From: Debbie Levinthal on behalf of Debbie Levinthal <dlevinthal@hinsdale86.

org>
To: Terri Walker
Subject: Fwd: Misrepresentations, delays, and obstruction by the Prentiss Administration and Board President Walker
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 9:52:07 PM

Good evening,

In reading through this email and then looking through the video archive, I do not see the
2/4/22 video posted.  Can you please find out why the video has been taken down?  I'm happy
to reach out directly to Mr. Bockwoldt if you would prefer.

Can you please add a discussion of the events laid out in the email to the next meeting agenda?

Thank you,
Debbie

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Yvonne Mayer >
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 7:04 PM
Subject: Misrepresentations, delays, and obstruction by the Prentiss Administration and Board
President Walker
To: Terri Walker <twalker@hinsdale86.org>, khirsman@hinsdale86.org
<khirsman@hinsdale86.org>, Peggy James <pjames@hinsdale86.org>, Hanson,Cynthia
<chanson@hinsdale86.org>, eheld@hinsdale86.org <eheld@hinsdale86.org>,
dlevinthal@hinsdale86.org <dlevinthal@hinsdale86.org>, jwaters@hinsdale86.org
<jwaters@hinsdale86.org>
Cc: Debra Kedrowski <dkedrows@hinsdale86.org>, David Giuliani
<david.giuliani@patch.com>, Pam Lannom <plannom@thehinsdalean.com>, Syed, Zareen
<zsyed@chicagotribune.com>

Dear D86 Board of Education:

Misrepresentations, delays, and obstruction.  In my opinion, these words describe the conduct
of the Prentiss administration and Board President Walker in connection with the video of the
2/4/22 Board meeting.   Let's review what the community now knows.

Timeline of Events

2/4/2022 -- Special Board Meeting is held.  

On that date, multiple community members arrived at the meeting to make public
comments critical of Superintendent Prentiss. Community member heard
community member ask D86 Chief of Staff Deb Kedrowski/FOIA Officer if
the meeting would be live-streamed.  Kedrowski informed that it would not
be and explained that special meetings are not recorded.  also heard Board
President Walker tell that there is no obligation to do so.  then
 asked why they would not just turn the cameras on. Neither Walker nor Kedrowski
responded.  proceeded to live-stream the meeting with her mobile phone
on Facebook.  
The public comments were split into two sessions during the meeting -- an initial 15-
minute comment period before the board adjourned to closed session, followed by a
second 25-minute public comment period. Many community members spoke out
against Prentiss.
The day after the meeting, Chris Jasculca, the Director of Communications, failed to
include any mention of the lengthy public comments in the board briefs that he emailed
to the community following the meeting. Community members who have inquired
about why D86 does not ever post a summary of the public's or board members'
comments in the Board Briefs have been told by Prentiss administrators that this is not
"past practice."
A video of the public portion of the meeting was not uploaded to the D86 Website's
Board Meeting Video Archive ("Video Archive") the next day either, seemingly
confirming that no recording had been made. It was as if the Prentiss administration
wanted to erase the existence of the public comments calling for an investigation
against Prentiss.  

2/4/2022 -- FOIA Request R000996-020422 filed by community member Yvonne Mayer.

The FOIA request sought production of "a copy of any audio or video recording of the
open session portions of the D86 Board of Education Special Meeting held on February 4,
2022."
This request could easily have been responded to the same day with the posting of the
video -- if one existed -- on the Video Archive.  It was not.

2/14/2022 -- District responded to FOIA 996. 

Ten days later, FOIA officer Kedrowski posted a video of the 2/4/2022 meeting on the
Public FOIA portal.
The response included release notes that stated "Although it is not the regular
practice of the district to record or livestream meetings when the main
purpose of the meeting is for the Board to hold closed session
discussion; the February 4, 2022 meeting was recorded due to technical
support by an outside vendor." 
Contrary to Kedrowski's and Walker's 2/4/2022 misrepresentations to community
members on 2/4/2022, the meeting had been videotaped. Kedrowski waited until the
fifth business day to release the video on the FOIA log. (This translated to 10
calendar days since weekends and the day the FOIA request is filed are not
counted as part of the 5 days allowed under the statute.)
Again, the Prentiss administration's official position was to assert the excuse
 of no past ("regular") practice.
Yet again, the video was NOT posted on the Video Archive, where all other
board meeting videos are posted for the community to access. 

2/14/2022 -- Community member Mayer sent an email to all seven board members
informing them of the video issue.  She asked the following questions which were
never answered:

"Why only release the videos on the FOIA log and not post them on the D86
BOE Meeting Video Archive -- the logical place a community member goes to in
order to watch past meeting videos?  Is this another example of the
administration burying public information on the FOIA log -- just like the
administration buried the AP test data instead of publicly presenting it to you
during a board meeting?"
"What is it going to take for you to demand TRUE TRANSPARENCY from Tammy Prentiss
and her staff?"  
"At a minimum, even if you choose to ignore most of my email, I ask you to direct Ms.
Prentiss to immediately post the video on the D86 website's Board Meeting Video
Archive." 
By 2/14, President Walker knew that contrary to her and Kedrowski's
misrepresentation on 2/4,  the meeting had been videotaped by a third party PAID
vendor. She further knew that the community was requesting that the video be
posted on the Archive and not just get buried on the FOIA log.
These requests were ignored and neither Walker, Kedrowski or anyone else in the
Prentiss administration directed anyone to post the video on the Archive.

2/14/2022 -- FOIA Request R001011-021422 filed by community member Kim

Notaro. 

The FOIA request sought production of "PDF's of any D86 public records that
reference the "outside vendor" who recorded the February 4, 2022 board meeting videos
that were released in response to FOIA R000996-020422, including but not limited to
invoices from the outside vendor and/or any correspondence from or to the outside
vendor and any D86 employee or D86 BOE member (including email and text messages)
dated from January 30, 2022 through February 15, 2022 that identify and/or reference
the outside vendor." 

2/23/2022 -- District Responded to FOIA 1011

FOIA Officer Kedrowski posted a response 9 calendar days after the request was
received.  Documents that were produced included a $165 invoice from Perfect Show
Productions for the 2/4/22 meeting video recording.  The invoice was submitted to
Keith Bockwoldt, D86's Chief Information Officer. 
In addition to the invoice, text messages between Bockwoldt and "Blake" at Perfect
 Show Productions were produced.
A 2/4/2022 text disclosed that Blake was told his contact at the meeting would be
"Josh" -- likely Josh Stephenson, D86's Chief Financial Officer. 
A 2/7/2022 text disclosed that Blake told Bockwoldt: "glad you enjoyed the show -
board was perfectly smooth from our technical perspective."  
These texts confirm that multiple people in the Prentiss Administration, including
Bockwoldt and Stephenson, were aware on 2/4/2022 that the meeting was going to
be videotaped and that Bockwoldt had watched the video recording by 2/7/2022.  
Despite having reviewed the commissioned videotape within 3 days of the meeting,
Bockwoldt did not post it on the video archive, as he had with all past board meeting
videos.  Why did he fail to do this?  Was he directed not to by someone in the
Prentiss administration or by President Walker?

2/14/22-3/24/22 -- Other community members requested that the 2/4/22 video be posted
on the Archive.

Rather than taking the simple step of posting the video on the Video Archive so that the
community could easily find it and view it, the community members were told that
videos of special meetings are not posted on the Archive and that it could be found on
the FOIA log.  At least one community member, , received an email response
from Kedrowski directing her to the FOIA log. 
In fact, it is "past practice" of the D86 administration and BOE to videotape special
meetings AND post the videos on the Archive.  See, for example, the videos posted on
the Archive of the following special meetings:  3/3/22, 2/18/22, 6/9/21, 8/3/20,
7/27/20, 6/18/20, 4/4/20, 4/3/19, 1/12/19, 12/10/18, 12/3/18, 11/11/18, 7/18/18,
5/29/18, 12/4/17, 9/12/17, and there are many more.
We all have heard President Walker publicly pontificate about "past practices"
allowing her to take actions not authorized by board policy.  I guess that Walker only
follows past practice when it suits her.  In this case, the video  was buried on the
FOIA log where common sense dictates that no one in the general public will look for
it, if it is not on the official Video Archive.  The Video Archive has no instructions
directing people to file a FOIA for videos that are not archived, or look on the FOIA
log to find any missing videos.

3/24/22 -- CIO Keith Bockwoldt took one for the team, but in fact, he stood alone in the
Prentiss Administration with his act of integrity.

During the 3/24/22 Regular Board Meeting, Board Member Levinthal removed P-cards
from the bills on the Consent Agenda and asked about the $165 invoice submitted to
pay Perfect Show Productions for videotaping the 2/4/22 board meeting.  Ms. Levinthal
asked why the district had commissioned and paid a vendor to videotape the 2/4
meeting but had not posted the video on the Archive for the community to be able to
readily access. (Source:  https://vimeo.com/692225603, Counter 1:19:08.)
A review of the P-card invoice listing available on Board Docs establishes that the video
expense was charged to Bockwoldt's P-card.
Before anyone at the board table could respond -- including Walker and Kedrowski --
Bockwoldt spoke up and stated:  "I can take a look at that. I was off that day, I was at
a concert so we had the vendor fill in.  I may have missed the next day putting it up
on the site so I can get that for you though." (https://vimeo.com/692225603, Counter
1:19:49.)  
Board Member Levinthal then pointed out that the video had been FOIA'd, and put on
the FOIA portal but not the Video Archive, while past special meeting videos are on the
Archive. She then asked for the 2/4 video to be posted on the Archive and Bockwoldt
responded:  "I can get that for you, it was my mistake. Sorry about that." (Counter
1:20:14)
No one sitting at the board table uttered a single word in response to Member
Levinthal's question.  Walker looked down the entire time and Kedrowski took notes,
looked up and at Bockwoldt while he spoke.  Neither acknowledged that they had failed
to ask Bockwoldt to post the video on the Archive. Neither spoke up to inform the rest
of the Board what they had previously told community members on and after 2/4 about
the existence of the video and why it would not be posted on the Archive.  
The text messages that were produced to Kim Notaro's FOIA request established that
Bockwoldt had viewed the video by the time the vendor texted him on 2/7. 
Did Bockwoldt fail to post the video on the Archive because HE WAS DIRECTED NOT
TO?  When the FOIA request came in for the video, did Kedrowski ask him, as the Chief
Information Officer in charge of videotaping board meetings, for a link to the video that
could be produced in the FOIA response? If not, where and how did Kedrowski access
the video since it was not available on the Video Archive?  And if he was asked for a link,
even if he had forgotten to post the video on the Archive immediately after the 2/4
meeting, isn't it logical to conclude that he would have realized his mistake at that
moment and immediately posted the video on the Archive? Or at least asked Kedrowski
if he should now post it on the Video Archive?  So why didn't he? The only logical
conclusion is that someone in the Prentiss administration or President Walker told
him NOT TO. 
While no one in the community can prove at this time what actually happened, or who
in the Prentiss Administration may have told Bockwoldt not to post the video, the Board
can. The Board should ask Bockwoldt, Kedrowski and Walker, whether and when
anyone instructed him not to post the video on the Archive. 
The Board should also ask why, after they were quick to deny request on
2/4, as well as all the subsequent community members' inquiries and requests to post
the video on the Video Archive, Walker and Kedrowski sat in complicit silence during the
3/24 board meeting when Bockwoldt claimed he alone had made a mistake? 
CIO Bockwoldt did the right thing at the 3/24/22 meeting when he spoke up, claimed an
 error and agreed to post the video.  Leading up to that moment, no doubt he was very
uncomfortable that a simple act of posting a board meeting video on the official Board
Meeting Video Archive -- a meeting that recorded nearly one hour of community
members' concerns and criticisms of Prentiss -- had instead been misrepresented,
delayed, obstructed and buried by the Prentiss administration.  

3/25/22 -- Video of the 2/4/2022 BOE Special Meeting is finally posted on the Board Video
Archive. 

The following facts are undisputed: 

1. The 2/4/2022 meeting was not live streamed to the community.

2. On 2/4, Community members were told that the meeting was not going to be
videotaped because special meetings are not recorded .  This was not true. FOIA records
establish that a paid vendor had been hired to record the meeting, did record the
meeting and the Chief Information Officer viewed the video by 2/7/2022.  
3. The Video Archive proves that "past practice" is to not only videotape special meetings,
but also post the videos on the Archive.
4. In the 50 days between the 2/4 and 3/24/2022 board meetings, the FOIA officer and all
board members were asked by community members to post the video to the Video
Archive.  Kedrowski refused to do so, instead directing individuals to the FOIA log.
5. It was not until 3/24/2022, after Board Member Levinthal publicly questioned why the
video had not been posted on the Archive that the Chief Information Officer agreed to
do it. Prentiss, her administrators, and Board President sat in silence, instead of
defending their past actions of refusing to live-stream the meeting, acknowledge that
the 2/4 meeting was being videotaped, and then refusing to have the video put on the
official Video Archive.
6. CIO Bockwoldt did the right thing by publicly agreeing to post, and then actually posting,
the 2/4 video on the Archive.  He has proven to the community that he is a man of
integrity, just as CFO Stephenson did when he refused to pay the invoice for travel
expenses submitted for reimbursement by the equity and diversity consultant
candidate.  Within the Prentiss Administration there are individuals who will not
tolerate actions that go against the best interests of the D86 Community.  In my
opinion, it is unfortunate that this is not true for all of them or President Walker.

Conclusions and Questions:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.  

In my opinion, here, the duck was the intentional decision by the Prentiss administration
and Walker to prevent the community from watching a meeting in real time or accessing a
video of public comments made at that meeting in opposition to the Tammy Prentiss.  This
led to Prentiss' Chief of Staff/FOIA Officer and Board President misrepresenting past
practice, refusing to live-stream the meeting, misrepresenting that the meeting was not
going to be video-taped and then when they were legally required to produce the video
tape under the Freedom of Information Act, burying it on the FOIA log and not posting it
where ALL OTHER MEETING VIDEOS ARE POSTED -- ON THE VIDEO ARCHIVE. In the process,
they threw Mr. Bockwoldt under the bus by remaining silent while he took one for the
team and claimed that it was all his mistake that the meeting video was not on the
Archive. 

Yes, it's a duck.  The only question is what are you going to do about it?  Are you going to
ignore the misrepresentations, delays and obstructionist conduct by the Board President
and the Prentiss administration?

During the 3/24/2022 board meeting, there was a lot of chatter by Walker, Hirsman and Held
about TRUST.  The sad reality is that the community has lost all trust in the Prentiss
administrators and Board President who misrepresent, obstruct, and work against
transparency and open governance.  If you really want to regain the community's trust, then
DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEIR MISCONDUCT.  The community is waiting and watching.

Respectfully,

Yvonne Mayer

 
From: David Giuliani on behalf of David Giuliani <david.giuliani@patch.com>
To: agroh@hinsdale86.org; Prentiss,Tamara
Subject: Fwd: Board meeting video
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 8:09:40 AM

I see that Chris Jasculca is not in today. I was inquiring about the Feb. 4 video. 

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: David Giuliani <david.giuliani@patch.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 8:08 AM
Subject: Board meeting video
To: Jasculca,Chris <cjasculc@hinsdale86.org>

Hi Chris,

I keep hearing that the district has yet to post the Feb. 4 meeting to its archive. The board was
asked about this at the last meeting. Keith Bockwoldt told the board that it was an oversight
that the meeting video was not posted. A $165 invoice shows that a private contractor handled
the video of the Feb. 4 meeting. If that is the case, why not just release the video? I've heard
that the board is saying that it does not post videos for special meetings. While that is
generally the case, if the district spent money to do a video, what public purpose does it serve
to not post it?

I was at the meeting, so I know the video won't show the best behavior of the District 86
community. But that's not on the board. It's on those who attended the meeting. It was so out
of control that a school security guard, who is La Grange's former police chief, had to
intervene and ask the public to quiet down. 

Thanks for any information you can give.

David
505-426-5067

--
David Giuliani
Reporter
Patch.com
505-426-5067
Covering Elmhurst, La Grange, Hinsdale, Darien, Western Springs, Burr Ridge, Clarendon
Hills

--
David Giuliani
Reporter
Patch.com
505-426-5067
Covering Elmhurst, La Grange, Hinsdale, Darien, Western Springs, Burr Ridge, Clarendon
Hills
From: Debbie Levinthal on behalf of Debbie Levinthal <dlevinthal@hinsdale86.org>
To: Terri Walker
Subject: Re: Follow Up on Video of 2/4/22 Meeting
Date: Sunday, April 3, 2022 5:23:10 PM

Terri,

Thank you for your response.  I have a few comments/questions regarding your reply.

1. When you say, “District 86 does not record special meetings…,” who specifically do you mean by District
86, ie: you, the Superintendent, the Board?  It is my opinion that the entire Board, in this context
constitutes District 86, not just the Superintendent, and certainly not solely the President.  

2. Your statement, "District 86 does not record special meetings when the purpose for the meeting is for
the board to go into closed session” is factually incorrect because the 2/4/22 meeting WAS recorded. 
Further, regarding posting the video, did you personally research this presumed statement of fact before
you represented it as such?  I can find no policy that spells out the practice you describe but if you know of
one, I would appreciate you providing a reference.  If instead you are relying upon your now typical
rationalization of past practice as justification for current sloppy practices, again you are incorrect because
even upon cursory review, I found special meetings from 6/18/2020, 7/27/2020, 2/14/2017 that were
similar in structure and purpose to the 2/4/22 meeting where the meetings were taped and posted, just like
myriad other District meetings, workshops, curriculum town halls, etcetera.  Who informed you of this past
practice?

3.  As the candidate of transparency, I find it troubling that you consider the video taping of the publicly
noticed and conducted meeting of 2/4/22 to be an “unofficial record.”  Questions that flow from your
conclusions include but are not limited to; who proactively decided, planned, and coordinated the recording
of the meeting, who hired the third party vendor to record the event, why would the District create a secret
video of just this one special meeting but not others, are there other secret videos of unpublished publicly
held meetings hiding in the archives somewhere, is District 86 allowed to keep secret recordings of public
meetings?  Put simply, why did the District spend $165 of taxpayer funds for a video that wasn’t needed
and wasn’t going to be posted?  
 
4. You point out that the CIO was not present during the 2/4/22 meeting.  That is correct.  Can you explain
why this point is germane? Was the CIO’s presence instrumental to generating an official record?  If so,
what specifically does the CIO do that makes the video official?  The same third party vendor has recorded
meetings for this board in the past.  Are those official?  As near as I can tell, the public meetings are
recorded as they occur, and then are posted the next day on the video log.  If the District hired a third party
vendor to memorialize the meeting electronically one can only conclude the videographer was hired and
paid to provide substitute services in lieu, or as proxy for the work that the CIO fulfills during the actual
meetings, thus the public record is official.  

5.  Regarding the statement, “Due to an earlier FOIA request the unofficial record from the third party
vendor was determined responsive”:  This was a publicly noticed meeting of publicly elected officials during
which public comments were allowed per Board Policy and the video is available on a publicly accessible
FOIA log.  Why is the “District”, whoever you are referring to, refusing to post it along with all other meeting
videos on the archive?  It is already publicly available.  Is the reason, perhaps, to keep it available (required
because as a public record, it was responsive to a FOIA request), but not readily accessible?  Why?  

6.  This is definitely a bait and switch!  I was led to believe, along with the entire Board and community, on
Thursday, March 24, 2022, that the video we were authorizing payment for via the vote to approve p-card
purchases was going to be posted on the archive.  There was no reason to believe Mr. Bockwoldt would be
prohibited from following through on his intent to post the video to the archive.  Bait and switch—most
definitely and not because of Mr. Bockwoldt.

Special meetings are meetings of the Board of Education.  Logically, all seven Board members, as elected
representatives of the community at large, in this case, are District 86 and should be able to decide if a
meeting is recorded, live-streamed, and/or posted to the archive.  In fact, this board, District 86, did
deliberate on that topic when the Board “discussed" the p-card expense at the 3/24/22 meeting, and Mr.
Bockwoldt indicated his oversight, and intent to correct his mistake by posting the 2/4/22 video to the log
as soon as possible, which he did the next day.  During that “discussion,” neither Ms. Prentiss nor any board
member objected, yourself included.  Had they, that would have been the opportunity for the board to
engage in a discussion about what this Board's practice will be, but none ensued making it clear the
expectation by everyone present, the community included, was that the video should have been posted,
was not, and that corrective action was going to be taken.  Why didn’t anyone object…because recording
and posting public meetings of District 86 Board meetings IS our past practice, it is best practice, and should
be the only practice this Board engages in to insure full transparency, community engagement, and
accurate memorialization.  By intentionally removing the video Mr. Bockwoldt posted on the archive, as
stated at the 3/24/22 Board meeting, a public Board directive is being violated, suggesting insubordination.

As the candidate of transparency and integrity, I find it disappointing that you support the proactive
suppression of this very public board meeting recording.  

Debbie

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:15 PM Terri Walker <twalker@hinsdale86.org> wrote:

Debbie,

District 86 does not record special meetings when the purpose for the meeting is for the
board to go into closed session.  As such, the video should not have been posted. The CIO
was not present at the meeting.  Due to an earlier FOIA request the unofficial record from
the third party vendor was determined responsive.
That video is currently posted on the FOIA log.

There is no bait switch.

Regards,

Terri

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 1:00 PM Debbie Levinthal <dlevinthal@hinsdale86.org> wrote:

Hi Terri,
I’m wondering if you have been able to determine why the video of the 2/4/22 meeting was posted on the
district archive and then taken down.  I removed the p-cards from the consent agenda last Thursday because
the video had not been posted.  I was told at the meeting that it would be posted, and now it is not posted. 
Bait and switch comes to mind.

1.  Who directed that the video be taken down off of the Vimeo log?

2.  Please direct the Superintendent to post the video.  

The video should be posted, as it was publicly stated it would be, immediately.  To reiterate my request from
my prior email, please add a discussion about this video to the next agenda. 

Thank you,
Debbie
From: Peggy James on behalf of Peggy James <pjames@hinsdale86.org>
To: Tammy Prentiss
Cc: Terri Walker
Subject: Fwd: Misrepresentations, delays, and obstruction by the Prentiss Administration and Board President Walker
Date: Sunday, April 3, 2022 9:59:27 AM

Please ensure that the video recording of the 2/4/22 special meeting is posted to the video
archives as discussed and communicated during the 3/24/22 board meeting.  Why isn't it
posted?    

Thanks,
Peggy

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Yvonne Mayer
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Misrepresentations, delays, and obstruction by the Prentiss Administration and
Board President Walker
To: Debbie Levinthal <dlevinthal@hinsdale86.org>
Cc: kbockwol@hinsdale86.org <kbockwol@hinsdale86.org>, Terri Walker
<twalker@hinsdale86.org>, khirsman@hinsdale86.org <khirsman@hinsdale86.org>, Peggy
James <pjames@hinsdale86.org>, Hanson,Cynthia <chanson@hinsdale86.org>,
eheld@hinsdale86.org <eheld@hinsdale86.org>, jwaters@hinsdale86.org
<jwaters@hinsdale86.org>

Correction to my dates below.  Wherever I mention 2/4/21 video, I mean the 2/4/22 video. 
The 3/24/21 meeting was also in 2022, so should read 3/24/22.

From: Yvonne Mayer

Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 9:46 AM
To: Debbie Levinthal <dlevinthal@hinsdale86.org>
Cc: kbockwol@hinsdale86.org <kbockwol@hinsdale86.org>; Terri Walker
<twalker@hinsdale86.org>; khirsman@hinsdale86.org <khirsman@hinsdale86.org>; Peggy James
<pjames@hinsdale86.org>; Hanson,Cynthia <chanson@hinsdale86.org>; eheld@hinsdale86.org
<eheld@hinsdale86.org>; jwaters@hinsdale86.org <jwaters@hinsdale86.org>
Subject: Re: Misrepresentations, delays, and obstruction by the Prentiss Administration and Board
President Walker
 
Correction to my dates below.  Wherever I mention 2/4/21 video, I mean the 2/4/22 video.

From: Yvonne Mayer

Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:07 PM
To: Debbie Levinthal <dlevinthal@hinsdale86.org>
Cc: kbockwol@hinsdale86.org <kbockwol@hinsdale86.org>; Terri Walker
<twalker@hinsdale86.org>; khirsman@hinsdale86.org <khirsman@hinsdale86.org>; Peggy James
<pjames@hinsdale86.org>; Hanson,Cynthia <chanson@hinsdale86.org>; eheld@hinsdale86.org
<eheld@hinsdale86.org>; jwaters@hinsdale86.org <jwaters@hinsdale86.org>
Subject: Re: Misrepresentations, delays, and obstruction by the Prentiss Administration and Board
President Walker
 
Debbie:  Do you mean the 2/4/21 Special Meeting videotape?  You are right, it is no longer on
the video archive.  That is very strange, as it was there the day after the 3/24/21 board
meeting, and I know of at least one other community member saw it there as
well.   I assumed that Mr. Bockwoldt had put it on the archive, just as he represented he
would during the 3/24 meeting.  The only weird thing was that it was the first video on the
archive, so not in chronological order as are all other videos.  It is not there in chronological
either.

I would appreciate if you would find out why it was taken down.  Did someone in the Prentiss
administration direct Mr. Bockwoldt to remove it?  If so, who did and why?  

Thank you in advance for making these inquiries.  In the interest of transparency, I am copying
the full board and Mr. Bockwoldt on this email.

Sincerely,

Yvonne Mayer

From: Debbie Levinthal <dlevinthal@hinsdale86.org>

Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 9:46 PM
To: Yvonne Mayer
Subject: Re: Misrepresentations, delays, and obstruction by the Prentiss Administration and Board
President Walker
 
Dear Yvonne,

Thank you for your email and for sharing this information with me and the full board. 
Unfortunately, I don't see the video from 3/4/22 on the video archive.  Can you confirm that
you saw it posted?

Thanks,
Debbie Levinthal

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 7:04 PM Yvonne Mayer < > wrote:
Dear D86 Board of Education:
Misrepresentations, delays, and obstruction.  In my opinion, these words describe the
conduct of the Prentiss administration and Board President Walker in connection with the
video of the 2/4/22 Board meeting.   Let's review what the community now knows.

Timeline of Events

2/4/2022 -- Special Board Meeting is held.  

On that date, multiple community members arrived at the meeting to make public
comments critical of Superintendent Prentiss. Community member
heard community member ask D86 Chief of Staff Deb Kedrowski/FOIA
Officer if the meeting would be live-streamed.  Kedrowski informed that it
would not be and explained that special meetings are not recorded.  also
heard Board President Walker tell that there is no obligation to do so. 
then asked why they would not just turn the cameras on. Neither Walker nor
Kedrowski responded.  proceeded to live-stream the meeting with her
mobile phone on Facebook.  
The public comments were split into two sessions during the meeting -- an initial 15-
minute comment period before the board adjourned to closed session, followed by a
second 25-minute public comment period. Many community members spoke out
against Prentiss.
The day after the meeting, Chris Jasculca, the Director of Communications, failed to
include any mention of the lengthy public comments in the board briefs that he
emailed to the community following the meeting. Community members who have
inquired about why D86 does not ever post a summary of the public's or board
members' comments in the Board Briefs have been told by Prentiss administrators
that this is not "past practice."
A video of the public portion of the meeting was not uploaded to the D86 Website's
Board Meeting Video Archive ("Video Archive") the next day either, seemingly
confirming that no recording had been made. It was as if the Prentiss administration
wanted to erase the existence of the public comments calling for an investigation
against Prentiss.  

2/4/2022 -- FOIA Request R000996-020422 filed by community member Yvonne Mayer.

The FOIA request sought production of "a copy of any audio or video recording of the
open session portions of the D86 Board of Education Special Meeting held on February
4, 2022."
This request could easily have been responded to the same day with the posting of
the video -- if one existed -- on the Video Archive.  It was not.

2/14/2022 -- District responded to FOIA 996. 

 Ten days later, FOIA officer Kedrowski posted a video of the 2/4/2022 meeting on the
Public FOIA portal.
The response included release notes that stated "Although it is not the regular
practice of the district to record or livestream meetings when the main
purpose of the meeting is for the Board to hold closed session
discussion; the February 4, 2022 meeting was recorded due to technical
support by an outside vendor." 
Contrary to Kedrowski's and Walker's 2/4/2022 misrepresentations to community
members on 2/4/2022, the meeting had been videotaped. Kedrowski waited until the
fifth business day to release the video on the FOIA log. (This translated to 10
calendar days since weekends and the day the FOIA request is filed are not
counted as part of the 5 days allowed under the statute.)
Again, the Prentiss administration's official position was to assert the excuse
of no past ("regular") practice.
Yet again, the video was NOT posted on the Video Archive, where all
other board meeting videos are posted for the community to access. 

2/14/2022 -- Community member Mayer sent an email to all seven board members
informing them of the video issue.  She asked the following questions which were
never answered:

"Why only release the videos on the FOIA log and not post them on the D86
BOE Meeting Video Archive -- the logical place a community member goes to
in order to watch past meeting videos?  Is this another example of the
administration burying public information on the FOIA log -- just like the
administration buried the AP test data instead of publicly presenting it to you
during a board meeting?"
"What is it going to take for you to demand TRUE TRANSPARENCY from Tammy
Prentiss and her staff?"  
"At a minimum, even if you choose to ignore most of my email, I ask you to direct Ms.
Prentiss to immediately post the video on the D86 website's Board Meeting Video
Archive." 
By 2/14, President Walker knew that contrary to her and Kedrowski's
misrepresentation on 2/4,  the meeting had been videotaped by a third party PAID
vendor. She further knew that the community was requesting that the video be
posted on the Archive and not just get buried on the FOIA log.
These requests were ignored and neither Walker, Kedrowski or anyone else in the
Prentiss administration directed anyone to post the video on the Archive.

2/14/2022 -- FOIA Request R001011-021422 filed by community member Kim

Notaro. 

The FOIA request sought production of "PDF's of any D86 public records that
 reference the "outside vendor" who recorded the February 4, 2022 board meeting
videos that were released in response to FOIA R000996-020422, including but not
limited to invoices from the outside vendor and/or any correspondence from or to the
outside vendor and any D86 employee or D86 BOE member (including email and text
messages) dated from January 30, 2022 through February 15, 2022 that identify
and/or reference the outside vendor." 

2/23/2022 -- District Responded to FOIA 1011

FOIA Officer Kedrowski posted a response 9 calendar days after the request was
received.  Documents that were produced included a $165 invoice from Perfect Show
Productions for the 2/4/22 meeting video recording.  The invoice was submitted to
Keith Bockwoldt, D86's Chief Information Officer. 
In addition to the invoice, text messages between Bockwoldt and "Blake" at Perfect
Show Productions were produced.
A 2/4/2022 text disclosed that Blake was told his contact at the meeting would
be "Josh" -- likely Josh Stephenson, D86's Chief Financial Officer. 
A 2/7/2022 text disclosed that Blake told Bockwoldt: "glad you enjoyed the
show - board was perfectly smooth from our technical perspective."  
These texts confirm that multiple people in the Prentiss Administration, including
Bockwoldt and Stephenson, were aware on 2/4/2022 that the meeting was going
to be videotaped and that Bockwoldt had watched the video recording by
2/7/2022.  
Despite having reviewed the commissioned videotape within 3 days of the
meeting, Bockwoldt did not post it on the video archive, as he had with all past
board meeting videos.  Why did he fail to do this?  Was he directed not to by
someone in the Prentiss administration or by President Walker?

2/14/22-3/24/22 -- Other community members requested that the 2/4/22 video be posted
on the Archive.

Rather than taking the simple step of posting the video on the Video Archive so that
the community could easily find it and view it, the community members were told
that videos of special meetings are not posted on the Archive and that it could be
found on the FOIA log.  At least one community member, , received an email
response from Kedrowski directing her to the FOIA log. 
In fact, it is "past practice" of the D86 administration and BOE to videotape special
meetings AND post the videos on the Archive.  See, for example, the videos posted
on the Archive of the following special meetings:  3/3/22, 2/18/22, 6/9/21, 8/3/20,
7/27/20, 6/18/20, 4/4/20, 4/3/19, 1/12/19, 12/10/18, 12/3/18, 11/11/18, 7/18/18,
5/29/18, 12/4/17, 9/12/17, and there are many more.
We all have heard President Walker publicly pontificate about "past practices"
 allowing her to take actions not authorized by board policy.  I guess that Walker
only follows past practice when it suits her.  In this case, the video  was buried on
the FOIA log where common sense dictates that no one in the general public will
look for it, if it is not on the official Video Archive.  The Video Archive has no
instructions directing people to file a FOIA for videos that are not archived, or look
on the FOIA log to find any missing videos.

3/24/22 -- CIO Keith Bockwoldt took one for the team, but in fact, he stood alone in the
Prentiss Administration with his act of integrity.

During the 3/24/22 Regular Board Meeting, Board Member Levinthal removed P-cards
from the bills on the Consent Agenda and asked about the $165 invoice submitted to
pay Perfect Show Productions for videotaping the 2/4/22 board meeting.  Ms.
Levinthal asked why the district had commissioned and paid a vendor to videotape
the 2/4 meeting but had not posted the video on the Archive for the community to be
able to readily access. (Source:  https://vimeo.com/692225603, Counter 1:19:08.)
A review of the P-card invoice listing available on Board Docs establishes that the
video expense was charged to Bockwoldt's P-card.
Before anyone at the board table could respond -- including Walker and Kedrowski --
Bockwoldt spoke up and stated:  "I can take a look at that. I was off that day, I was
at a concert so we had the vendor fill in.  I may have missed the next day putting it
up on the site so I can get that for you though."
(https://vimeo.com/692225603, Counter 1:19:49.)  
Board Member Levinthal then pointed out that the video had been FOIA'd, and put on
the FOIA portal but not the Video Archive, while past special meeting videos are on
the Archive. She then asked for the 2/4 video to be posted on the Archive and
Bockwoldt responded:  "I can get that for you, it was my mistake. Sorry about that."
(Counter 1:20:14)
No one sitting at the board table uttered a single word in response to Member
Levinthal's question.  Walker looked down the entire time and Kedrowski took notes,
looked up and at Bockwoldt while he spoke.  Neither acknowledged that they had
failed to ask Bockwoldt to post the video on the Archive. Neither spoke up to inform
the rest of the Board what they had previously told community members on and after
2/4 about the existence of the video and why it would not be posted on the Archive.  
The text messages that were produced to Kim Notaro's FOIA request established that
Bockwoldt had viewed the video by the time the vendor texted him on 2/7. 
Did Bockwoldt fail to post the video on the Archive because HE WAS DIRECTED NOT
TO?  When the FOIA request came in for the video, did Kedrowski ask him, as the
Chief Information Officer in charge of videotaping board meetings, for a link to the
video that could be produced in the FOIA response? If not, where and how did
Kedrowski access the video since it was not available on the Video Archive?  And if he
was asked for a link, even if he had forgotten to post the video on the Archive
 immediately after the 2/4 meeting, isn't it logical to conclude that he would have
realized his mistake at that moment and immediately posted the video on the
Archive? Or at least asked Kedrowski if he should now post it on the Video Archive? 
So why didn't he? The only logical conclusion is that someone in the Prentiss
administration or President Walker told him NOT TO. 
While no one in the community can prove at this time what actually happened, or
who in the Prentiss Administration may have told Bockwoldt not to post the video, the
Board can. The Board should ask Bockwoldt, Kedrowski and Walker, whether and
when anyone instructed him not to post the video on the Archive. 
The Board should also ask why, after they were quick to deny request on
2/4, as well as all the subsequent community members' inquiries and requests to post
the video on the Video Archive, Walker and Kedrowski sat in complicit silence during
the 3/24 board meeting when Bockwoldt claimed he alone had made a mistake? 
CIO Bockwoldt did the right thing at the 3/24/22 meeting when he spoke up, claimed
an error and agreed to post the video.  Leading up to that moment, no doubt he was
very uncomfortable that a simple act of posting a board meeting video on the official
Board Meeting Video Archive -- a meeting that recorded nearly one hour of
community members' concerns and criticisms of Prentiss -- had instead been
misrepresented, delayed, obstructed and buried by the Prentiss administration.  

3/25/22 -- Video of the 2/4/2022 BOE Special Meeting is finally posted on the Board Video
Archive. 

The following facts are undisputed: 

1. The 2/4/2022 meeting was not live streamed to the community.

2. On 2/4, Community members were told that the meeting was not going to be
videotaped because special meetings are not recorded .  This was not true. FOIA
records establish that a paid vendor had been hired to record the meeting, did record
the meeting and the Chief Information Officer viewed the video by 2/7/2022.  
3. The Video Archive proves that "past practice" is to not only videotape special
meetings, but also post the videos on the Archive.
4. In the 50 days between the 2/4 and 3/24/2022 board meetings, the FOIA officer and
all board members were asked by community members to post the video to the Video
Archive.  Kedrowski refused to do so, instead directing individuals to the FOIA log.
5. It was not until 3/24/2022, after Board Member Levinthal publicly questioned why the
video had not been posted on the Archive that the Chief Information Officer agreed to
do it. Prentiss, her administrators, and Board President sat in silence, instead of
defending their past actions of refusing to live-stream the meeting, acknowledge that
the 2/4 meeting was being videotaped, and then refusing to have the video put on the
official Video Archive.
6. CIO Bockwoldt did the right thing by publicly agreeing to post, and then actually
 posting, the 2/4 video on the Archive.  He has proven to the community that he is a
man of integrity, just as CFO Stephenson did when he refused to pay the invoice for
travel expenses submitted for reimbursement by the equity and diversity consultant
candidate.  Within the Prentiss Administration there are individuals who will not
tolerate actions that go against the best interests of the D86 Community.  In my
opinion, it is unfortunate that this is not true for all of them or President Walker.

Conclusions and Questions:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.  

In my opinion, here, the duck was the intentional decision by the Prentiss administration
and Walker to prevent the community from watching a meeting in real time or accessing
a video of public comments made at that meeting in opposition to the Tammy Prentiss. 
This led to Prentiss' Chief of Staff/FOIA Officer and Board President misrepresenting past
practice, refusing to live-stream the meeting, misrepresenting that the meeting was not
going to be video-taped and then when they were legally required to produce the video
tape under the Freedom of Information Act, burying it on the FOIA log and not posting it
where ALL OTHER MEETING VIDEOS ARE POSTED -- ON THE VIDEO ARCHIVE. In the
process, they threw Mr. Bockwoldt under the bus by remaining silent while he took one
for the team and claimed that it was all his mistake that the meeting video was not on
the Archive. 

Yes, it's a duck.  The only question is what are you going to do about it?  Are you going to
ignore the misrepresentations, delays and obstructionist conduct by the Board President
and the Prentiss administration?

During the 3/24/2022 board meeting, there was a lot of chatter by Walker, Hirsman and
Held about TRUST.  The sad reality is that the community has lost all trust in the Prentiss
administrators and Board President who misrepresent, obstruct, and work against
transparency and open governance.  If you really want to regain the community's trust, then
DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEIR MISCONDUCT.  The community is waiting and watching.

Respectfully,

Yvonne Mayer
 
From: Debra Kedrowski on behalf of Debra Kedrowski <dkedrows@hinsdale86.org>
To:
Subject: Re: FOIA Request
Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 2:46:56 PM

In my opinion, it is never a waste of time to process a FOIA request. 

Thank you for reaching out,  

Deb

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:07 PM wrote:

Deb,

Listening to last night’s meeting, I found it interesting when Keith stated he must have
overlooked posting this video to the D86 video site. I guess it became an “official” video
after all!

Too bad you needed to waste your time processing FOIA requests when Keith could have
just posted it.

From: Debra Kedrowski <dkedrows@hinsdale86.org>

Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 12:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: FOIA Request

Thank you, . It was nice to chat. You look great and I was glad to
hear you and your family are well. 

Deb

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:50 AM wrote:

Deb
Thank you for the shortcut!  You are very nice to me. 

BTW – I rarely look at the account you sent this to.  Use this one instead.  maybe
going by the wayside for me!

is good for now.

I’m always here!

From: Debra Kedrowski <dkedrows@hinsdale86.org>

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:56 PM
To:
Subject: FOIA Request

R000996-
020422: https://hinsdale86.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(mo0b44rqllhjsmtke54
lagd4))/RequestArchiveDetails.aspx?rid=996&view=1

--

Debra Kedrowski

Admin Chief of Staff

FOIA Officer

Hinsdale District 86

5500 South Grant Street, Hinsdale IL 60521

630.655.6108