Hinsdale High School District 86 and three district residents who sued the school board in federal court over its refusing to let them speak at a meeting in December have settled their case out of court.
The District 86 School Board voted 5-1 May 28 to approve the settlement agreement with Dr. Meeta Jain Patel, Kara Kuo and Kim Notaro.
Noting that the settlement agreement required him to read the statement, School Board President Kevin Camden said, the board acknowledges that under the First Amendment and Open Meetings Act, the three women should have been allowed to read the letter they wanted to at the Dec. 12, 2019 board meeting.
Per the agreement, the women will be allowed to read the entire letter, written by Hinsdale resident Dan Levinthal, at a future board meeting. The director of the non-profit Citizen Advocacy Center also will speak at the October 2020 School Board meeting about the First Amendment and Open Meetings Act in relationship to the school board setting.
“I do believe free speech prevailed,” Patel said.
Camden voted against the agreement, saying he thought it was hypocritical of the school board to have policies in place that prohibit bullying and harassment of the staff, and then accept a settlement “that essentially says by virtue of your public employment you can be pilloried with any comment about you personally or your family.”
“I’m well versed in First Amendment law and despite my objection I will be working as board president to make sure all the terms of the settlement are completed,” Camden said.
The letter Patel and the others tried to read at the December meeting was about remarks District 86 Assistant Superintendent for Academics Carol Baker made, in an unofficial capacity, at a school board meeting in the district in which she lives.
Patel, Notaro and Kuo think Baker’s comments at a February 2019 meeting of the Orland District 135 School Board, which was cutting programs to reduce expenses, were at odds with her endorsement of District 86’s new science sequence and curriculum, and therefore, relevant to discussions at District 86 board meetings. Baker talked about how her two children benefited from an enrichment program in District 135.
Nancy Pollak, who was the District 86 School Board President at the time, stopped Kuo, Notaro and Patel from talking about Baker’s comments, claiming they were violating the district policy against discussing personnel or personal matters during audience communication. The board went so far as to have the microphone removed from the podium while Patel was speaking.
“The letter was in no way disrespectful. No bullying happened,” Patel said. Levinthal’s letter had been sent to the school board prior to the start of the board meeting, so they should have been aware of its contents, she said.
Their lawsuit stated, “in a peaceful and civil manner,” Patel, Notaro and Kuo tried to point out that the public official responsible for a controversial policy change opposed it in her own home school district, which was relevant to the ongoing debate about District 86’s curriculum changes.
More Top Picks Best Electric Toothbrushes For Problem Teeth
Their lawsuit also pointed out that other members of the audience talked about Baker and other school employees in favorable terms. Thus, the school board permitted people to speak favorably about specific public officials and employees by name, but not criticize them.
Like Camden, School Board members Erik Held and Keith Chval implied the women were verbally abusing Baker.
Held said board members are public officials who ran for election to their position, and as such, “We take comments, criticism, abuse, whatever, from our community.”
“Just because you are a public employee in my mind, it does not mean you are subject to that same level of scorn and ridicule or personal attack,” Held said. However, in the interest of settling the lawsuit, he voted in favor of the agreement.
“This exercise has been a huge waste of time and energy on the part of the district, and equally important, a huge waste of money,” Chval said. Like Held, Chval said he was voting in favor of the agreement, “just simply to get this done and over with.”
Notaro said she was incredibly disappointed by their comments.
“We were not attacking Carol Baker. We were talking about how she had two different opinions,” for her own school district and for District 86.
“I’m really glad the district settled, but if they don’t understand what they did was wrong, they should not have signed the agreement,” Notaro said.
“Camden may be resolute in standing behind what they did, but it’s against the law,” Notaro said.
Patel, who serves on the Hinsdale-Clarendon Hills Elementary District 181 School Board, said, based on Camden, Chval and Held’s remarks, “They need further education on the First Amendment. Citizens should be able to speak their minds and share their concerns, whether it is positive or negative about the school district and those who work in the district.”
The agreement clearly states, the District 86 School Board “shall permit the public to make comments at future Board meetings critical of specific public officials or employees subject only to the well-established restrictions under the First Amendment, such as the restrictions on fighting words, true threats, obscenity, or incitements to imminent violence.”
District 86 will pay Patel, Notaro and Kuo’s legal fees and costs, totaling $21,000. There are no additional payments for damages.
“We are not getting one penny,” Patel said.