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:

Chapter Four
Chapter Five