D86 Board Agrees to Settle Dianne Barrett Lawsuit

The District 86 Board of Education Monday night voted to approve a settlement agreement in the Dianne Barrett lawsuit despite the fact that the case has twice been dismissed by DuPage County judges.

The 3-2 vote came after an executive session during a committee of the whole meeting at Hinsdale Central. Ed Corcoran, Claudia Manley and Richard Skoda voted to approve, while Kay Gallo and Jennifer Planson voted against approval.

Victor Casini and Michael Kuhn were not present to cast votes. 

“This settlement should put this three-year case behind us and minimize any further legal costs in this case,” Board President Claudia Manley said in a statement. “The settlement awards no monetary compensation to Mrs. Barrett, nor did she seek any.” 

The agreement, which still needs court approval, does allow Barrett’s attorneys to petition for fee reimbursement, but a District 86 release says the district would oppose such a petition. 

The settlement comes after two different DuPage County judges ruled against Barrett, who has sought special-education litigation documents and closed-session board meeting audiotapes during the suit that was first filed in 2010.

Judge Thomas Dudgeon dismissed Barrett's case in 2011, saying her attorneys did not present a rationale for how she qualifies for unfettered access to unredacted student records under the Illinois Student Records Act (ISRA) and Barrett’s status as a school board member alone does not qualify her. 

Barrett's complaint was then modified so that it only sought the closed-session audio tapes and challenged a board policy approved in March 2012 that changed the rules regarding board members’ access to district documents not made available to the public and required the requestor to demonstrate why the records will help the board member to fulfill his or her duties.  

That amended complaint was dismissed in 2013 by Judge Paul Fullerton. Barrett attorney Clint Krislov said after that dismissal that another appeal was planned.

"I don’t know why we would have settlement when we prevailed in this case," Gallo said Tuesday morning. "It makes me wonder what the true motive is in the settlement. They say it's to curtail the expenses. I think it has nothing to do with what’s right or just. I think it just comes down to the bottom line."    

Manley said through the district release that Board Policy 2:225, the one challenged by Barrett, will be replaced in an effort to allow board members to more easily access internal district information. 

The board president said replacing the policy, which only allows student-record access to board members who "assert legitimate educational interest or current demonstrable educational or administrative interest in the student," is an important step in ensuring that board members can keep vendors and contractors accountable.

Under the terms of the settlement, Barrett will not herself receive the records she sought that were the basis of the lawsuit. But it is mandated that the closed-session audiotape and the documents related to special-education litigation will be listened to and looked over by a current board member to see if there are any improprieties.

The agreement also mandates that board members not be denied access to similar information in the future. If a board member's request for information is considered abusive, the district release states, it will be reviewed by the board but would require a 2/3 vote to be denied. If denied, the requesting board member can appeal to the circuit court for an informal proceeding.

Student records, the district release reads, will be protected via “express prohibitions against members re-disclosing private, personal information to anyone not entitled to it under federal and state law.”

Barrett emailed a statement to Patch Tuesday afternoon. 

"I am pleased to have an agreement with the BOE; however, it still requires Court approval, so I have little to say until that final step is final," she wrote.