D99 Discuss Nepotism Policy Revisions with Lawyer

board members discussed possible revisions to its nepotism policy Tuesday night.

Sort of.

Despite discussing the “first read” agenda item for over an hour and bouncing questions off of Todd Faulkner, the district's attorney, little appeared to be resolved and the item is likely headed for another discussion during the next board workshop.

Faulkner informed the board he felt the current nepotism policy was close to—if not over—the edge “of the envelope” and that the proposed revisions would put the policy squarely in the middle of the proverbial envelope, exactly where Board President Bill White feels the board should be.

“Because of the political schisms that exist in our community, we should stay smack dab in the middle,” White said. “I don't have the answer, but I can say were close to the line, and I don't want us on the line.”

However, some feel the proposed changes—which would include removing the requirement that board members with relatives already employed by the district disclose the nature of their relationship prior to any deliberations that may affect the relative—effectively loosen the policy. Fellow board member Julia Beckman said she preferred the policy as it is.

“I'm still inclined to remain with our more restrictive policy because we haven't had any issues,” Beckman said. “I feel strongly that the community for many years have supported a very limited policy.”

While many of the questions posed to Faulkner regarded hypothetical situations and legal precedents—both locally and nationally—the actual language of the revisions themselves was never discussed. And, at times, the issue itself was forced to compete for attention with the same in-fighting that bubbled up during the September board meeting.

Board member Terry Pavesich claimed White told her during a phone conversation in September that he had three other board members ready to help him push the proposed revisions through and that if they didn't get rid of the current policy he feared Board Vice President Debbie Boyle “had a boatload of attorneys” that would sue.

White countered by saying the conversation didn't occur the way Pavesich said it did and that if he wanted to push through the policy changes he would've pushed them through during the September meeting instead of pulling the item off of the agenda.

Beckman added she had heard White say he was concerned about a potential lawsuit from Boyle, adding “It's a litigious society and [District 99] has been sued before and in the recent past by Mrs. Boyle.”

Boyle filed a lawsuit in 2006 seeking an exception allowing her son to attend Downers Grove North instead of South.

Board member Michael Davenport quickly jumped in to state while he had no idea what transpired in the phone conversation between White and Pavesich, he was not one of the three board members White allegedly referenced.

“What I want to make clear is that I would never come to a conclusion about something we haven't had a chance to deliberate about,” Davenport said. “And I suspect our other board members are the same way with the same standards.”

Boyle, for whom it could be argued the entire issue was targeted, acknowledged the “white elephant” in the room when she got her chance to speak: her brother is a teacher and the head coach of the Downers Grove North football team, a perceived conflict of interest.

However, Boyle said, she participated and voted in the healthcare benefits collective bargaining with no objections and didn't see how the upcoming contract negotiations would be any different.

A few residents in attendance didn't agree, though, and voiced their opinions during public comment.

“As a taxpayer it doesn't comfort me that Mrs. Boyle might be willing to give raises to 499 other people just to give her brother a raise,” said Downers Grove resident Mark Garrity, who once ran for Downers Grove Township Supervisor after being nominated by the Downers Grove Township Democrats. Boyle is currently running for District 81 State Rep.