Schools

D86's 'Winning Hand' in Barrett Case Was Costing Taxpayers, Corcoran Says

Ed Corcoran and Claudia Manley told Patch why they voted in favor of a settlement with former board member Dianne Barrett.

District 86 board members who supported settling the Dianne Barrett lawsuit Monday night said district spending was a major motivation.

Ed Corcoran, who voted along with Claudia Manley and Richard Skoda to approve the settlement of a three-year court battle between District 86 and the former board member, wasn’t swayed by the fact that two DuPage County judges had dismissed Barrett’s complaints. 

"I personally support the settlement process because our ‘winning hand’ was costing taxpayers a small fortune with no upside to students or taxpayers," Corcoran said in an emailed statement.

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

Manley, the board president, echoed Corcoran.

"The new board was able to look at the possibilities with a fresh set of eyes. When those eyes saw the legal fees incurred to date totaling approximately $120,000, the eyes widened," Manley said in her own email. "The knowledge of an appeal pending was a sure fire way to incur even more fees."

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

Manley continued, "None, let me repeat none, of the fees are covered by insurance. Thus, every cent is out of the district's own coffers. This settlement allows the board and the district to place this complicated matter behind it and focus on other district priorities."

READ: Gallo on Barrett Settlement: ‘I Just Don’t Understand This At All’

Both Manley and Corcoran dismissed the idea that the decision to settle with Barrett was a politically motivated. Barrett supported the Friends for District 86 slate of Victor Casini, Corcoran and Manley last spring in a letter published by The Doings on March 21, and was an ally of Skoda’s on the previous board.

"There was no political motivation, no axe to grind and no favors done, except for the taxpayer," Corcoran said. "The motivation comes from wanting to make a good business decision and continue protection of student records and board rights."

The board member continued, "This case could have been settled at any time but the previous board was motivated otherwise. The current board has no axe to grind and wants to eliminate distractions and controversy."

Regarding Skoda, who attended several court hearings on the Barrett case, Corcoran said the former teacher has done an "admirable job" in the past advocating for both students and taxpayers.

"We should all thank Dr. Skoda for his efforts," Corcoran said. "A few years from now we will all ask ourselves why this case was not settled amicably two or three years earlier, and then pause and thank Dr. Skoda."

Patch was unsuccessful in attempts to reach Skoda by phone and email.

In addition to halting spending on the case, Corcoran said the district will benefit from the settlement’s replacing of Board Policy 2:225, which demanded that board members seeking records not publicly available justify their request, and its mandate that documents such as the special-education documents sought by Barrett in the lawsuit will not be denied board members in the future.

If future board member requests for information are considered abusive, a district release sent out after Monday's vote states, they will be reviewed by the board but would require a 2/3 vote to be denied. If denied, the requesting board member can appeal to the circuit court for an informal proceeding.

"The student record protection is and will always be a responsibility and mandate of the board," Corcoran said. "Clear reinstatement of several board rights we are entitled to as fiduciaries was also accomplished in this settlement."

READ: Barrett Settlement Gives Board Members Easier Access to D86 Records, Buildings

The settlement agreement, a copy of which was obtained from District 86 by Patch Friday afternoon via a FOIA request, would also allow board members to access to district properties without the accompaniment of a District 86 staff member. 

The agreement says that access may be limited to normal hours when students and staff are on the properties.

The settlement agreement voted on still needs to be approved by the court before it becomes official.

There are plenty of ways to keep up on Hinsdale-Clarendon Hills news:


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

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

More from Hinsdale-Clarendon Hills