BY DANI TIETZ
dani@mahometnews.com
Ken Keefe, who was elected to the Mahomet-Seymour School board filed an Open Meetings Act complaint with the State of Illinois’ Office of the Attorney General earlier this summer.
The report came to light on August 19, 2019 when Mahomet-Seymour School Board President Max McComb read a two-page statement during his public comment period at a regularly scheduled board meeting.
Keefe’s complaint and McComb’s statement have been posted on the district’s website for the public to review.
According to Keefe’s report, he reviewed “all 45 written board-approved closed-session minutes from April 17, 2017 to the present (May 8, 2019).” As a newly elected school board member, Keefe, Colleen Schultz and Meghan Hennesy, who were also seated in May, had access to 18-months of written and recorded closed sessions per 5 ILCS 120/2.06(a)(3).
Keefe alleged that 44 of the closed written minutes violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act because “they include a brief list of items discussed, but do not include a summary of the discussion.”
Within page 1 of the 15-page complaint, Keefe stated that the written minutes of a meeting from April 16, 2018 was three words long, but the meeting lasted 116 minutes and consisted of seven topics. He also stated that On December 17, 2018, the summary of the 77-minute discussion was one word: “Personnel.”
5 ILCS 120/2.06 (a)(3) states that a “summary of discussion on all matters proposed, deliberated or decided and a record of any votes taken” must be recorded verbatim.
Keefe’s second allegation falls under the same purview, noting that recordings for closed sessions are missing on November 20, 2017 and August 6, 2018.
He also said the eight verbatim recordings are partially missing.
Prior to going into closed session, any school board must cite one of the 35 reasons why they are going into closed session per 5 ILCS 120/2 (a). Find that law
Keefe states that the reason the board president cited to go into closed session did not always include the topics that were discussed in closed session. Keefe said this happened eight times over the 18-month period.
According to Keefe’s report, there were things that could be discussed in closed session talked about, but in the seven specific instances he names, the seven board members and Superintendent Lindsay Hall often drift off into other discussions about school district business and current and future development of Mahomet.
Public bodies are allowed to go into closed session to discuss the setting of the price for a property owned by the public body, but further discussion about the property is not allowed.
Keefe claims that the board switched the topic of setting the price of Sangamon Elementary to “a potential intergovernmental agreement dealing with road construction and railroad crossings.” He then states that the board also discusses “contract negotiations with the teacher’s union,” which is also allowed under 5 ILCS 120/2 (a).
In section 5 of the claim, Keefe discusses a closed session on December 18, 2017 where the board goes into closed session to discuss contract negotiations with the teacher’s union and a student due process hearing, topics allowed in closed session discussion, but says that “the discussion shifts away from individual students or litigation and moves to board plans for how to manage communication and public relations for student behavior issues.”
“The board and the district superintendent discuss district-wide policy and planning for disruptive students,” Keefe writes. “The board discusses behavior problems and staffing needs for behavior intervention. The board discusses possible drug possession at Lincoln Trail Elementary.”
The previous topics are not covered by closed session topics in the Open Meetings Act, according to Keefe.
Keefe said that public relations continued to be a topic discussed on February 5, 2018 when the board talked about “the Evidence-Based Funding Model, plans for raising taxes and tax policy, class sizes in the district and staffing needs.”
Keefe states that the board then moves on to discuss employee goals for the superintendent, but that the discussion is “clearly about general goals for the district, not an employee.”
The board then goes on the discuss press relations with “Dani”, how to manage press relations, community relations and demographics, according to the report.
“The discussion moves on to a discussion of pornography on student phones,” Keefe writes.
He also states that the board talked about building temporary classrooms and a push for a referendum to construct a new school. According to Keefe, the board discusses an intergovernmental agreement so that the Village of Mahomet can purchase Mahomet-Seymour Junior High should the district move students to Bulldog Drive.
“The board discusses commercial real estate development in Mahomet and ways that the board can support them,” Keefe writes.
Keefe states that on April 16, 2018, the Trent Nuxoll, the district’s Chief School Business Officer, presents information about IMRF to the school board describing “budgets and projects savings from the IMRF.”
Again, Keefe says that the board talks about tax policy and possible tax increases.
Keefe describes a discussion that goes back to retirement plans of specific employees, which is likely covered under 5 ILCS 120/2 (a), but that the board goes into a discussion about how to handle hearings in the reassignment of an administrator.
Keefe states that the discussion is not about the performance of the administrator, but “how to schedule meetings, what involvement the community can have and how the board can manage public relations.”
On June 4, 2018, the board discussed the state budget that was recently signed by the governor, which is not allowed under closed session topics, according to Keefe.
Later on in the discussion, the board talks about the district’s 5-year plan for facilities.
Keefe claims that while the Mahomet-Seymour Education Association contract discussions were upcoming, they had not begun when the board discussed the issue in closed session on Dec. 17, 2018.
He states that the tapes talk about the board’s strategy for how to handle the negotiation process, but only the actual negotiation is covered under the closed meetings exceptions.
Keefe then states that the board discusses a lawsuit and specific employee contract negotiations on April 1, 2019, but then goes on to say that the next twenty minutes are devoted to discussing a “contingency plan for outcomes of the election that is happening the next day.”
After knowing that three new board members would be seated by May, Keefe claims that Hall uses the April 10, 2019 meeting to have the seven board members to evaluate her performance so that she could be evaluated before the turnover.
By April 15, 2019 Keefe claims that “the board then discusses the schedule for when the board will evaluate the superintendent again and why the evaluation is happening in April when it should happen in October.”
McComb’s statement to the public at the August 19 board meeting marked the first time McComb has offered public comment first in his time as president.
McComb stated that the district learned about the complaint for the first time on August 13, 2019 when the district received the decision from the Attorney General.
Although the Attorney General’s office said they would not take further action with respect to Keefe’s allegations, they did offer the district some advice.
The letter to the district states that under section 3.5 (a), a person must submit a Request for Review within 60 days after an alleged violation unless the person did not discover facts concerning the alleged violation within those 60 days, despite utilizing reasonable diligence.
“All of the violations alleged by Mr. Keefe occurred more than 60 days before he submitted his Request for Review.
“Here, however, it does not appear that a person using “reasonable diligence” could have discovered the alleged violations earlier, because they were discovered only after review of closed session recording, which are generally never released, and closed session minutes, which are available to the public only if the public body votes to release them.”
Because section 2.06(f) of the Open Meetings Act (5ILCS 120/2.06(f) came into law on June 30, 2016 to allow newly elected members to familiarize themselves with the work of the public body so that they can perform their duties, the Attorney General declined to review the “late discover of alleged violations.”
The Public Access Counselor went on to say that the Open Meetings Act does require that the public body keep verbatim recordings of closed session and that it does allow for those recording to be destroyed after 18 months only if (1) the public body approves the destruction of a particular recording and (2) the public body approves minutes of the closed meeting that meet the written minutes requirements of the subsection (a).
The Attorney General’s office also states that “this office has consistently stated that minutes are insufficient if they merely list topics with no details of the content of the public body’s discussion of the topics.”
The recommendation suggested that the board examine its method of keeping closed session minutes to comply with the Open Meetings Act. It also suggested that the board deliberations are conducted openly, and that they may consider reviewing the closed session tapes to see what topics were covered under the closed meeting exceptions and which were not.
“If any of the discussions fall outside of those exceptions, the Board may wish to consider voting to release any portions of the recordings that are not in compliance with OMA. The Board also should be mindful of its obligation to the publicly cite and identify all exceptions that pertain to its closed session discussions before entering closed session.”
McComb stated that it was “good news” that the Attorney General denied the complaint in its entirety.
He also wrote that he was disappointed that Keefe never brought the issues to the board or anyone in the district.
“In other words, Mr. Keefe put a lot, lot, lot of time into this complaint, which he filed after he had joined the Board, and he even invoked his status as a Board member when he filed his complaint,” McComb read. “And he is entitled to do all of those things. And honestly, if Mr. Keefe or anyone else has concerns I hope that you raise those concerns.”
“But what disappoints me is that Mr. Keefe did it all in complete secrecy. There was no transparency from Mr. Keefe, no openness from Mr. Keefe, no attempt by Mr. Keefe to let us know he had filed this complaint. And that is really disappointing as we attempt to establish positive relationships and work together.”
McComb said that concerns brought up by Keefe in recent board meetings were being addressed.
“As one example, it was brought to the attention of the board of education by Mr. Keefe that the minutes of our closed session meetings were too general and too vague. We immediately addressed this moving forward and in fact went back and revise the minutes of several past meetings. In terms of audio recordings failing, we were not aware that had happened, and therefore couldn’t address it immediately.”
McComb said that it was important to be transparent about the complaint that Keefe filed, and so the district would post it on the website.
He then encouraged board members to keep their Open Meetings Act training up to date and to raise their concerns with him or the superintendent.
“The system that we have works best when we are all open with one another. That is not currently happening.”
McComb then stated that he thought it would be a good idea for a representative from the Illinois Association of School Boards to return to the group to help them work through their issues. The board had a similar meeting in closed session on Aug. 5.
“In closing, I think this is a good opportunity for the Board to focus on working together, on openness, and on the transparency that was talked about so much in the election,” McComb said. “We are committed to being transparent and accountable to our stakeholders, but I think it’s also important for Board members to be accountable and transparent to one another.”
After McComb’s comments, the other five of the six remaining board members weighed in on the public comment portion of the meeting where Sunny McMurray and Lisa Frerichs asked the board to look into Keefe’s involvement with the M-S PTO and the use of credit cards to purchase items in preparation for the Dawg Walk. Frerichs asked for Keefe’s resignation.
Lori Larson commented on the Health and Wellness expo the district held on date and Schultz and Jeremy Henrichs passed to get time to gather their thoughts.
While Hennesy went on to talk about how the district had no jurisdiction over the PTO, she began by speaking about the OMA complaint.
“In all fairness, I think the process needs to be understood by people as to why Ken might have taken the path that he did.”
Hennesy explained that new board members are allowed to listen to the closed session tapes or read the minutes from 18 months prior to them being seated.
She said that she and Schultz also listened to the tapes.
“There are very specific reasons that you can go into closed session,” she said. “And closed session is supposed to be for very specific discussions because we are a public body.
“Because we spend your money as taxpayers, we are supposed to do most of our discussing in the light where you can see it and understand our decision-making process.
“It’s only when it comes to things that are confidential, i.e. specific students, specific personnel, legal issues…negotiation issues with the Union; those are very specific and limited topics.
“If you discuss anything else in those closed session tapes, you are doing it illegally.”
Hennesy said that after listening to nearly 100 hours of closed sessions, she agrees that “there were numerous instances of discussions that took place that are not appropriate or approved for closed session.
“Anywhere from how we are going to block new board members from having any voices, having any impact.
“I can imagine if you are a new board member elected by the public and you in your research and time and effort to get up to speed in coming on to the board, heard that there were active plans to subvert your vote and make sure that you would not get to add things to agendas, if the numbers weren’t right people wouldn’t show up so votes couldn’t be taken, that this might be concerning to you.
Hennesy said those discussions happened on the closed session tapes.
She went on to state that the legal process for reporting what happens in a closed session when it’s inappropriate is laid out by the Attorney General’s office. She said that Keefe followed the appropriate procedures and channels within the given timeline.
“I think what Ken did is listen to the tapes and realize that time and time and time again things that are not appropriate or legal to be discussed in closed session were taking place in closed session.
“Part of the problem is that the public doesn’t get to understand what happens in those discussions and the decisions are made with your money and your kids and your policies.
Hennesy said the only time they could talk about the OMA issues is in open session.
She continued on to say that new board members have asked for items to be placed on the agenda, and have been given reasons why they can’t.
“It probably feels a little ticky-tacky to some of you who have been to some of these board meetings, where we keep bringing up: it’s not legal, it doesn’t follow OMA, but quite honestly if we are going to be policymakers and policy enforcers for our kids in the district, at a bare minimum, in my opinion, we better be policy followers.
“Laws matter even when they are little.”
Merle Giles said, “I couldn’t agree more with the comment about being policy followers I certainly agree with that and it’s why is it disturbing as it is that there’s self-serving behavior and acting alone that now has been dismissed as commonplace.”
Keefe ended the meeting asking board members to participate in a special meeting to discuss the complaint and to see if the board finds the allegations to be true and to establish a plan to remedy them.
The board fell silent for some time until McComb said he would like to just move forward.
Keefe suggested that the board could recognize their mistakes and how they can fix them.
“Let’s talk about things moving forward, let’s not go back and dig more in the past,” McComb said.
[pdf-embedder url=”https://mahometdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PAC_Complaint.pdf”]
[pdf-embedder url=”https://mahometdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Board_President_s_Response_to_PAC_Complaint.pdf”]
