D86 Board Continues Talk on Barrett Censure Before May Vote

The Board of Education plans to take action next month on the potential censure of a board member who independently reached out to authorities in February and accused colleagues of bond fraud.

The possible censure of Dianne Barrett stems from her email to the offices of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin in which in February and expressed her belief that board members who voted to approve the bond sale were guilty of fraud along with two administrators, the district’s bond counsel, and the bond sale’s underwriter.

The board has discussed censuring Barrett during its last two meetings, including one held Monday at . Barrett was present at the latest meeting but did not speak on the censure item, the language of which was drafted for board members but not included in public agenda documents.

Board member Jennifer Planson, one of the five board members who voted in favor of the bonds, said Monday she thought Barrett’s action was “unacceptable” and felt that her own character had been attacked.

“If [censure] is the only way that we can say, ‘This is enough,’ I’m for it,” Planson said.

, Barrett spoke against selling the bonds as working-cash bonds when it was clear that they were going to go toward capital projects, most notably the installation of air-conditioning systems at and Hinsdale South.

At that meeting, Bill Hofherr of George K. Baum & Company, the bond underwriter, said the firm’s attorneys had found the bond purchase and use of the resulting revenue to be “completely legal.”

Barrett then sent an email to Berlin and Madigan on Feb. 14 that said it was her "firm belief that a fraud is being knowingly and intentionally perpetrated" by the above-mentioned parties.

Madigan’s office followed up with the district and requested a response to the allegation. The district’s general counsel and bond counsel responded in defense of the sale and, in a March 19 email to Barrett, Madigan’s office stated that it did not anticipate taking any action at that time.

The censure, board member Kay Gallo said, is about letting people know that Barrett’s accusations were inaccurate.

“Her accusations were not valid, they were not truthful and that’s what we’re stating, that she falsely accused us,” Gallo said.

Board member Richard Skoda, who was not present when , spoke against censuring Barrett and said that, regardless of whether the attorney general agreed or disagreed with Barrett’s opinion of the bond sale, he was wary of saying Barrett “falsely accused” the district.

Skoda said he does not think Barrett violated the board member’s oath that demands they be ethical and constructive.

“Writing to a state officer such as the attorney general, I don’t see how you say that’s unethical,” Skoda said. “I think this is kind of petty.”

He also said the fact that the board went public with the email, not Barrett, should be considered.

“Barrett, to my knowledge, never made any publics in comments at the board meeting, to the papers, et cetera,” Skoda said. “She notified no one that she contacted anybody. It was this board that announced that she had done so.”

Planson said that because Madigan’s office requested a response from the district, Barrett’s email was going to become public one way or another.

“To say that we just threw it out there is incorrect,” she said.

Board President Dennis Brennan said he thinks it’s fine if a board member is against something like the bond sale.

“I don’t understand why it has to become that the rest of the board who voted for it intentionally misrepresented facts and was trying to deceive everybody,” Brennan said.

The board will consider the censure item again at its May 7 meeting, according to the district’s latest Board Briefs newsletter.

In the meantime, the board directed its attorneys from Scariano, Himes, and Petrarca to craft a response to a letter from community member and former District 86 board candidate Bruce Davidson demanding that any legal costs accrued in the potential censure of Barrett be paid by those who support it and not with taxpayer money.