Trouble on Board: School board members fight for community and transparency
By Sarah Bowman and Minjae Park
Medill Watchdog Group at Northwestern University
Rich Township school board member Cheryl Coleman had had enough.
Coleman had won election to the High School 227 board in April, 2011, determined to address the district's low test scores and lack of resources. She soon became worried that declining enrollment could force one of the three district high schools to close.
Before long, Coleman began asking that enrollment, health programs, tardiness and other critical issues be put on the meeting agenda for the board to discuss.
Month after month, it didn't happen.
So at a February, 2012, board meeting, Coleman took a different approach. She took a seat that night not at the board table, but in the audience. When the public comments portion of the meeting came, Coleman rose to address her colleagues with concerns she had been unable to raise sitting at their table.
The board policy calls for board members to be in "listening mode" during the comments portion, noted Coleman. "So that is why I took my seat in the audience that night, because I figured they would finally have to listen to me," she said.
This spring, the tables turned. Coleman's allies won election to the Rich Township board, catapulting Coleman into election as president of the board that she had long battled for information.
Her frustrations are echoed in other suburban school districts around Chicagoland, where reformist critics win election only to find their access to information, or even their ability to raise issues, blocked by the majority.
Janet Hughes, a critic of spending practices in Lemont-Bromberek School District 113A, only was elected after a contentious election battle ended in court. Hughes encountered district resistance when she began demanding details of the bills that she and other board members were being asked to approve. But she was unprepared for what she learned when she finally saw the detailed bill from the district lawyers; the district was spending money even after the election for advice about the board's composition.
And in Hinsdale Township District 86, board member Dianne Barrett was rebuffed when she sought information about complaints by families of special needs students. She was also denied access to an audiotape of a closed session meeting that she missed. Barrett filed suit against her district to obtain access to the information and the audiotape. The board majority then voted to adopt new policies that allowed it to deny her, or any board member, access to information.
Like Barrett, Hughes turned to the courts, contending she was wrongly denied information. Both are now off their boards, their terms expired. But both lawsuits are still pending, hanging in limbo while courts decide whether the lawsuits are still even relevant once the members' service ends.
Both are represented by attorney Clint Krislov, who contends that a ruling against his clients would only encourage other board majorities to stymie transparency by simply delaying until dissenting members' time on the board runs out.
The Hinsdale, Lemont and Rich Township School Districts all had been represented by the same lawfirm: Scariano, Himes & Petrarca. Firm attorney James Petrungaro, who counsels school board attorneys nationwide on defining the limits of board members to district records, said in a recent interview that limits are needed to prevent vocal minorities from interfering with board operations. He said that privacy concerns over student records also require that school boards ensure board members have a "legitimate reason" for being provided documents they seek.
But that interpretation is backwards, said Mark Caramanica, attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which monitors state laws related to open government. Caramanica contends the burden should be on school boards to justify denying information - not the other way around.
"It's not that you need to show me a law that specifically says this record is open," he said. "You need to show me a law that specifically says this record is closed." He added, "The public should be very skeptical of any efforts to hide documents from school board members and the public about decisions being made by the school board."
Illinois law is not so clear. State law gives boards the authority they need "for the maintenance, operation and development" of the district schools, and "stewardship" of district assets. But the specific rights and responsibilities of board members are not spelled out.
To Krislov, who founded the now-defunct Center for Open Government at ITT-Chicago Kent College of Law that originally represented Hughes and Barrett in their battles for greater transparency, the matter is overdue to be settled by the courts. "If no one tells the boards to stop stonewalling, they will keep stonewalling," he said.
RICH TOWNSHIP: District Dysfunction
