D203 board member wants censure lifted

A Naperville Unit District 203 school board member censured by his colleagues in January for allegedly leaking sensitive personnel information is questioning the legality of the reprimand and asking it be rescinded.

Dave Weeks and his attorney, Shawn Collins, sent a letter via e-mail to the school board’s general counsel, Robb Cooper, on Feb. 23 outlining legal questions related to the censure and the school board’s possible violations of the Illinois Open Meetings Act in preparing and implementing it.

They asked the board to either immediately rescind the censure or explain the legal basis for it, and want an answer by no later than March 4.

As of Friday, Weeks and Collins said they had received no response from the district’s attorney or any board members, who last met as a group on March 7.

If the board continues to ignore him, Weeks said he is considering taking legal action. He said he will not seek financial damages but wants to force the board to either withdraw the censure or address the charges in public.

School board President Mike Jaensch said members have seen the letter but have not discussed it or Weeks’ request.

“There’s been no communication with the board, there’s been communication with the attorney,” Jaensch said Friday. “If there’s some formal communication with the board we will deal with it at that time.”

Weeks said the timing of his letter and the possibility of legal action has nothing to do with the April 5 school board election, in which his daughter, Bethany Weeks, is a candidate, and in which he is actively campaigning against the three incumbents seeking re-election, including Jaensch.

He said he legally has 60 days from the time of the censure to challenge it in court “and the clock is ticking.”

The board voted 6-0 on Jan. 24, with Weeks abstaining, to issue the formal reprimand. At that time Weeks said he was willing to accept the censure and had no plans to contest it.

But Weeks now says he was caught off guard that night by the scope of the censure and has reconsidered.

“I believe I was ambushed,” he said Friday. “I can’t read their minds, but I think this was done to minimalize me.”

Weeks, who long has been at odds with fellow board members, admits he discussed a personnel matter with a principal during a breakfast meeting over winter break. But Weeks said the district assigns board members to act as liaisons with certain schools and he assumed the principal of one of the schools to which he is assigned already knew about the matter.

“I screwed up,” he said. “But it wasn’t malicious. It was no harm, no foul.”

He said he was willing to accept criticism for his mistake because he knew the board and administration already were dealing with another board member who regularly discusses personnel matters with people outside the district.

But the actual censure, he said, was too far-reaching.

“The censure deals specifically with leaks of information that was shared in closed session and, in this case, it specifically had to do with the employment of district members,” Jaensch said at the time.

On Friday, Jaensch reiterated that position.

“For liability reasons we needed to make it clear we did not condone his conversations outside of executive session,” Jaensch said.

But in the letter to the board’s attorney, Weeks and Collins raised several issues concerning the legality and appropriateness of the censure. The letter raised four main issues:

타 Whether the board has the legal authority to issue a censure. “There is nothing in the Illinois statutes or in the board’s policies or code of conduct and rules that furnishes this power,” Collins wrote.

타 A claim the board failed to give proper legal notice that it would take action on the censure motion.

The Illinois Open Meetings Act requires an agenda be posted for each board meeting identifying items on which the board intends to take action, Collins wrote, and that didn’t happen in this case.

타 A claim the board’s action violated the Open Meetings Act because “it is apparent that the censure motion was drafted, discussed and resolved not only without participation by Dave Weeks — an elected member of the board — but also outside an open meeting. Any suggestion that President Jaensch drafted his statement and motion on his own, without prior discussion and resolution among the other board members, is belied by the very existence and language of the statement itself, and by the behavior of the six other board members on Jan. 24,” Collins wrote.

타 Questions about why Jaensch’s statement and subsequent motion to censure alleged multiple misconduct on Week’s part.

”Simple fairness and transparency, as well as the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, dictate that the board identify for Dave and the public what the board is talking about. Otherwise, as is the case here, neither Dave nor, most importantly, the public, knows why the board is taking this action,” Collins wrote.

Weeks said he was disappointed by the lack of a response.

“It leads us to the conclusion it was discussed at some other time in some other way,” he said.

But Jaensch said Friday that Weeks hasn’t reached out to other board members, either.

“He won’t talk to anyone about it,” Jaensch said. “As a board I thought we were beyond this ... I’m not sure what he expects. It’s obviously very frustrating for me.”

Collins said he thinks the letter is clear about Weeks’ expectations.

“The question is if the District 203 board is conducting the public’s business in private,” he said. “Is the board doing things improperly behind the scenes that are supposed to be happening in public? The board should know the answers to my questions because it already has taken the action.”

“A straightforward answer is needed,” Collins said, “and I’m disappointed there’s been radio silence.”

A district spokeswoman said the school board’s attorney could not comment unless directed to do so by the school board.

Weeks, meanwhile, said he believes the school board regularly violates the Open Meetings Act; has no tolerance for dissent; and frequently views the public as the enemy.

If his concerns do advance to court, he said, he believes fellow board members will launch a smear campaign. He said he expects to be compared to Naperville City Councilman Richard Furstenau, who became embroiled in a long and costly legal battle with the city over an incident involving a police officer.

But Weeks said his case is different because he is not trying to recover monetary damages and because he is questioning the actions of an elected body.

“I’ve done everything I can to try to get this issue discussed without going to court,” he said. “I’m putting the onus on them.”