.
Feedback

D86 President to Dianne Barrett: Pay the District Back

Board President Dennis Brennan asked board member Dianne Barrett to pay more than $50,000 in legal fees incurred by the district in her lawsuit against him and Superintendent Nicholas Wahl.

The fallout from a judge’s decision Friday to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a board member against the president of the board of education and the superintendent spread over Monday night’s school board meeting like an angry dark cloud.

Board member Dianne Barrett had sought a court order to gain access to documents pertaining to the district’s special education program.

But , citing restrictions delineated in the Illinois Student Records Act. Board President Dennis Brennan, named as a defendant in the suit along with Superintendent Nicholas Wahl, passed out a copy of the judge’s order to board members Monday night during their regular monthly meeting at .

“This case cost us over $50,000 to defend,” Brennan said. “In the six-and-a-half years I’ve been on this board, I’ve never seen any other board member waste $50,000 in one swoop.”

“I did not request that the district spend $50,000,” Barrett responded. “We have a law firm that I believe, at times, has charged the district more than I would anticipate.”

Brennan read a portion of the order, which said a school official has a right to access the type of student records Barrett sought only if the official has a “current, demonstratable educational or administrative interest in the student.”

“That’s exactly what I had,” Barrett said, “an interest in the student.”

“This says you don’t,” said Brennan, referring to the judge’s order. “Thanks for wasting 50 grand. … I’ll ask you to now pay the district back.”

Board member Richard Skoda took exception to Brennan passing out of copies of the judge’s order.

“Mr. Brennan, I would hope you’d make a precedent, when all legal matters are concluded that the district is involved [in], of also alerting the board and the audience and also posting all of them on the website, and not just cherry-picking … issues.”

“Well, I could do that,” Brennan said. “I can tell you we have a very good record of, when we’re sued, winning.”

Brennan said he hoped this would be the end of the litigation on the matter, noting that an appeal would cost the district additional legal fees. Barrett said she had not decided whether to appeal.

“I have 30 days to make my decision,” she noted.

Barrett once again defended her decision to seek a court order giving her access to the documents, saying there were “a lot of unhappy parents” of special education students in the district.

“I decided it was in the best interest of myself to find out what the problems were in the special ed department,” she said. “I hope that this board will now have a discussion as to whether we look at those documents as board members before I decide whether I’m going to appeal or not.”

Mike Sandrolini November 22, 2011 at 02:20 pm
I don't live in the district, but I'm interested in getting residents' responses to the developments in District 86. What do you think of Dianne Barrett's attempts to gain access to documents pertaining to the district’s special education program? And what do you think of Board President Dennis Brennan asking her to reimburse the district $50,000 in legal fees?
Karen November 22, 2011 at 02:33 pm
Dear Mr. Brennan ,
You are out of line! You clearly are confident you always win in Dupage Court House. Hmm. Well Diane Barrett was correct in asking for certain documents. I think it is time she redraft her complaint and bring it out of Dupage County to a higher court. Miss allegations of funds, non testing of students, graduating students that have 7 credits, mediation settlements. Why the Board voted two years early for your contract is astonishing to me. Why can't President Obama just change when he wants his election? Again laws are in place for a reason, you Mr. Brennan at the expense of the students and tax PAYERS dollars, is a disgrace to such a fine School. I believe the books should be opened up to prove tax PAYERS , the waste and the cover up in this district. Mediation Loans Testing vs non tested students Graduates who graduated and who did not. Your salary should also be reviewed over 200,00, was your salary negotiated 2 years prior as long with your early election with no notice to the tax PAYERS? Thank you Dianne for doing your best to help create a transparency in this district. Why such hush hush makes anyone think something is going on.
Joe O'Donnell (Editor) November 22, 2011 at 02:41 pm
Thanks for the comment Karen. I think, however, that you are referring to the salary of Superintendant Dr. Nicholas Wahl being greater than $200,000, not Board President Brennan.
Karen November 22, 2011 at 02:53 pm
Yes sorry... What does he do again.
Govt watchdog November 22, 2011 at 03:29 pm
This is really bizarre. The school district repeatedly chose to not give a school board member documents she needed to do her job, then paid attorneys $50,000 to continue to hide the records and now they want that money back. That is the real waste here. I'm angry about the waste of money from Brennan and company.
Dan Leigh November 22, 2011 at 05:15 pm
The school district gave her the documents BUT WITHOUT THE STUDENT'S NAME. She wanted the names! They defended the privacy of the students. Not bizarre at all. That is the law. She also wanted to share the information with others who are not on the board. I am glad the district defended my student's information. The district kept asking for a dismissal but the judge kept giving Ms. Barrett the chance to plead her case for 15 months. Ms Barrett was unable to defend her want/need. The judge said District 86 is correct, no board member has the right to unfettered access.
Karen November 22, 2011 at 07:58 pm
Dianne Barrett,
Has much better things to do with her time. The hidden documents will eventually be shown and the horrific situation that follow are even worse then the hidden documents. Dianne Barrett is an out standing strong person to take on Dupage County Special Ed Dept and District 86.
Karen November 22, 2011 at 08:00 pm
Simply redraft complaint. . Bring to appellate court.
Steve Woodward November 22, 2011 at 10:29 pm
The Board President believes this taxing body, elected by a small percentage of registered voters, is entitled to any conduct it desires, including hostility toward other board members and residents of the district. He is attempting to divert attention from the problem -- shoddy special education programs -- by complaining about $50,000. Yet, the Board thought nothing of approving $46,000 since 2008 in legal fees to CONTEST citizens' property assessment appeals. Think about that: Taxpayer dollars used against taxpayers pursuing their legal right to challenge the assessed values of their homes.
Sue Pircon November 23, 2011 at 12:01 am
Steve, as a self proclaimed watch dog for the taxpayer I find your argument a bit ironic. The District is no longer challenging property tax appeals and Therese Cockrell, the tax assessor is handling all challenges. But wait, Ms. Cockrell is a government employee, so then think about this, taxpayer dollars are still being used against taxpayers pursuing their legal right to challenge the assessed value of their homes. So I suppose one solution would be to have assessment appeals not contested let homeowners pay whatever they feel is fair. And Steve, what are your thoughts regarding public defenders?
Richard Janson November 23, 2011 at 07:11 pm
Karen,
Your commments show that you are clueless. The complaint was dismissed. You can't redraft the complaint and get another shot at it in the appellate court. She's stuck with what her attorney drafted. Please refrain from making statements when you don't know what you are talking about. It gives the Barrett/Skoda people a bad reputation. Or at least a worse reputation!
Samantha November 23, 2011 at 07:11 pm
I'm surprised any parent would speak out against Dianne Barrett's actions. As a board member it is her duty to oversee that programs are running smoothly for the children - it is in their best interest that Barrett sought the records. Once those responsible for overseeing such programs are denied access to the very evidence of any wrongdoing, how is anyone to know what is going on? The way I see it, everyone is quick to overlook that Dianne may have been the only one actively pursuing positive change and adequate oversight into your children's educations. Thanks to this decision, she can't access the tools necessary to do her job as an effective board member. And on top of it all, for Brennan to request that Barrett pay back the $50,000 is simply ridiculous. In light of the Illinois Students Records Act, which requires a “current, demonstrable educational or administrative interest in the student” by a school official to gain access to student records, what could possibly fulfill this requirement more than a "current" board member attempting to address parental concerns of the special education program? As such, she should have never been denied the records in the first place. Brennan has it wrong - those who denied access should repay the $50,000 since they did so wrongfully (and against the student's best interest might I add) and were the ones who provoked the litigation.
Jim Pokin November 23, 2011 at 08:29 pm
I appreciate everyone who has taken time to comment on this issue. The comments show people are concerned, not clueless. Let's try to keep the comments focused on the issues raised in the story and in the comments, without denigrating any of the other commenters.
Dan Leigh November 23, 2011 at 08:35 pm
No, Samantha, the duty of a school board is to hire the Superintendent, who then runs the district. Dr. Wahl, Dr. Law and Dr. Powell oversee the education of the students. They are the ones to make sure "that programs are running smoothly for the children". It is a matter of law that Ms. Barrett AND ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS do not have the right for unfettered access to records. It appears by your post, you do not understand that she was given the records requested, but the identifiable information was removed. So, why did she sue? My answer is because she is curious. She does not have an educational interest in my student. Her interest should be in the entire population of students. As far as overseeing that programs are running smoothly, as you state, then board members qualifications should be more specific. Currently in order to be a board member, one needs to be a registered voter and reside within the boundaries of the district. There is no stipulation to have any knowledge about education. People should educate themselves about school boards. Here's a place to start. http://www.iasb.com/pdf/YourSchoolBoardandYou.pdf
Joe O'Donnell (Editor) November 23, 2011 at 08:52 pm
Patch is not aware of any recent cases of rape or abuse of students at any District 86 school.
Samantha November 23, 2011 at 11:20 pm
The relevant section of the the Illinois School Student Records Act applies to ALL school officials, not just board members. Therefore, the distinction between the duties and responsibilities of a board member and a superintendent is irrelevant. At issue is simply whether Dianne had a “current demonstrable educational or administrative interest in the student.” No where does it state that the interest be directly related to her specific position. Let’s stick to actual language stated in the law if we are to dumb it down to a mere black and white situation and continuously reference it as a basis for an opinion.
The document Mr. Leigh provided states that the “best” school board member has “the willingness to spend the time required to become informed and to do the homework needed to take part in effective school board meetings.” Indeed, a board member’s authority rests with voting on final decisions – those decisions that ultimately affect the students’ everyday lives. In addressing whether Dianne had a legitimate interest, under the requirements of the Illinois School Student Records Act, it seems to me that making informed decisions qualifies. The fact is, Dianne was attempting to do just that but has been denied the opportunity.
Samantha November 23, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Also, why is the automatic assumption that Dianne was simply “curious” and without a legitimate interest? Do we actually know that what she was requesting would not enhance her understanding to be a more effective board member?
I for one am thrilled at the idea that someone is passionate enough about the special education program to attempt to carry out her request in the face of such severe adversity. Dianne should be commended, not criticized.
SubaruSuzie November 26, 2011 at 05:41 pm
I agree with Samantha. More school board members should be like Dianne Barrett and take an active role in ensuring that our children's education is taken seriously. Dianne clearly cares about the quality of education our children recieve and by asking for records merely wanted to make sure that the Special Education program was the best that it could be. Mr. Brennan should be commending not condemning Dianne.
I cannot believe that the Court has allowed the district to hide behind its partial compliance with the applicable Illinois laws. Somehow by giving her some, but not all the documents they have met their burden. That's like me ordering a hamburger and McDonald's only giving me the bun and a tomato! That she recieved some records and not others completely missed the point. Dianne is a school board member and as such should a right to access ANY and ALL documents related to her duties as a school board member. The burden should not be on her to show what she hopes to find in a document she has not read! Let's not forget that as a school board member, she is required to keep private information private.
Karen Karson November 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Karen,
Get your facts straight...Special Education Students do NOT graduate. They receive a completion of credit hours not a diploma.
Karen Karson November 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
I agree...She has no rights to my students documents!! She should pay the district back the money and RESIGN. We need people who care..and she simply DOES NOT.
Karen Karson November 27, 2011 at 11:47 pm
To the editors...Why is KAREN allowed to post without disclosing full name?
RealityCzech November 28, 2011 at 12:31 am
I've got to side with Samantha and SubaruSuzie here. Ms. Barrett isn't just some "curious" person from off the street asking to see these records. She is an elected official charged with a number of obligations. One is the oversight of the the school district. She needs to be informed in order to fulfill her obligations. Administrators like Dr. Wahl are gatekeepers of this information and have the power to paint any picture they want by picking and choosing what information board members can use to make decisions. A responsible and active board member like Ms. Barrett should be commended for trying to carry out her responsibilities.
Joe O'Donnell (Editor) November 28, 2011 at 01:20 am
Re: Karen Karson's comment below:
In the interest of transparent and honest dialogue, Patch strongly encourages the use of first and last names when making comments. We will take down comments from anonymous commenters if we feel the content of the comment is offensive or if it is unrelated to the topic of the story.
Steve Woodward November 28, 2011 at 04:21 am
The burden of proof is on the tax assessor. If the assessor does his/her job, challenges will be the exception. In those rare cases, the assessor should defend his/her assessment apart from the expense of a third-party attorney.
artie p November 29, 2011 at 01:10 am
I wouldn't trust ms barrett with any specific student information and find it odd that of a 7 mbr brd that this 1 woman who appears unstable must have names and identifying info. Disturbing that she's the only 1 feeling that need among admin staff and board.
Judgehinsdale November 29, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Waying all the facts, I'm going to have to go along with Artie G, Dan Leigh, Sue Pircon, Richard Janson, and who am I forgetting, oh yes of course, the JUDGE. End of Story people, the JUDGE ruled on it and your opinion does not matter. Tell her to pay up and quit suing the district. By the way, has she sued the district before?
It makes me wonder about people like woody who claim they are for the taxpayers but then turn a blind eye to Miss Barrett's actions. Woody may not like the board president or superintendent but at least they are consistent.
Joe O'Donnell (Editor) November 29, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Thanks for the great comments, everybody. I'd like to re-iterate that Patch very much values FULL NAMES of commenters. I hope everyone who's posting anonymously considers attaching their names to their comments. Thanks!
Carol Klener Jablonski January 24, 2012 at 01:05 pm
Dan Leigh raises some points that I agree with. I would not want my child's name revealed and available to Ms. Barrett's whim. I ask that all of the Board members attend some team building seminar as well as some orientation as to their duties. All of the Board members; this includes Ms. Barrett. You all need to work together for the betterment of the district.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Darien Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Darren McRoy (Editor) June 1, 2013 at 01:18 am
Hi lpwagener, as you can see, we've been undergoing a few changes here this week and we're reallyRead More hoping residents will make use of our new Boards--like these--to help make sure anything we miss makes it to the site. Thanks for contributing; we'd love to hear if you have a story from the storm, or even if you just want to vent about nine-hour power outages (which sound terrible; I'm quite sorry.) Thanks!!