.
• Mr. Manheim submitted a total of seven (7) pages of signatures and the 7th page of signatures was circulated by Mrs. Hewell on Mr. Manheim’s behalf.
• Mr. Manheim was one of the five (5) current board members who signed Mrs. Hewell’s nomination petition.

The judges after hearing arguments from Mrs. Penman took a short recess and reviewed the case and received legal advice from their lawyers who were present at the hearing. They then re-convened and explained that they need more time to make a decision in this case. The decision will be read in person on January 8 at 1pm.
The third hearing was the objection of Rebecca McCabe’s nomination paper for election. Neither party had an attorney present and represented themselves. Mrs. McCabe was placed under oath. Mrs. Penman stated that upon review of Mrs. McCabe’s nomination petition found that her nomination is a conflict of interest due to the employment with St Charles District 303 and Mid Valley Special Ed Coop listed on her Economic Interest Statement. She further explained that “Mrs. McCabe retired in school year 2015 after many years as a long-time St. Charles District 303 administrator, Assistant Superintendent for Kindergarten through 5th Grade; second in seniority to the superintendent.” List of objections includes:

• Mrs. McCabe currently receives full pension and benefits from St. Charles School District 303.
• Mrs. McCabe worked as a consultant for St Charles District 303 school year 2017/2018 as a substitute administrator at $500 per day.
• Mrs. McCabe worked as a consultant for Mid Valley Special Education Coop school year 2017/2018. Mid Valley Special Education Coop an entity whose budget is determined, managed, and voted by St Charles District 303 School Board Members.

Mrs. Penman also presented additional evidence citing, “this article from the Kane County Chronicle “Five candidates to run for three seats on St. Charles School Board” from December 18, uses her former district title to describe Mrs. McCabe. Candidates should be given equal treatment listing all their titles/qualifications”. https://www.kcchronicle.com/20... She also submitted additional evidence regarding Mid Valley’s close relationship with D303: copies of Regular School Board meeting agenda Public Hearing, Adoption of Mid Valley Budget, and Personnel Report, and Mid Valley Monthly financial report regular item on Business Services Meeting Agenda.
Mrs. McCabe explained that she retired in 2016 and is no longer contracted with either D303 or Mid Valley at this time. Mrs. McCabe also submitted additional evidence in this case, citing that she is no longer employed with either D303 or Mid Valley and has gained employment elsewhere. Two letters from D303 and Mid Valley stating the start and end dates of employment were submitted into evidence. She further explained that she is a “qualified candidate and voters should decide who should be on the board.” Mrs. McCabe stated that her retirement comes from the State and not D303. Mrs. Penman asked if Mrs. McCabe is currently consulting in any capacity for D303 or Mid Valley. Mrs. McCabe responded “no”.
The judges after hearing arguments from both parties took a short recess and reviewed the case and received legal advice from their lawyers who were present at the hearing. They then re-convened and explained that they need more time to make a decision in this case. The decision will be read in person on January 8 at 1pm. Please join our Facebook page Citizens for D303 Accountability https://www.facebook.com/group... for more updates on the election and to stay informed about D303.