The District 200 Board of Education will vote Thursday to censure member Sharon Patchak-Layman, accusing her of having a conflict of interest by advocating on behalf of a parent who has filed a complaint to the state against the high school.
Patchak-Layman maintains she has not advocated for the OPRF High School parent and is not party to any complaint filed by the parent against the school.
The vote will take place Thursday at the Dist. 200 regular board meeting. The vote is among the last action items on the agenda and will occur before the board enters executive session. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m.
President Jacques Conway on Tuesday said board members believe Patchak-Layman crossed the line by attending a meeting the parent set up with an OPRF administrator to resolve a dispute. Conway said members can’t advocate for a specific family.
In September, the parent asked Patchak-Layman to attend the meeting. She attended the meeting, and the parent later filed a complaint against the school with the Illinois State Board of Education.
Patchak-Layman on Monday said she was unaware of any complaint when she accompanied the parent to the meeting. Wednesday Journal contacted the parent, who did not wish to be quoted for this story. The parent did contact the paper two weeks ago, stating that no legal action had been taken against the school but that instead a complaint had been filed with the ISBE.
Since the parent’s September meeting, the school board has discussed the case in executive session but asked Patchak-Layman to recuse herself from this specific case. Patchak-Layman has refused to do so. Last month at its regular board meeting, the board again asked Patchak-Layman to recuse herself and briefly discussed sanctioning her, but took no action.
Conway added that the board has also discussed in closed session possible defenses against the parent’s complaint, and are concerned that Patchak-Layman might share that information with the parent.
“They don’t feel comfortable talking about this because they feel she will share this info with the family,” he said. “We’re not taking away her right to speak, but you can’t have inside information.”
Patchak-Layman said she has not talked with the parent about what’s gone on in executive session. She said she learned of the censure vote after seeing it listed on the board’s meeting agenda, which members receive Friday before the board’s next meeting. She said she had no other prior notice that she would be censured.
“I guess I would like to know what the criteria are because from what I know, it’s because I sat in on a meeting with a parent. That, to me, is not a conflict of interest and doesn’t warrant this action,” she said.
Conway said a board member will make a motion, which would be seconded, and that Patchak-Layman would have a chance to speak. Patchak-Layman said she would make public comment.
Conway was unaware if a Dist. 200 board member had ever been censured.
“It’s a statement saying that we certainly understand our position,” he said. “Parents look for us to resolve issues, but there’s a line we shouldn’t cross. We can’t take sides for an individual against the school.
“That can be tricky,” Conway added, “but we try to work as a unit. In this particular case, our board member was overzealous in entering into this situation.”
Conway said even if Patchak-Layman decides on Thursday to recuse herself from future talks, the censure won’t come off the table because it’s for past actions. He added that the parent informed the board that Patchak-Layman was advocating on their behalf.
“It’s one thing when it comes from the board, but as an individual, you can’t do that. You can’t put staff on notice on what should be done,” he said.
Patchak-Layman maintains she was fulfilling part of her duty as an elected official.
“It was a scheduled meeting. The parent had made the arrangement. My only role was as support,” Patchak-Layman said. “It was at their request. They were apprehensive because they had not had good relations with the school. This is why I was there.” She said that, in her mind, a conflict would mean bias.
“Did this action bias me in any way? No, I don’t think so,” she said. “That’s what I’ve been saying. There’s no conflict. Board members have no individual authority. The work of the board is as a unit and the majority always rules. If the whole board was biased, that would be a problem.”
Patchak-Layman also contends that any discussion about what constitutes a conflict of interest with a board member needs to be discussed publicly. She added that any board member could be accused of having a conflict in certain situations.
“The definition of a conflict needs to be discussed in open session,” she said. “[That] question is one that has to be put on the table for the public. Residents and staff have to have access to board members, to talk to them or ask them for help.
“The reason this is a problem is because this person has a legal question before the board,” she added. “I don’t believe that we would want to get into a situation where we’re screening people before we decide to listen. Are we going to not listen because there’s a potential that someone will take legal action against the school? You end up removing large numbers of constituents from having access to officials.”
Since her election to the high school board in April, Patchak-Layman, who previously served on the Dist. 97 school board, has butted heads with fellow Dist. 200 members on a number of issues, including what can and cannot be discussed in executive session. She has argued that topics including administrative restructuring and recent talks concerning the high school parking garage should be discussed in open session. Patchak-Layman has also shown a penchant to express those views in public. The board is required to vote to enter into executive session. She typically voices her objections about certain items before taking a vote, to the visible chagrin of other board members.
Wednesday Journal asked Patchak-Layman if she felt the censure vote was, in part, retribution for her public objections.
“I don’t know,” she replied, acknowledging that she and other members often differ on what should be discussed in closed session.
“It’s an ongoing issue, the question of what takes place in executive session,” she said.
Conway said the censure was for the individual case involving the parent, but acknowledged there has been an ongoing dispute between Patchak-Layman and the rest of the board concerning some closed-session items.
CONTACT: tdean@wjinc.com
