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.
Click Here: ireland rugby shirts
Find out what's happening in Hinsdale-Clarendon Hillswith free, real-time updates from Patch.
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.
Find out what's happening in Hinsdale-Clarendon Hillswith free, real-time updates from Patch.
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,” saying the term never appears in the letter. He said the board was “misleading” the public that the attorney general gave the board some sort of option on which portions to release.
“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 noted the attorney general said in the letter that the office has “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.”
A binding letter cannot be issued unless it is sent within 60 days of a complaint, which rarely happens, Kleber said. (The Lyons Township High School board was one such unusual case last year.)
“As I understand it, the AG issues a binding opinion only for very egregious violations, and it is a signal that the AG is prepared to proceed with legal action,” he said. “I am informed that a binding opinion is more likely issued in the case of repeat offenders.”
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.