School board member says two-year-old tape shows willful violation of law in Erwin contract dispute

‘It’s time to come clean’ in St. Charles

In a stunning development, a former School Board President in St Charles told the Daily Herald that a tape recording exists which shows the St. Charles school board knew it was breaking the law two years ago when it silently extended Superintendent Barbara Erwin’s contract behind closed doors.

The Daily Herald reports:

Despite the current board having heard the recording last week, however, members have yet to turn it over to the state’s attorney’s office, which is investigating a possible Open Meetings Act violation in 2005, Karla Ray said.

Ray, who was not on the board for the meeting in question, said she came forward with the information because she’s fed up with rampant secrecy on the board and “it’s time to come clean.”

The existence of direct evidence of a willful violation of the Open Meetings Act has the potential to raise the stakes for board members who were involved - and has left present board members looking to find a way out to the mess they have inherited.

In an interview this morning with Kane County state's attorney John Barsanti, Kentucky School News and Commentary learned that the board's intent will be a major factor that guides his response.

Kane County Regional Superintendent Clem Mejia opined to the Kane County Chronicle that voiding the agreement would be an extreme measure on the part of Barsanti. “I’m going to draw on the 20-years I’ve been in office: If there was a violation, the state’s attorney would send a very stern letter stating ‘Don’t do it again,’” Mejia said.

When asked about this, Barsanti said, "I don't know what exactly what he's referring to and I can't speak for other state's attorney's offices."

Barsanti went on to clarify: "Obviously, there's different levels of violations to the Open Meetings Act. The statute in Illinois gives me a lot of discretion as to what to seek. I can do nothing. ...I can seek damages, and also in certain situations...it can be a violation of the law; a misdemeanor...to violate the Open Meeting Act. And it depends a lot on exactly what happened. If it's an inadvertent mistake - you didn't list it on the agenda, or you didn't publicize it with enough time - this happens quite often, there are inadvertent mistakes - and most of the time, I'm not interested in assessing any heavy sanctions on something like that because most of the things can be redone and re-ratified, and everything can be made just as it should have been...when it's based on a mistake.



"Now, if I was presented with a situation where it was a willful violation - somebody willfully tried to avoid what I believe the Open Meetings Act was there to ensure; that there's an open discussion of ideas - and that certain dispositive action has been taken in secret without the input from the public, and without some public knowledge of it - if I thought that was the situation...in my mind that's different, Barsanti said. And I think I'd have to start thinking whether more severe types of sanctions would be requested."

"Now what Clem is talking about, I imagine, is in his experience, most of these these violations are inadvertent," Barsanti said.

Barsanti expects to receive all materials from District 303 by Wednesday. He is aware of today's story in the Daily Herald but said, "that tape hasn't gotten its way here yet. They have until tomorrow to give us a copy of that tape. ...Then we'll make our decision as to what we're going to do."

When asked what would happen if the item did not appear on the board's agenda, and if it appears to be a willful violation, Barsanti said, "I think we have to look at the whole thing. But the action can be voided. The action can be voided. That's one of the things that can happen."

“The public is not informed,” Ray said. “What I’m seeing is not a very transparent process.”

In an e-mail sent to board President Kathy Hewell on Saturday and to the Daily Herald on Monday, Ray wrote that the “secret conduct of the board is wrong and embarrassing.”

She also said the public should know there was a “willful violation” of the Open Meetings Act in 2005, when Erwin’s contract was extended without a public vote.

Ray said the board’s attorney made that conclusion Friday after the board listened to a recording of the April 11, 2005, closed meeting. She would not elaborate about the contents of the tape.

Hewell declined to respond to many of Ray’s comments, citing legal advice.

She did say, though, that “‘willful’ is a completely inaccurate” way of describing any illegal action that might have taken place two years ago.

“If there was, it’s going to be up to the state’s attorney to determine,” she said.

Mary Jo Knipp, who was board president in 2005 and signed the contract extension, said the debate has become a “personal vendetta” and declined to discuss Ray’s comments specifically.

“Nothing was done maliciously or illegally,” she said. “This reeks of nothing more than a personal vendetta, and if that is the case, I will be having nothing to do with it in any way, shape or form.”

Last week, the board met three times in closed session to discuss the possible ratification of the two-year-old agreement with Erwin, who is leaving the district next month.

It failed to take any action.

The contract, which credits Erwin with 85 sick days a year, came into question when outgoing board President Bobbie Raehl pointed out it was never publicly approved.

...[Ray] said some members want to see whether ratifying the contract now would essentially correct a past violation.

“My feeling is you cooperate,” Ray said. But “this is not being taken seriously.”

Hewell would not confirm or deny Ray’s assessment of the situation. She said the board plans to meet again Friday to discuss the issue in closed session.

“This is a board, and the board speaks with one voice in its votes,” she said.