Home

General Information

About Us


CVC Audit Information Download


Contact Us


Display Advertising


Ad Sizes and Samples


Classified Advertising

Communities

Communities Served


Community Resources

-$- Online Store -$-

Digital Online Subscription


Order A Classified Ad Online


Place Assumed Name Notice


Cook County Legals Printed Here


Kane County Name Change - $85


Place Obituary Notice


Download Sample Paper

Submission of News

Engagement Submittal


Birth Announcements


News & Photos


Sports Scores

Lifestyle Features and Videos

Food and Lifestyle


Lifestyle Videos


Seasonal Widget


Crossword and Sudoku Puzzles


Mug Shot Mania News

Online News and Commentary

The Examiner U-46 News Feed


Cheap Seats 2024 By Rich Trzupek


Cheap Seats 2023 By Rich Trzupek


Cheap Seats 2022 By Rich Trzupek


Guest Seat By Harold Pease, Ph.D.


Cheap Seats 2021 By Rich Trzupek


Cheap Seats 2020


Cheap Seats 2019


Cheap Seats 2018


Cheap Seats 2017


Cheap Seats 2016


Cheap Seats 2015 B


Cheap Seats 2015


Cheap Seats 2014


Cheap Seats 2013


Cheap Seats 2012


Cheap Seats 2011


Cheap Seats 2010


Ramey DUI Video


Representative Randy Ramey pleads guilty to DUI


Bartlett Volunteer Fire Department Street Dance


The Truth about Global Warming


Examiner Editorials and Cheap Seats from the past

Forms and Newsstand Locations

Newsstand Locations


Carriers needed


Legal Newspaper

The Examiner U-46 News Feed

Transparency at issue as U-46 Board vote looms


By Seth Hancock
  The Board of Education in School District U-46 will vote on whether or not to release to the public the closed session recording from Jan. 25, 2014 at its upcoming meeting on Monday, Aug 15, but how did the board get to a place where fighting for transparency was needed?
  That previous closed session meeting allegations of Open Meetings Act (OMA) violations were made by former board member Frank Napolitano. The meeting was in two parts, a board self-evaluation and evaluation of then superintendent Jose Torres, and if the entire tape is denied, a vote will be taken specifically on the board self-evaluation portion.
  Some historic perspective regarding the fight for transparency:
  In only her second meeting on the board, Jeanette Ward requested access to closed session tapes from the previous board in May 2015. From the beginning, she said it was “in the interest of transparency.”
  Miguel Rodriguez, the district’s chief legal officer, said a board member would need to justify the reason for listening and seek a vote from the board for access, but Ward said “being elected to the position is the justification.”
  Traci Ellis, who was on the previous board, from the start claimed Ward was “overstepping boundaries” and did not have a right to access under the OMA, but Ward “checked with the attorney general’s office in Springfield and in Kane County, and they said that the (OMA) does not cover this level of detail.”
  Rodriguez did say at that meeting that if “some serious allegation of mishandling of how those sessions are conducted by the board” that would be a reason to review a recording. At this point no specific tapes were requested and no allegations made.
  Phil Costello and Cody Holt, also new to the board, agreed with Ward from the start, while the board’s president Donna Smith and Veronica Noland, both on the previous board, and Sue Kerr, new to the board, all expressed hesitation.
  In June 2015, a committee was formed to update the board’s policy which Ward first volunteered to be a part of and Ellis followed. Ellis asked Kerr to join the committee.
  In August 2015, that committee met twice to form a policy requiring majority approval for access.
  Ward said as a new board member she wanted the ability to do “spot checks” to make sure the written minutes aligned before being forced to vote on destruction of tapes and that “minority members of governing bodies are protected in our Constitutional Republic from what can become the tyranny of the majority.”
  In September 2015, the policy was approved 4-3 with Costello and Holt joining Ward in voting against it saying access should not require a vote. Holt said: “Every board member has a Constitutional and legal right to go out and act on the behalf of the best interest of the public, and I believe Ms. Ward is and I will always vote yes in favor of allowing any board member access.”
  During the committee meetings, Napolitano spoke to The Examiner and made the allegations of OMA violations at two previous meetings. The tape of one of those meetings had already been destroyed on approval of the previous board. Because of the allegation at the Jan. 25, 2014 meeting, Ward said that was reason for access, aligning with what Rodriguez had previously stated, and asked for access.
  In October 2015 that access was denied 4-3 (Ellis, Kerr, Noland and Smith all voting no) as the three members who were on that previous board as well as Rodriguez who was at that closed session meeting, simply said to trust them that no violations occurred.
  Fast-forward to this May, Ward had to sue the board in order to save the tape in question from destruction as the board planned to vote on its destruction on the eve of a new bill, House Bill 4630, from the Illinois General Assembly that clarified elected officials rights under the OMA to unfettered access to previous closed session recordings. That bill was passed unanimously on a bipartisan basis and has been signed by Gov. Bruce Rauner.
  The interpretation of the OMA by the U-46 administration and the board’s majority, which includes a lawyer in Ellis who during the process “none of ya’ll are lawyers so it would not be fair” to have a legal discussion with her, were wrong from the start as HB4630’s chief sponsor Rep. Jeannie Ives came to a June board meeting to tell the board the General Assembly was “very concerned to hear that duly elected officials throughout Illinois were denied to simple access to closed session minutes and recordings.”
  At this point, the board’s majority relented and allowed access and the entire board, except Costello and Noland who did not attend, listened to the tape later in June. In July, Ward said a member of the public was maligned as being a part of the “21st century brand of the KKK” and she referenced Board Policy 2.201, which explicitly states past closed session recordings will be made public if confidentiality is not needed, to request making the tape public.
  Further obstacles to transparency that appear to exist:
  Despite having been proven wrong on her interpretation of the OMA from the start, Smith said this July that she still wants board members to “come through me” for access. Smith and Kerr were emphatic that board members needed to be supervised while listening under HB4630.
  The Examiner contacted Ives to ask if supervision is required under the bill and was told: “My interpretation of the law is that it is silent on the procedure, but firm on the access must be allowed.”
  It appears the board’s majority is wrong in its interpretation.
  Is the board’s leadership able to be objective?
  During the entire process of re-writing policy and access to tapes, Ward has always stuck to it being for “transparency.” On the other hand, Ellis has made it personal from the start, often referring to herself in the third-person and has questioned Ward’s intelligence and told Ward she doesn’t “respect your opinion.”
  Smith claimed in October 2015 that she has “tried as hard as I can, and I’m going to say that we have made progress towards working together.”
  Along with questioning Ward’s intelligence, during other discussions Ellis has called her a racist as well as offensive, shortsighted, narrow-minded, arrogant and bigoted.
  Smith has not once publicly denounced Ellis’ personal attacks while in contrast has reprimanded Ward and cut Ward off at public meetings. 
  In between meetings, Ellis went to Facebook to call Ward a liar concerning the allegation that a member of the public was maligned in closed session. On Aug. 1, Ward attempted to clear her name by asking other board members who listened to the tape who was correct, but Smith cut her off before she could ask while allowing Ellis to continue the personal attacks.
  Smith claimed after the meeting she “did not allow anything.” During the meeting Ellis said “when you tell a lie, that makes you a liar” and Smith responded allowing Ellis to continue: “Stop, because she accused me of something and I’m addressing that. That’s what I’m talking about. I did call Jeanette a liar, and I’m going to reiterate that if, you listened to the tape, if you think and you seem to feel strongly that there’s an [OMA] violation on, time is ticking Jeanette. You’ve got till Aug. 25 Jeanette. File something. Come after me.”
  It remains to be seen if objectivity will prevail in a vote. Will the vote make the tape public for transparency and to prove if Ward was telling the truth, or will the public be denied to form its own conclusions?

.

.




©2024 Examiner Publications, Inc.

Website Powered by Web Construction Set