Lessons Learned from the School Board — the Hard Way.

By: Debra Rade  

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

      — Attributed to Albert Einstein

 

CHAPTER FIVE — There are tools to fix this house...

Previous chapters of “Lessons Learned From The School Board — The Hard Way” detailed serious incidents, including criminal events, that took place within Township High School District 113 over the past decade and continuing into 2022. The School Board hid relevant facts from the community, and, but for a Whistleblower Letter, they would have remained behind closed doors forever. Finally, the facts have been revealed and are supported by documentation. Residents should be able now to make informed decisions about the continuing endemic failures of District 113 in governance and compliance.

 

Time to learn lessons from these facts and move forward. There is a lesson in realizing that virtually all information provided in this report was intentionally concealed by the School Board. As a result, residents were prevented from making any informed decisions. Rather than representing the community that elected them as school officials, the School Board was manipulating the residents.

The consistent failure of the Board of Education to take appropriate steps to hold administrators accountable for their actions has negatively impacted the high school district in Highland Park and Deerfield in myriad ways. This has materially harmed the education of our children in the community as well as District employees. Not only has this created an untenable level of mistrust between employees and the board, it impacts taxes and potentially lowers property values.

 

If each of the major incidents that took place in District 113 were unique, that would be a greater challenge. As they stay, “stuff happens.” However, each incident in this report is inextricably bound by the same fabric. Year after year, District 113’s Board of Education appears to have failed to face and disclose facts. They have failed to determine controls and implement policies designed to avert similar problems in the future. 

 

In every organization, there exists a potential vulnerability to crime, falsification of records, embezzlement, and theft. Yet, what distinguishes one entity from another is how they avert problems, and what they learn from them when problems arise. 

 

Just last week, the Department of Justice announced that a financial administrator pleaded guilty to fraud and tax offenses related to her theft of $40,000,000 in computer and electronic hardware from her employer, the Yale University School of Medicine. Many wonder, how did Yale lose track of $40 million?

 

You could ask a similar question about District 113. How was it possible that District 113 issued a few checks, in the aggregate of approximately $365,000 each year, made payable to Petty Cash? In the ten years that this took place (maybe more), that means that $3.65 million dollars in small bills was handled without any appropriate accounting controls. Think about that. 

 

The difference between Yale and District 113? It’s not just one of scale. It's in the response. Rest assured, Yale will closely examine the failure of their financial controls and will take appropriate corrective action. Certainly, Yale Med did not inform the Department of Justice that its Board had no intention of assisting in the investigation or prosecution of its former Director of Finance and Administration.

 

The Board of Education of District 113 distinguishes itself by failing to appropriately respond to bad actors, and covering up the facts in closed doors. It has repetitively failed to take corrective action.

 

This must change. There are tools to fix this house, but until the Board of Education accepts its responsibility for these failures, nothing will improve. 

 

Here is a summary of significant deficiencies, based primarily on the Whistleblower Letter, the Cash & Carry report, and supporting documentation:

 

• Failing to hold administrators responsible for serious, if not criminal, actions, including falsification of records, mismanagement of funds and cash, theft, and records destruction.  
• Retaliatory termination and demotion of administrators for their efforts to maintain compliance with Illinois laws. 
• Failing to set appropriate financial controls and lack of supervision of approximately $365,000 a year in cash for more than a decade. 
• Failing to appropriately discipline a principal for falsification of records required to be filed by Illinois law. 
• Failing to fully cooperate with the Lake County State’s Attorney in two criminal investigations of District 113, including the response to a Grand Jury Subpoena. 
• Flaunting the law by permitting a registered child sex offender to be on campus without required supervision; retaliatory demotion of an administrator for complying with Illinois law; and, allegedly, allowing/requiring the next administration to resume the noncompliance (as alleged by the Burnetti Complaint, para. 39-48, 77-84). 
• Creating an environment where administrators, teachers, and staff perceive the School Board as a web of corruption and causing them to fear retaliation for reporting noncompliance with law. A
• Failing to ensure that District 113 was an inclusive environment, and failing to "eliminate and reverse past practices" (with an implication of discrimination). (Burnetti Complaint, para. 27). 
• Hiring the son of the lawyer who represents District 113 in HR matters as the HR administrator without regard to the appearance of impropriety and potential conflict of interest. 
• Failing to take steps to set appropriate governance and compliance programs. 
• Intentionally covering up problems in the school district behind closed doors, possibly in violation of the Open Meetings Act.
• Certain Board Members going so far as to specifically encourage and instruct teachers and/or community members to file complaints about the Superintendent while not disclosing the facts covered up by the School Board. (Burnetti Complaint, para. 54-57)
  

 

The appearance of impropriety and unethical behavior are a strong threads that bind these elements together. This has had a profound impact on our children’s education, as well as teacher and staff morale, the community’s taxes, and the reputation of our communities in Deerfield and Highland Park. The perception of public corruption within elected local government entity is an assault on democracy.

 

All is not lost. If the community insists on change and holds the School Board, including each individual member, accountable for the Board of Education's past and present performance, there can be much improvement soon, for relatively little expense. Our toolkit must address failures in accountability, oversight, and transparency (readers might be interested in this article about "Fighting 'Small Town' Corruption").

 

Following are the top 10 recommendations to the Board of Education District 113:

 

1.   SET AN ETHICAL TONE AT THE TOP.

 

The tone at the top isn’t just an axiom. Set and demonstrate the School Board’s commitment to integrity, financial controls, legal, and ethical compliance. A good ethical compass is a great way to steer the ship. Continually reinforce, maintain, and renew procedures to ensure that a culture of governance and compliance is effective.

 

Study up. It is inexcusable that in 2022 so many government entities, including the City and Village, and the Park Districts, have failed to institute even the most basic elements of good governance. The imperative to implement sound governance is just as important within government entities and not for profit organizations. A lot can be learned from the corporate world. (See, Principles of Corporate Governance, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 2016)

 

What was the tone at the top when the School Board learned about the Grand Jury Subpoena? What was the guiding principle the School Board considered in responding to the Lake County State's Attorney? The community was certainly not the beneficiary of their response thatthe School Board had no interest in further investigation or prosecution, andthat they never had any intention of holding the former employees accountable. Nor were the students or remaining employees the beneficiaries. From the perspective of administrators and the Whistleblowers, that response merely confirmed what they had perceived for a long time — that the School Board and its legal counsel would always protect their cronies and friends, and retaliate against those who were not.

 

The Board of Education must set and follow an ethical guide star in all decisions.

 

2.  COMMIT TO IMPROVING GOVERNANCE AND COMPLIANCE IN DISTRICT 113 — ESTABLISH A COMPLIANCE FUNCTION.

 

Establish a compliance function within District 113’s administration. This report will not cover all the details and nuances of that program, but it should include a new administrative position, a director of compliance. A governance and compliance consultant(s) should be retained to assist the Director of Compliance and the Board Members in developing this necessary function.

Serving as a School Board member should not be a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants job. Provide School Board members with an education about the importance of governance and compliance, and make this a part of their continuing education.

 

The new Director of Compliance should conduct a review of all existing governance policies and determine and consider what needs to be improved, as well as what is missing. Even the best policies can do great harm if they are merely placed in a drawer. If not already developed, programs should be implemented to ensure that all employees are aware of, and understand, the policies. Given the existing fear about retaliatory discharge and demotions, the District may need to take additional to encourage reporting among employees.

 

3.   PROVIDE A WHISTLEBLOWER HOTLINE TO ALL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ASAP.

 

It was a tragic situation when whistleblowers, in fear of retaliatory discharge, sent an anonymous letter to Gerry Meister and me crying out for help. Sadly, we were in no position to change the course of the School Board when they needed it most. No employee should have to go through the angst of working in, what they believe, is a corrupt organization, especially fearing punishment for bringing attention to malfeasance.

 

It is essential to provide an anonymous Whistleblower hotline program. This is not just an 800# telephone line but includes other ways to report non-compliances anonymously. Under no circumstance should a hotline be directly connected to District 113 or its administrators. There are many companies that provide affordable independent hotline and reporting services – likely for less than a couple of thousand dollars per year. They can provide 24/7/365 accessibility, as well as multiple language support. A small investment with substantial rewards.

 

After a report is initiated and the director of compliance and/or the School Board determines it requires investigation, an independent legal or investigative firm should be given full rein to fully investigate the matter. The firm should advise the director of compliance and School Board directly. The School Board should not then ask for an overriding, second opinion from their usual law firm (as was done when Robbins and Schwartz investigated the theft and document destruction, provided an independent report to the Board, but was apparently overruled by HLERK).

 

4.  SET A POLICY TO REINFORCE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY IN ALL ACTIONS.

 

Treating administrators, teachers, and other staff fairly and equitably is in the School District’s best interests. It is vitally important to hold everyone accountable for poor performance and, especially, harmful and criminal actions.

 

District 113 is a relatively small community. It’s hard to create a bubble in which School Board members have no personal relationships with District 113 employees. To the greatest possible extent, however, School Board members should be encouraged and expected to be professional in all their conduct. 

 

Policy should be set to require School Board members to disclose personal relationships and recuse themselves from any determination that might be clouded by friendship or other potential conflicts of interest. Additionally, the School Board can develop a policy to ensure that all employees are treated fairly. Friends and family should not be hired, and, for many reasons, a nepotism policy would be helpful as well.

 

5.  CONDUCT FORMAL REVIEWS OF EXISTING ACCOUNTING AND LEGAL FIRMS; ISSUE ROUTINE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.

 

Accountants:

 

The Cash & Carry report raised significant issues, not only about cash management, but the audit function. Checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars were made payable to Petty Cash, were signed by one person (the treasurer) without a countersignature, were endorsed by employees (including the treasurer), and then picked up in small bills to be used in a book-buyback program for which there was no viable control or accounting (no inventory, no receipts, etc.). The practice of handling cash in this manner took place for more than a decade and ended only when residents reported the transactions to the Lake County State’s Attorney as potential crimes. Yet, over that decade, an auditor would have been required to review the accounts.

 

The practices reported in Cash & Carry were highly irregular. Indeed, each “Petty Cash” check was, on its face, improper, and you don’t need to be an accountant to understand that. Each represented sums far larger than most line items in an approved budget. It is unbelievable that checks of these sizes could fly under any auditor's radar. Did any audit firm report the Petty Cash checks to the School Board? Did they fail to do so every year? Or, perhaps, they issued a Management Letter that was ignored by the School Board. These facts should be further investigated.

 

By law, every high school in Illinois must be audited by a public accounting each year.  However, the law does not require (nor prohibit) that Management Letters be published.  District 113 failed to provide copies of Management Letters requested for the Cash & Carry report. It is proposed that the School Board should be far more transparent, and should provide residents with access to all the relevant audit documents, including Auditor Reports, Auditor Management Letters, and District 113’s responses to the Management Letter.

 

Transparency and accountability is key to compliance, even for auditors. There should be a review of the performance over the past decade, including if and why various auditing firms were swapped out. If the firm during the Cash & Carry time failed to report the Petty Cash checks to the School Board, this should be reported to the AICPA, even if these events took place 10 years ago.

 

Law Firms:

 

Every school board relies heavily on legal advice and representation, particularly with regard to the human resources function. There are many laws firms to choose from who have the requisite expertise. HLERK has represented the School Board for, at least, a decade. HLERK advised the Board of Education on virtually every matter discussed in this report. 

 

There is a reasonable argument to be made that a law firms, as well as accounting firms, lose their independent judgment over extended periods of time. Indeed, consider that in the US, public companies must rotate their audit engagement partners. Some would say that it is not just the audit partner that needs rotation, but the audit firm, too. There is no similar requirement applicable to law partners and firms, but, perhaps, there should be. 

 

While HLERK may have many talented partners and associates, the firm has also become, at least, witnesses to, and alleged by some administrators to be, actors in much of what has gone awry in District 113. The Whistleblower Letter refers to Tony Loizzi by name 16 times, alleging that he has a conflict of interest, and is favoring and protecting his friends, while enabling the School Board to terminate and demote administrators in retaliation. The Burnetti complaint refers to him, by name (but not as a defendant), eight times.

 

The appearance of impropriety can be just as meaningful as actual impropriety, as well as being indicative of it. Accordingly, as soon as possible, the School Board should issue an RFP to secure another law firm to represent District 113 — an independent law firm with no partners or associates who are friends with any member of the School Board or District 113’s administration or teachers.

 

Based on all the issues in this report, the School District should routinely and thoroughly review the performance of its service providers, including lawyers and accountants. Placing routine Requests for Proposals on a schedule is helpful to any organization. Not only does it foster some competition that encourages service providers to provide their best service and fee rates, it is an opportunity to review performance and relationships. The Board of Education should set a schedule for requesting RFPs for these professionals at least every 3 years.

 

6.  REVIEW DISTRICT 113’S DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION POLICY.

 

It is disturbing to read allegations in the Burnetti complaint (para. 27) that, prior to the arrival of Superintendent Dignam, District 113 has failed to provide for diversity, equity, and inclusivity —the implication of actual discrimination. If true, this needs to be addressed and rectified immediately by the School Board and reviewed by the community. If a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy exists, it should be reviewed and the School District should oversee its implementation and ensure compliance with it. If there isn’t a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy, it should be developed and implemented ASAP.

 

7.  CLOSED MEETINGS SHOULD BE THE EXCEPTION — ENSURE TRANSPARENCY WITH THE COMMUNITY AND NEWS MEDIA.

 

By intentionally withholding information from residents, the Board of Education has earned the community’s lack of trust. A component in regaining trust is to ensure transparency. Closed meetings should be rare events and only in full compliance with the Open Meetings Act. The Act purpose is “protect the citizen’s right to know.” Exceptions to an open meeting should be "strictly construed against closed meetings.”

 

It is reasonable to conclude that there was, at least, one closed meeting, with Anthony Loizzi present, to discuss alleged violations of criminal law by certain former administrators. This likely was in violation of the Open Meetings Act that defines an employee as a person who is currently employed, not a former employee. Residents will not find a record of any open meeting in which the Grand Jury Subpoena was discussed, nor a record of any open meeting in which the School Board was advised by Loizzi, or in which Loizzi would have been instructed by the School Board, to send the “no harm-no foul” letter. These matters had to have been discussed somewhere — more likely than not, in a closed meeting.

 

Consider the termination of Superintendent Digman’s contract. The residents were only told by the School Board that he had created an exodus of administrators because of a toxic enviromment the Superintendent had created. The School Board did not tell the residents that the three administrators who left included a principal previously determined to have falsified records, and that he, in concert with two other administrators, had destroyed school records on their way out the door, including putting some documents in a car for unknown purposes and transportation to a place that remains a mystery.

It is hard to believe residents would have approved of the superintendent's termination or the severance payment, or the hiring of two administrators to replace the one if they had access to the facts. In any event, and surely, it was a lack of transparency that permitted the School Board to manipulate the residents in that situation.

 

Of course, if there had been transparency and the facts were available, the Chicago Tribune would likely not have published the article claiming that a “toxic environment” was caused by the superintendent. The Trib's report would have been correct if it had revealed that our superintendent was trying to do a good job of cleaning up the swamp and was meeting resistance from the School Board.

 

The lack of transparency, including specific cover-ups, that resulted in the termination of the Superintendent, cost residents nearly $1 million in unbudgeted expenses that year, seriously disparaged and harmed the Superintendent, and further damaged the reputations of Highland Park and Deerfield.

 

Moving forward, the Board of Education should err on the side of transparency and hold open meetings unless strictly required. Perhaps independent counsel should be retained just for the purpose of ensuring compliance.

 

8.   THE SCHOOL BOARD NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS — MAKE AMENDS.

 

Many people have been personally harmed by these School Board actions. So has the community. It is time for the School Board to acknowledge their mistakes and the harm done.

In addition to implementing the recommendations in this report, the School Board should undertake to make some reparations. The School Board should consider:

• Burnetti Lawsuit. Don’t waste tax dollars fighting this lawsuit for the sake of fighting it. If what she alleges is true, work out a reasonable settlement, and make things right. Litigation defense is expensive — residents should not have to foot the bill. Also, assuming Ms. Burnetti remains qualified for the job that she was demoted from, consider reinstating her to the same or similar position, if she will take it after all this. 
• Christopher Dignam. Retain one or more recruiting firms to place Christopher Dignam in another school district where they would appreciate his ethical compass. The School Board shamelessly and publicly defamed this man. Make it right, as right as it can be now.

 

9.   IF THE LAKE COUNTY STATE’S ATTORNEY CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION INTO DISTRICT 113, ASSIST THEM.

 

The Lake County State’s Attorney is there to pursue justice. The School Board should never be an obstacle or impediment in the pursuit of justice.

 

10.  RESIDENTS — PAY ATTENTION TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

 

Several years ago, three people called me and asked for help. They expressed their deep concerns about alleged corruption in Township High School District 113 at both the administrative level and within the Board of Education. None of them had children in the school system at the time, they were mostly retired. They were critical thinkers. Financial mismanagement was their primary interest. Their claims sounded outrageous. “There is no such thing as a Petty Cash check for hundreds of thousands of dollars!” I told them. I was wrong.

 

Among the group was Margaret A. ("Maggie") McPhee, z"l. We need more Maggies — smart, detail oriented, tenacious, and willing to review every financial detail. We need more Gerry Meisters, who will attend School Board meetings and challenge the assumptions being made. With his expertise in architecture, Gerry has also been able to point out when funds were released improperly in construction projects, as well as noting possible violations of building codes.

 

It would be great to just sit back and rely on the Board of Education to perform all their responsibilities well. Based on history, though, we know that they perform some of responsibilities very well while they fail at others of great consequence.

All of the recommendations proposed today, if implemented, will help reduce the incidents and improprieties. However, there is never a time that even the best of organizations is immune. Remember Yale Med and their missing $40 million. When we relax, controls relax. Be ever vigilant. If you have the skills, step up and keep a watchful eye on District 113 for the sake of education and our community. Meanwhile, implementing an Whistlblower Hotline is a great and necessary first step.

There will be one final chapter — an epilogue, covering some things that have been learned since starting to publish this report. Hope readers will "stay tuned." 

 

Links to all chapters of this report:

Prologue

Chapter One

Chapter Two 

Chapter Three  

Chapter Four
Chapter Five 

 

Lessons Learned from the School Board — the Hard Way.

By: Debra Rade

“Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.” — Jean Baptiste Alphonse Karr, 1849

 

 CHAPTER FOUR — Common threads that bind us...

 “Can you please help? Chris tried to help and look where that got him. We are  all terrified if this can happen to the superintendent, what will they do to the rest of us? What will become of our district? This situation is actually worse that the [Cash and Carry] scheme…Please do not let the moral, ethical actions of our former superintendent, who wanted to do the right thing, be for nothing and allow crimes to once again go unpunished in District 113.” Whistleblower Letter, October 2018

 

Powerful words, indeed. Given the obvious fear, brave words, too. Imagine working in that environment.

The Whistleblowers are referring to a course of events that span nearly a decade. It is alleged that, over that course of time, the Board of Education of Township High School District 113 failed to hold various administrators fully accountable for:

 

·      Negligent accounting and mismanagement of more than one million dollars in cash — Cash & Carry;

·      intentional falsification by a Principal of required school filings; and,

·      theft and destruction of District 113’s records and property.

 

Not included in the Whistleblower Letter, but related to the School Board’s determinations during that same time, is Amy Burnetti’s lawsuit against District 113 filed in 2021, pending in 2022, in Federal Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Among the plaintiff's various counts in that lawsuit, Ms. Burnetti alleges she was wrongfully subject to retaliatory demotions and discipline for her actions: 

• in assisting Superintendent Dignam and Robbins Schwartz in the investigation of theft and destruction of District’s records and property; and,

• in compliance and enforcement of an Illinois statute requiring a registered child sex offender in the community to be “under the direct supervision of a school official” at all times when "in the vicinity of children" on a school campus. (ILCS 5/11-9.3(a))   

 

With regard to the latter issue, Ms. Burnetti alleges that the "prior administration had allowed a [registered] child sex offender, who is a parent of a HPHS student, to be present on campus in violation of state law and without required oversight." She alleges, upon information and belief, that "some of the then-current Board Members were friends with the parents" — one of the parents is on the registered sex offender list — and, upon information and belief, "Defendants Garlovsky and Hymen sought to reverse Superintendent Dignam's decision barring the [registered] child sex offender from campus...[and that] the parents also contacted the Board's outside counsel, Anthony Loizzi, to attempt to reverse the decision of Superintendent Dignam."

This yet another ugly chapter in the continuing saga of District 113’s Board of Education over the last decade. The saga is replete with instances of poor to willfully negligent (if not actionable) governance and compliance decisions in each "generation" of the School Board. What are the constants over time that result in the same type of failures? What are the common threads that bind all of these bad decisions together.

 

Clearly, there are different "generations" of independent thinkers who are elected to the Board of Education. These elected officials may be there for one term or more — short-term or long-term board members. For instance, one current member of the School Board is Kenneth Fishbain who served on the Board of Education from 2003 to 2011, including as Board President in 2010. He returned to the School Board in 2020 and, as of 2022, is its vice president. Gayle Byck has been on the board since 2018. A list of School Board members and their years of service between July 2017 and March 2022 is linked. While there is some continuity of School Board members, it is hardly a constant, the membership changes over time. 

 

Highland Park and Deerfield are communities with many exceptionally talented, well-educated, and successful residents. It is reasonable to assume that District 113's School Board is comprised of people who want to do a great job on the Board and to earn praise for their tireless work on behalf of the community. It can be a thankless, demanding job. In general, the community should be grateful that we have residents who want to be stewards of our educational system, intending to maintain and improve it.

 

However, it is apparent that, despite best intentions, the Board of Education of District 113 has consistently made bad decisions regarding internal governance and compliance. These decisions seriously hamper the ability of the high schools to best fulfill their educational mission. Not only do these decisions negative impact the reputation of District 113, they also impact the incredibly high taxes residents pay for living in Highland Park and Deerfield. 

 

The record shows that the Board of Education has failed to hold certain administrators accountable for poor performance and malfeasance. It appears that the School Board has disciplined, demoted or terminated some administrators for their endeavors to follow best and ethical practices, and for their compliance with Illinois laws. The School Board, and some members of the community, accused Superintendent Dignam of creating a “toxic environment” yet, the record shows a toxic environment predated and postdated his short term in the administration. 

 

There are a lot of closed door meetings at the School Board, presumably on advice of counsel. This appears to be another constant thread. Based on reviewing the facts and dates in this report, there is a very good question whether some of those meetings may have violated the  the Open Meetings Act. The Whistleblowers allege cover-ups or, at the least, a lack of disclosure and transparency to the community. It remains impossible to determine the full extent when business is conducted behind a closed doors.

 

Another constant in any school board or municipal government is that municipal entities require significant support from lawyers. The longevity of any legal counsel should be tied to independence and performance, and there is a reasonable argument for and against consolidating all legal work with one law firm.

It is difficult to ascertain when Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP (HLERK) first started representing District 113. It predates 2013 and remains the district's go-to law firm today. During that time, HLERK has undoubtedly represented District 113 well in many various matters. The School Board relies heavily on their advice. Virtually all Human Resources (HR) related matters that cannot be handled internally are directed to HLERK. This relationship is a constant in the threads that span a decade.

 

From 2013 to 2021, District 113 paid HLERK nearly $2.8 million in legal fees. HLERK also represents District 112 in Highland Park — the $2.8 million does not include payments from District 112 or any other municipal entity in Highland Park or Deerfield.

In 2021, District 113 paid $478,488 in legal fees to HLERK, approximately $145 per student.

District 113 is also paying a separate litigation firm fees to defend against Amy Burnetti's lawsuit. A separate law firm was retained for the Burnetti case because Anthony Loizzi is mentioned by name (not as a defendant) five times in the Burnetti Complaint. A lawyer cannot be both a witness and representing a client in the same lawsuit.  

HLERK and Tony Loizzi play a prominent role in the Whistleblower Letter. The Whistleblowers perceived the appearance of impropriety with HLERK representing the district in any matter related to administrators. In particular, because Tony Loizzi, had been an employee of District 113, the Whistleblowers had perceived that he had established close friendships with certain administrators, including Barry Bolek, the Principal who submitted falsified records and group of administrators involved in the document destruction. In essence, the Whistleblowers allege that Loizzi protects his friends from School Board discipline and termination, while steering the School Board into punishing any administrators his own friends don't like. 

 

As readers may recall, in 2016, the law firm, RobbinsSchwartz, was assigned to investigate a certain Principal’s falsification of records because, according the Whistleblower Letter:

 

“[Principal] is friends with the district’s law firm attorney, Mr. Tony Loizzi, who used to also be an employee at the district (he was the district’s HR director). Mr. Loizzi was and still is to this day, conflicted. He is a former employee and has multiple conflicts of interest with this position.”

 

The Whistleblowers further allege that because of the criminal records destruction that took place in 2017:

 

“Once again, the independent law firm Robbins Schwartz had to be hired by the district to handle the investigation due to Anthony "Tony'' Loizzi having a personal relationship with [Principal] and his assistant principals.”

 

On December 6, 2017, Robbins Schwartz submitted the results of their independent investigation to Michael Nerheim, Lake County State’s Attorney. Robbins Schwartz provided evidence of the document destruction, including videos, and the firm identified five “potential statutory (criminal) violations” of Illinois law, to be further investigated and prosecuted by the LCSA. It appears from the record that after Robbins Schwartz submitted this letter to the LCSA, there were no further touchpoints between the firm and the School Board. Also, based on Mr. Loizzi's letter to the LCSA it appears that the School Board may have been displeased with the results of the Robbins Schwartz report and that it was submitted to the LCSA.

 

The LCSA opened an investigation and did some preliminary work. Determining that they needed to further investigate and prosecute crimes committed, the LCSA issued a Grand Jury Subpoena to the Board of Education of District 113.

 

Yet, the School Board did not return to Robbins Schwartz for legal counsel or representation in reply to the LCSA. Why they didn't is mostly unknown, as any discussion about the Grand Jury Subpoena and document destruction, by former employees, took place behind closed doors. This may have been in violation of the Illinois’ Open Meetings Act, an issue that might be considered by others but not addressed in this report.

 

Instead, the School Board turned to Tony Loizzi, the same lawyer who is alleged to not be able to provide independent counsel because of his personal relationships with the alleged perpetrators. More than a year later, on March 22, 2019, Tony Loizzi replied on behalf of the Board of Education to the LCSA’s office as follows:

 

“…the Board directed its general legal counsel to conduct its own internal review in the conduct of the former administrators. Specifically, the Board’s general counsel reviewed (1) the physical records that were recovered; (2) the electronic records that were recovered; (3) the independent legal counsel’s finding; and (4) the statements and opinions of the relevant District personnel.

 

“After the independent counsel investigation and the subsequent internal review of its general counsel, the Board has concluded that the District did not suffer any meaningful harm as a result of the former administrators’ exit from the District.”

 

It would appear that Tony Loizzi chose his words carefully in the reply. He refers to the "former administrators' exit from the District" rather than referring to their actions — the document destruction. The School District, according to Tony Loizzi, did not suffer any harm from the "exit" of the administrators from the District. One cannot help but wonder who was intended to benefit from such careful wording. 

 

Also, some readers may find it odd that Loizzi apparently referred to himself in the third person in this reply to the LCSA. This seems to imply that there was lawyer, a general counsel (which is not title in the School District administration) who also reviewed the Robbins Schwartz investigation. Loizzi did not say that "I reviewed the Robbins Schwartz investigation and decided the facts were not worthy of prosecution."

In his letter to the LCSA, Loizzi admitted on behalf of the Board of Education that the school board members had “no interest in pursuing any criminal charges or further criminal investigation against the former administrators” and never did from the inception. This was a significant admission, confirming, irrefutably, that the School Board never intended to hold its former administrators responsible, even though the Robbins Schwartz report detailed several criminal violations.

To his credit, Mr. Loizzi did not provide “alternate facts” to the Lake County State’s Attorney. He did not assert the alleged criminal acts did not take place, nor did he say that the LCSA identified the wrong people, or that the wrong criminal laws were being applied. Loizzi just made it clear that the School Board was not interested in any further investigation and prosecution. As the Lake County State’s Attorney. Michael Nerheim, told the author of this blog, “We cannot successfully prosecute these individuals unless the School Board will cooperate, and it is clear they will not. We do not pursue prosecution where we cannot win.”

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with having a decades long relationship with a law firm. Indeed, it can be quite beneficial if your lawyers know your culture, history, strengths and weaknesses. The relationship between HLERK and the School Board is deep and constant. While Michael A. Loizzi, Jr., may have established this relationship, his son, Anthony J. Loizzi, Sr., inherited the account.  Originally, Tony Loizzi joined his father’s firm after he graduated from law school — records indicate that he was an associate at that firm from 2006 until June 2013.  

 

In 2013, the School Board hired Tony Loizzi and gave him responsibility for the internal HR function. This report did not find the exact terms of his new employment but, based on accessible financial reports, he earned a salary “in excess of $60,000/year” (as reported in the Annual Statement of Affairs Summary for FY ending 06/30/2015).

The context of why and how Tony Loizzi became embedded in District 113 is unknown in this report. Presumably, District 113 needed a new HR professional who might also reduce the overall spend on outside legal counsel. It not unusual for law firms to suggest that one of their associates be hired as an employee — it can be beneficial to all involved.  Of course, the terms of that employment matter, and it is important to clearly define the employee's relationship with the law firm. 

It is unlikely that residents were aware of the terms of Tony Loizzi's employment or if there was a secondment agreement with HLERK. One of the most significant aspects of embedding Tony Loizzi in District 113 is whether Tony Loizzi was required to sever its financial relationship with HLERK. Based on his job responsibilities, the School Board should have ensured that Tony Loizzi could no longer be compensated by HLERK when he was employed by the district to ensure that he would not be financially rewarded for assigning new matters to HLERK.

 

The majority of outside legal fees in any school district are for HR matters. It appears most likely that during the years 2013-2015, if Tony Loizzi had full responsibility for HR, he would have been in a position to determine when to refer new matters to outside counsel, and to whom. Further, Tony Loizzi may have been in a position to supervise HLERK’s — and his father's — performance and to review HLERK's invoices, too.

 

Tony Loizzi’s friendship with the Principal may have predated Loizzi's employment, or the friendship may have developed while they were both District 113 administrators. Clearly the relationship was evident to many of their co-workers, giving rise to a substantial concern among Loizzi's co-workers and other administrators. They viewed him as having great influence with the School Board. Ultimately, it appeared to many administrators that Tony Loizzi played a key role in any review of Principals actions, including the falsification and subsequent destruction of records. 

 

The decision to embed Tony Loizzi in District 113's administration was, at best, questionable from the outset. If District 113 needed the assistance of HLERK, it would have been better for the designated associate/employee to not be related to the named partner in the firm. 

Embedding Tony Loizzi into the school's administration had far reaching consequences. It clearly had a negative impact on the staff's perception about the School Board and their decisions. In their letter, the Whistleblowers attribute many problems existing in District 113 to an extensive “Network of Relationships Between Board Members and Specific Administrators.” They provided a separate, lengthy, and detailed document to support their assertions about this network. In the Whistleblowers' words, the document was intended to provide a “snapshot of the relationship between board members, administrators, various employees, the board’s attorney (Tony Loizzi) and key community members [named resident] and the District 113 'Sounding Board' Facebook group [two named administrators]".

 

The Whistleblowers specifically alleged that this network, including “the board’s attorney…worked with one another with the intent of sewing discontent across all communities and unseating principal Robertson (with success) and superintendent Dignam (with success) to cover up criminal acts committed by [Principal, AP#1 and AP#2].”

 

Anthony J. Loizzi, Sr., returned to HLERK in 2015. It appears his father, Michael A. Loizzi, Jr., may have retired from the firm (although this is a little confusing because Michael A. Loizzi is not listed on the attorneys page, yet there is still a hyperlink to his firm). The baton of responsibility for District 113 appears to have been passed from father to son without dropping a beat. Another constant.

 

All of the information provided in this chapter leads to a challenging chicken and egg question. Throughout this entire saga, HLERK has been legal counsel to the Board of Education of District 113. 

 

Who influences the Board more -- its members or its attorneys?
 

It is reasonable that school board members will follow the advice of legal counsel. Frankly, any board that makes decisions contrary to legal advice takes a significant legal risk upon themselves and the District.

 

It is equally reasonable that any law firm who represents a long-term client — a multi-million dollar client — will endeavor to do its best to be the client's zealous advocate within the constraints of the law and professional responsibilities of the legal profession. 

 

Highland Park and Deerfield residents do not know what went on behind closed doors. The community is entitled to transparency. Perhaps every school board member checks their thinking caps and moral compasses at the door. Perhaps new school board members are indoctrinated into an entrenched culture that affects all decision making. Or, perhaps the School Board is following legal advice that simply is not working for this community. Or, they have lawyers who will not steer the board members in the right direction. Perhaps the failures in governance and compliance are a combination of all these deficiencies, and more.
 

It would be very helpful if Board Members —past and present — would speak up now. Tell the community how District 113 got to this place. The community needs that transparency to build a better future. 

The next chapter will provide lessons learned. Readers are welcome to post their thoughts to the blog or send them directly to me. Please provide your real name and specify whether your thoughts may be made public or are personal correspondence. There is no assurance that all comments will be posted.

Links to all chapters of this report:

Prologue

Chapter One

Chapter Two 

Chapter Three  

Chapter Four
Chapter Five