Hinsdale D86 To Divulge Closed Meeting Recording

HINSDALE, IL – The Hinsdale High School District 86 board voted Thursday to release a recording of a 2022 closed meeting about goal-setting for the then-superintendent.

This was in response to the attorney general's office's finding in mid-November that the board violated the state's open meetings law by talking about such issues behind closed doors.

Yet the board waited four months to act on the attorney general's opinion, which did not bind the district.

It was a mystery why the board delayed a decision, given the violation occurred under a previous board majority. The attorney general listed which sections of the closed meeting – to the second – that the board should release.

The board is allowed to keep secret portions of the meeting dealing with the performance of specific personnel – in this case, then-Superintendent Tammy Prentiss.

Two weeks ago, Hinsdale attorney Dale Kleber, who filed the complaint with the attorney general over the closed meeting, pressed the board to release the recording.

Kleber, a board ally, said it appeared as if members did not want to divulge the recording. He warned the board may have to pay more legal fees if it stonewalled. He did not say whether that meant he or someone else would sue.

At Thursday's meeting, board President Catherine Greenspon explained the delay.

"One reason for our consideration as opposed to an immediate release was that the (attorney general's) request was non-binding," she said.

However, the Elmhurst School District 205 board took 32 days in 2021 to release a closed session recording in response to an attorney general's non-binding opinion.

Greenspon, who was elected last April, said the board would make public 95 of the total 105 minutes of the August 2022 closed session.

What the district would release, she said, was nearly identical to what the attorney general indicated was proper.

On Friday, the recording would be released in a link in an online board meeting summary, Greenspon said.

She said the board's goal was to increase "transparency."

Meanwhile, the board is facing another attorney general inquiry in response to a complaint from Patch.

Last May, the board decided behind closed doors to suspend Prentiss and name an interim superintendent. The public was unaware of the actions until the board emailed constituents the next afternoon.

The board never revealed how the secret votes came down. A week and a half later, it took votes in public.

The Open Meetings Act allows discussions about the performance of specific personnel behind closed doors. But votes must be taken in public.