'Misleading' Hinsdale D86 Message On Closed Meeting: Lawyer

HINSDALE, IL – Hinsdale High School District 86 maintains it "went beyond what the law requires" in releasing portions of a 2022 closed session recording.

By its apparent legal theory, it would have exceeded the law's requirements if it disclosed a single minute.

In fact, the board released less of the recording than what the attorney general's office requested. A local lawyer said the board is "misleading" the public.

In November, the attorney general's office issued an opinion finding that the board violated the state's open meetings law in August 2022. It asked the board to release parts of the recording in violation.

In the August 2022 meeting, the board discussed goal-setting for then-Superintendent Tammy Prentiss. That part of the closed meeting should have occurred in public, the attorney general found.

Before the board closed the doors at the meeting, Hinsdale attorney Dale Kleber told members they would violate the law if they held the closed session. Members Peggy James, Jeff Waters and Debbie Levinthal voted against the session, saying they were concerned about violating the Open Meetings Act. The other four outvoted them.

Kleber filed the complaint that triggered the attorney general's finding.

At the board meeting two weeks ago, President Catherine Greenspon, who was elected last April, said the board would release 95 of the 105 minutes that the attorney general identified. She said the board decided to go beyond what the law requires.

The attorney general requested – to the minute – which parts of the closed meeting should be released, citing the open meetings law. But the board opposed releasing 10 of those minutes. It did not explain the decision.

The board's spokesman, Alex Mayster, did not return a message for comment Tuesday.

In her statement at the meeting, Greenspon said the attorney general's opinion was "non-binding." With that statement, the board's position seems to be that any release of the recording, even a minute's worth, would exceed legal requirements.

In an email to Patch on Wednesday, Kleber, a one-time ally of Greenspon and the current board majority, said the attorney general's determination was not "non-binding" and that the attorney general's letter never uses the term. He noted the letter said the attorney general's office "determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion."

"That is very different from saying that the AG's ruling is 'non-binding,' implying that the District is free to use its own judgment on what portions of the discussions should and should not be released," Kleber said. "The difference is subtle but important."

"What the District has done is spin this invented term to mean that release of the ear-marked discussions is somehow optional, i.e. we don't have to release the recordings unless the AG or a court forces us to do so," Kleber said in the email.

He said the board was "misleading" the public by suggesting that the attorney general gave the Board an option on which portions of the recordings to release.

"The District has invented this 'non-binding' term and spun it to give the impression that the scope of its release of the unlawful closed discussions is somehow discretionary," Kleber said in the email. "The Board is taking the position that we don't have to release any of the recordings unless the AG or a court forces us to do so."

Kleber said the district did not "go beyond," as Greenspon contends, the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

"The Board actually did less because it refused and continues to refuse to release all of the discussions flagged as unlawful by the AG," he said. " Under (the Open Meetings Act), a binding letter may not be issued by the AG unless it is sent within 60 days of a complaint, which rarely happens. As I understand it, the AG issues binding opinions only for very egregious violations and as a signal that the AG is prepared to proceed with legal action."

"The Board's position is essentially the equivalent of saying we weren't guilty of running a red light because the cop gave us a warning and not a ticket," he said.

The following is a letter to the editor from Dale Kleber submitted to the Hinsdalean, a weekly newspaper. It has not run yet.

Dear Editor:

Your March 14th “Editorial” discussed the importance of publicly-elected bodies and government agencies complying with the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) and mentioned my successful complaint against the District 86 School Board for OMA violations. You also mentioned a misleading statement recently made by the President, suggesting the Board was going “above and beyond” the requirements of OMA by releasing selected portions of video tape of a closed meeting held August 29, 2022.

The President’s statement was, at best, a misguided attempt to garner undeserved credit for seeming transparency – or, at worst, an intentional misrepresentation that the Board complied with, and even exceeded, legal requirements.

• Delayed action for almost four months,
• Initially withheld all of the unlawful discussions earmarked by the AG,
• Treated the AG’s letter as “non-binding” (a term that did not appear in the letter), effectively viewing OMA compliance as optional, and
• Continues to violate OMA by withholding certain discussions deemed improper by the AG.

The Board is not only ignoring the “spirit of” OMA, as your Editorial suggests, it has deliberately chosen to violate the letter of the law … a violation that is continuing. The current Board President apparently views OMA compliance as important only if a lawsuit is filed.

Very Truly Yours,

Dale E. Kleber