This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Barrett Case Again Dominates District 86 Meeting

Board Member Dianne Barrett's lawsuit over access to documents is addressed during a discussion about the district's legal bills.

At most school board meetings, the paying of bills is a routine part of  board business. However, that was not the case at Monday night’s meeting of the Hinsdale Township High School District 86 Board of Education.

As she has repeatedly requested in recent months, Board Member Dianne Barrett asked that the bills to be pulled from the consent agenda so that she could object to the payment of certain legal bills, including those related to the lawsuit she has filed against School Board President Dennis Brennan and Superintendent Dr. Nicholas Wahl.

“It’s not consent if everyone doesn’t agree,” Barrett said. “So, therefore, I’m going to have to do this every month. … It’s getting old.”

Find out what's happening in Hinsdale-Clarendon Hillswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Brennan said the consent agenda was for routine items, not necessarily items that everyone agreed upon.

Barrett said she would check that with the Illinois State Board of Education.

Find out what's happening in Hinsdale-Clarendon Hillswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“I believe consent means all seven [board members] would have to agree,” she said.

“How would that be?” Brennan asked. “You’d have to call everybody.”

Access to Documents and Recordings at Issue

Barrett filed the lawsuit last year in an effort to gain access to non-redacted documents relating to the district’s special education program. The district maintains it provided documents to Barrett that met her request for information and only redacted portions to protect student privacy rights. She said she would continue to ask for the legal bills related to the case to be separated from the rest of the bills.

“Until the documents are shown to the board … I don’t think the board should be paying the legal bills for our attorney,” Barrett said.

“If you lose that case, will you then quit asking?” Brennan inquired.

“I’m not going to comment,” Barrett said.

“I don’t believe the board has ever officially authorized the law firm … to engage in the Barrett documents case,” Board Member Dr. Richard Skoda interjected.

Barrett also is seeking access to a recording of a closed session meeting of the board that she did not attend. Skoda noted that issue came up during a court hearing on the case last week. He said the district’s position that Barrett did not have the right to have access to the recording, “is just silly. Even the judge said as much.”

Brennan said it wasn’t the board’s policy to allow access to recordings of closed sessions.

Barrett said she had been granted such access before.

“But the board voted on that,” Board Member Michael Kuhn noted.

“Right,” Brennan said. “And after that, somehow that tape was erased.”

“Shouldn’t the policy really be changed?” Skoda asked. “How can you deny a board member…”

“Are you arguing the case in front of us?” Board Member Kay Gallo interrupted. “We’re not here to discuss or argue the merits of the case. … The judge is taking care of this.”

Skoda answered that he objected to paying several thousand dollars per month in legal fees when the board was not giving direction to its law firm.

“They’re out there doing whatever,” he said.

“The reason you want to listen to a tape, though, is because you’re not here,” Brennan pointed out. “It seems like it would be easier to just come to the meeting.”

“This is why the case is being tried in a court,” Gallo said, “because we do not have agreement on this board. We all believe different things and we need a judge to decide.”

Motions to Dismiss Discussed

Gallo said she disagreed with Skoda on the issue of access to recordings of a closed session, adding that she believed only a judge was supposed to have authorization to listen to the recording of a closed session.

“That was my understanding and my training with IASB [Illinois Association of School Boards],” she said. “You might think it’s silly. I don’t think it’s silly.”

Skoda again indicated that the judge disagreed.

“I believe you making that statement for the judge is in error,” Gallo said. “You are in error.”

Skoda wondered why, if the board was seeking clarification on these issues from a judge, the district’s lawyers had filed motions to dismiss the case, instead of simply allowing the judge to make a ruling.

Brennan recalled that Skoda had supported motions to dismiss in other cases.

“Each one you were fine with until we got to the Barrett case,” Brennan said. “Then, a motion to dismiss wasn’t proper.”

Brennan, a lawyer, said motions to dismiss are filed when lawsuits do not include a “cause of action,” a set of facts justifying the case, or if they are not specific enough in stating what is being sought.

“That’s what our attorneys are saying,” Brennan said.

“They can say all they want, but what they‘re saying isn‘t necessarily true,” Barrett retorted.

Gallo asked if the board could return to the issue at hand.

“If you want to get into legal stuff, we’re going to be here all night,” she said. “Let’s get back to paying the bills.”

Kuhn made a motion to pay the bills, which was seconded by Gallo. It passed on a 5-2 vote, with Barrett and Skoda voting against it. As she has in the past, Barrett requested that the minutes of the meeting reflect her support for paying the bills with the exception of the specific legal bills she mentioned.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Hinsdale-Clarendon Hills