The Examiner U-46 News Feed

Watchdog group, U-46 at odds on violations

By Seth Hancock
  A change in the School District U-46 Board of Education’s meeting agendas appears to vindicate the Edgar County Watchdogs (ECW), but the district administration and board still claim no Open Meetings Act (OMA) violations occurred at its Oct. 19 meeting.
  Kirk Allen and John Kraft, co-founders of the ECW, claimed OMA violations occurred on that date after they were denied a chance to speak at the 5:15 p.m. meeting which was closed session. At 7 p.m. when the regular meeting started, the district’s chief legal officer Miguel Rodriguez claimed both meetings were all a part of one meeting despite there being separate agendas with adjournments on both.
  In his weekly message to staff later that week, U-46 CEO Tony Sanders wrote: “While I disagree with their interpretation, upon reflection I can understand the points they raised.”
  For the following board meeting on Monday, Nov. 2, the agenda was changed reflecting one agenda “thus an acknowledgement their actions were wrong” according to a story on the ECW’s website, edgarcountywatchdogs.com.
  At the Oct. 19 meeting, the Elgin Police were called and a detailed report was submitted to that department by the ECW citing every portion of the OMA that was violated.
  There was a board committee meeting at 4 p.m. that day which the ECW cited violations of sections 2.02(a) and 2.02(b) for not properly giving public notice or providing an agenda on the district’s website or on the building. No agenda was posted on the building for the 5:15 p.m. meeting either.
  Since no action can take place in a closed meeting, the 5:15 p.m. meeting opened to the public and had a vote to go into executive session, which is noted on the agenda, and when that meeting was reopened, Allen and Kraft were denied a chance to speak which they claim violates Section 2.06(g) of the OMA. According to their report, the initial claim from Rodriguez was “this meeting was a closed meeting and that we could speak at the [7 p.m.} meeting,” not that it was one full meeting.
  Even though it appears the ECW could bring a lawsuit against the district, it appears board member Traci Ellis is not concerned about the cost of one to taxpayers as she took to her public Facebook page to attack the character of Allen and Kraft as well as levying a conspiracy theory that certain board members were in on this. It  should be noted, the ECW asked for charges be brought against all board members in attendance at the Oct. 19 meeting which likely includes those Ellis claimed were in on it.
  Ellis wrote on Oct. 22 that her “issue is not scrutiny or alerting us that we may be doing something wrong” but what occurred “was an inside hatchet job.” She called Allen’s and Kraft’s attempt to have their First Amendment rights upheld a “rude demand” and they were “childish egomaniacs.”
  On Oct. 19, Ellis posted a statement insinuating some board members were involved and that U-46 doesn’t “have a full board that is interested in governing and leading and focusing on them and our communities.”
  The entire board was sent questions by The Examiner, including two specifically addressed to Ellis, an attorney. Considering her legal background she was asked about the likelihood of lawsuits being filed when the potential filers’ character is attacked, and considering her Facebook posts is she looking for a lawsuit. She was also asked for evidence to support her conspiracy theory, but she did not respond to the questions.
  Board member Cody Holt responded on his public Facebook page, although not naming Ellis. Holt was also directed a question by The Examiner since he felt he was one of those Ellis did not feel has the district’s best interests in mind.
  Asked if Ellis has the district’s best interest, Holt said he feels she and every board member does, “but where we differ is on the philosophy of how to improve the district.”
  Holt added: “Just because we disagree doesn’t mean we should devolve into petty accusations and name calling. I will always support every board member’s right to have a differing opinion.”
  On the new agenda format, Holt said it “makes it more clear to the public and I believe makes us more transparent.”
  Donna Smith, the board’s president, and Jeanette Ward both responded to the questions. Phil Costello, who was not in attendance at the Oct. 19 meeting, as well as Sue Kerr and Veronica Noland, did not respond.
  The board was asked about what, if anything, would be done to fix this situation and if the board had reached out to the ECW to try and alleviate their concerns before a lawsuit is filed.
  Smith said that she, Sanders and Rodriguez “carefully reviewed the concerns.”
  “We take these and all public concerns very seriously,” Smith added and “although we firmly believe that no violations” took place “we have spent the time since reviewing and determining if we should make changes to the Board of Education’s agenda to make it more clear.”
  Given multiple chances to respond, Smith did not answer if the board reached out to the ECW.
  Ward responded: “I believe our board president has responded. I would like to add that I made the recommendation that the board contact the ECW.”
  The ECW responded to Ellis’ attack on their website writing that they “drove four hours to attend the meeting and had no way of knowing the board was going to violate the law,” and when they simply asked for a chance to speak they were met with arrogance and resistance.
  Both Allen and Kraft returned on Nov. 2 to speak during public comments. Allen spoke on the purchasing card violations the ECW uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request which appears to rise to a Class 3 felony under the Illinois Criminal Code as previously reported on by The Examiner, and Kraft spoke against the board’s 4-3 decision to deny Ward access to a previous closed session recording.
  Kraft, who learned that the board is given a catered dinner during closed session by the district after attending the Oct. 19 meeting, opened by saying: “I hope you enjoyed your dinner. I hope you paid for it and didn’t make the students pay for it.”
  That prompted Ellis to shake her head and say that was “unnecessary.”

.

.