Censure rescinded, reissued in District 203

All Dave Weeks wanted was his January censure rescinded and an explanation.

The Naperville Unit District 203 school board member got that and a little more Monday evening as his fellow board members rescinded his January censure for allegedly leaking sensitive personnel information, discussed the basis for it for more than an hour and then, again, unanimously voted to censure.

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 four 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 they wanted an answer no later than March 4.

“Counsel basically didn’t have any authority to place deadline on our board council, so he elected not to respond,” board President Mike Jaensch said. “Could have saved Mr. Weeks a lot of time and effort because we’re going to address his questions, and a phone call probably could have answered his questions. But Mr. Weeks chose to go through the press, so he we are.”

Jaensch first took issue with Weeks and Collins’ claim that the board had no legal authority to issue a censure. Jaensch referred to a legal opinion that discussed sanctions.

“That’s open to debate, having talked to our council because sanction, at least in my mind, requires some sort of penalty,” he said. “There is no penalty here, it’s just an expression of the sense of the board, as we felt a board member had violated our policies, and we felt the public had a right to know.”

Jaensch also addressed the issue, raised by Collins, that the agenda item was not posted in enough time before the January meeting, saying it “came up very quick” over the course of a weekend. The item was posted in enough time for Monday’s meeting, giving the board the opportunity to rescind the previous censure and start over.

The third issue raised by Weeks and Collins claims the board’s Jan. 24 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.”

Jaensch responded, “There’s several accusations there as far as citing stuff outside the Open Meetings Act, and that’s just false. I challenge anyone to prove that.”

Weeks also argued against language in the original censure that alleged multiple acts of misconduct on Weeks’ 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.

Jaensch said Monday he was keeping the language vague for the sake of brevity.

“In retrospect, could I have listed them all out here for the public also?” Jaensch said. “I suppose, but I did not want to make the situation any worse than it already was.”

Weeks said he was surprised and disappointed at the way his colleagues treated a “legal document” by ignoring it for more than a month.

“You received a letter from an attorney representing accusations that this board violated several things and never discussed whether you were going to respond to it, what it meant?” Weeks said. “I hope that we don’t take a legal document so lightly that we would be that cavalier about it.”

Weeks said he is still 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.