When is it going to be enough?

Here we go again...A comment left on this board at 5:53 is on the Patch home page, but has been deleted here. It was from M Hebda and said "When is it going to be enough? "

Why is it that all comments on pages relating to this person consistently disappear?

Original comment restored - thank you Patch.

If the board of district 113a has nothing to hide and every thing relative to the school management
and the handling of school funds, why are they afraid of turning the records over for review ?
It seems to me that the tax payers who fund the schools through their taxes schould have open access to all records. Their should be nothing to hide. All this effort could be stopped by turning the records over.
Is something being hidden?

So your opinion, if I am understanding it correctly, is I should be able to walk into the school district office and look at whatever record I want? I pay taxes so I am entitled.

That is just ridiculous. Things discussed in closed session are confidential for a variety of reasons. If a person is not present when confidential things are presented, discussed and voted on then there really is no reason for that person to view these records after the fact outside of closed session. A decision was made and the person was not a part of it because they were absent. If they were there,they would be included in the process. End of story.

Well said, Ms. Tunzi. But haven't we all learned by now that Mrs. Hughes is a "special" case?

Updated with a very brief statement from Dr. Ricker.

Word of Caution to Starbucks, McDonalds, Burger King, and Dunkin Doughnuts: If you see Mrs. Hughes in your drive-thru, you better make sure that the coffee she ordered is ice cold. She's got lawyers and she is not afraid of using them.

ugly, as usual for this district i am recognizing, and not just because of Ms hughes.

Come on Martin. This is 100% because of Mrs. Hughes. If she doesn't bring this frivilous lawsuit, it does not happen. You can't even let this go without blaming the district. Maybe she is just a horrible person. Maybe it's not everyone else's fault. Maybe it's time we properly discuss the issues, decisions, and plans for what they are and stop the conspiracy nonsense. We have a new board. Isn't it time to kick her to the curb, and move on?

I, as a student of the Lemotn School District, think the money (which we already have little of) should be used to fund my education, rather than waste in on a pointless lawsuit. Yes, it may seem important, with information being denied, but honestly, why does she want it? It's not like she's working on a budget or anything. The only thing I can gather is she might want the closed session tapes to help her other lawsuit.

Anyway, I still think that the money being WASTED on the lawsuit has better places to go, such as the future (the education of Lemont's kids.)

Very well said Mr. Bronzell!

I sincerely hope that the presence of this student in this forum will cause you all to be more respectful towards someone you don't agree with. So far the example being set is poor, at best.

I stand by my prediction from months ago that the extreme opposing opinions of everything concerning District 113a will rip this community apart. And you know what ... none of it stops the lawsuit whether you agree or disagree. So what's the point ... when does it end?

Wouldn't a lawsuit like this have been more useful while she was still of the board? She clearly wasn't opposed to filing laws as a seated board member. So why now? You have to agree that the timing makes this look like retaliatory behavior wrapped up in a "protecting future board members" cover.

I have a good kid in the district too. How does this lawsuit do anything but further hurt his education and community? Maybe she should have done something, done anything, during her time on the board.

FYI Diane ... My opposition to Mrs. Hughes' lawsuit is based on an overwhelming hatred of lawsuits in general. People sue for everything and anything ... justified or not.

Ms Bronzell, I understand your feeling that Ms. Hughes should be entitled to information as a board member, however, unlike a business setting, a person's right to privacy, in particular minor children, seems to override this. It is less to do with her "not being allowed" but more with an individual's right to privacy and follwing the legislation to insure this. I do not understand your anger about this. Perhaps if your child's personal information was involved you may feel quite differently.

I have a question. These meetings that were closed, it states that there were 5. Was Ms. Hughes prevented from going to these meetings? Were all the board members aware of the meetings and invited to come. If so, how many chose to attend, who all were there? Are there any other board members, past or present, who are concerned with these closed sessions and what was discussed. Closed sessions (closed to the public) are not an evil thing per se, they go on all the time in the business world and other governmental bodies, dont they. I mean, is there a specific thing she is looking for, a specific transgression she is trying to uncover, or is this just a fishing expedition. Could a current board member perhaps review the records, therefore saving the taxpayers money from a lawsuit. Would that suffice for Ms. Hughes? She may have very good reason to suspect, but it cant just be because she thinks they were saying mean things about her. If it turns out that she could have gone to those meetings and chose not to, then I am not sure I support her actions in this case.

Nancy, You make a good point. You wrote, " I mean, is there a specific thing she is looking for, a specific transgression she is trying to uncover, or is this just a fishing expedition. Could a current board member perhaps review the records, therefore saving the taxpayers money from a lawsuit. Would that suffice for Ms. Hughes?" If I read the article correctly, it would appear that Mrs. Hughes is trying to do a favor to the current board members by changing the rules that apply to a board member's access to meeting transcripts and videos - particularly those that were closed. I wonder if the current board members (especially the new ones) share her concern about the accessibility of old meeting notes. Amanda, perhaps you could get a comment or two from some of the new board members to give us perspective on Mrs. Hughes position. Do they think her lawsuit has merit?

My perspective--Ms Hughes was always an outsider and the previous boards were powerful enough to treat her shabbily. The relationship broke down and, unfortunately, the scorned individual was the type that didn't go quietly into that good night. Dreadful, sinister motives by the previous board, likely not. But the tune "it's for the children" has proven rather flat, don't you think. The band should play something more original, it does exist. For Ms hughes, she may think she can prevent future communcation impasses at the BOE, but, only current members can, by their honesty, character and the strength of their arguments. This is what matters now. Again I wish them well.

I had the most profound conversation with my grandson Justin this evening and the things he pointed out to me make me feel pretty small in the face of such wisdom. He pointed out my tone and how it resembled those I was reprimanding, thus doing exactly what I accused them of doing and he is right,"Sort of hypocritical" as he so wisely put it.. Therefore I apologize for acting like a 12 year old instead of having an opinion and even persist in that opinion without attacking someone for attacking another person, even one as sweet as Janet Hughes. Mark Hinkle was right to expose obvious double standards on my part, towards an opinion but he then said no wonder I was such a fan of Janet Hughes which puts him right in the same place he is placing me. Janet Hughes is a kind and giving person and won't be caught making personal attacks outside what is pertinent to the issues of where is the money going.If I can be humbled by this great student, then you can learn from him too Mark. Justin I am proud to be your grandmother. Thank you.

Justin, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you? You seem very mature and thoughtful for someone so young. Thanks for contributing to the conversation here on Patch.

Amanda Luevano
Editor, Lemont Patch

I went to many of the School board meetings. I watched Ms. Hughs as a board member obstain from voting, repeatadly. I watched as this board member said she had a plan. What plan, I say? I seen lots of pictures of her kids, but not much for a plan to fix. I watched as she took notes, of what I do not know and not paying attention to the current agenda. I heard that this board member never went to the required training to be a board member. I also heard that she would not sign an agreement for a laptop. I heard that the State of Illinois review all of the past budgets. I heard the State of Illinois back the past boards of any wrong doing. What does Ms. Janet Hughs hope to find? I think Ms. Hughs needs to be quite for awhile. I think residents of Lemont should pass a least a small mialge so that we do not have to pay interest on loans and so that the schools can school our youth.

Mr. Olenick,

I actually read your comment at 5am and it has taken me this long to calm down enough to write you a lever headed response. A response that you deserve whether or not you want it. Patch will not allow me to post more than 1500 characters at time so this has been split into a few different comments.

1) Please do not ever again tell me what I have or have not read. I have since gone back and re-read Amanda's unbiased well written article three times and I can still find nothing for the basis of your claim. It is the condescending undertone of your response, and one's like it, that stifle meaningful debate of opposing views. Thereby decisions in regard to district 113a are more based on emotion rather than fact. I am more than open to further educating myself on views that oppose my own so please feel free to post links to any literature you deem important so that I may read it.

2) In my post I stated "She clearly isn't opposed to filing a laws as a seated board member". Please excuse my phone for auto-correcting "lawsuit" to "laws" but regardless, this was a direct reference to the lawsuit Mrs. Hughes filed in December. This fact renders your whole opinion of whether or not I read the article useless and a waste of the time you took to attempting to zing me.

3) According to this lawsuit, Mrs. Hughes attempted to get this information before the beginning of her term on the BOE and continued to be unsuccessful while on the board. That being said, my question of "why now?" is still accurate. It is my opinion still stands that this lawsuit would have been more useful (not that is useful to begin with) while she was a seated board member and not months after the fact.

4) Your opinion is that taxpayers want to know where the money went and my opinion, as a taxpayer, is that I don't want to waste any further money to find out. You and I, as mutual taxpayers, will always disagree on this point and we are entitled to our opinions.

5) In this whole thread of comments, you are the first to mention the three referendums. To what point? Is there any reason to beat a dead horse or is that simply to gain a reaction? I will comment that the majority of the voters did exercise their American right to decline the referendum. Those same American also decided that they did not agree with the Mrs. Hughes' (or others like her on the ballot) write in re-election attempt which means most of the voters you referenced will certainly disagree with this lawsuit. I believe she had the lowest amount of votes with the only lower person being the one that dropped out of the race. Not exactly a huge pool of people that agree with Mrs. Hughes enough to write her name in on the ballot.

6) This supposed missing $12,000,000 will never be found and to waste further money trying to find it is equally as bad as it supposedly going missing in the first place. I didn't agree with the first lawsuits filed in December and I don't agree with this one. They are doing nothing more than further hurting my child's education, destroying what little great school district we have left and knocking a few extra percentage points off our home values in the process. I would love to hear how these lawsuits, even if they are successful, will change the financial woes that our school district is experiencing right now.

7) Calling people "fools" or "a**", which appear to have been deleted, only further proves my first point.

Maybe you will see where I am coming from and maybe you will not. LIke I said, you deserved a response whether you wanted one or not.

Respectfully submitted ... Marcus

I guess my issue with Ms. Hughes is the way in which she operates. I will give you, she has brought some important issues to light, and they should be investigated. I thought we had a forensic audit performed not too long ago on the financials of the district. Perhaps, someone could clarify that for me. Some people are really good at bringing to the fore a problem, but then you need to step aside and let someone else solve the problem. I think Janet could have gotten a lot more cooperation from the board and others she worked with had she not gone into with the attitude of "I'm gonna git ya, suckers!", the old adage you catch more bees with honey, might have applied. If you know you are going to be a target, then you make sure that you do all that is expected of you, attend the training sessions, attend all or the Majority of meetings, public and closed, make an actual vote, not abstain all the time, we need to have a record of where you stand on issues (we castigate our congress members who abstain all the time, dont we!). I think the new board members we have elected, gives us a chance to start over. Two in particular , I believe will be quite capable of discerning whether there would be merit to a lawsuit , due to their accounting and business backgrounds. But, lets give it a rest, a breather. P.S. and Justin Bronzell, you are AWESOME! A fine example of the type of students Lemont Schools put out there, and great to see he has a bit of his feisty Grandma in him!!

Nancy, I am very proud of Justin, one of 29 grandchildren. He is exhibiting early onset wisdom, but I worry that being in this forum might harm his faith in people so I am asking people to make use of his wisdom while speaking here. To think a child has toned us down a bit is quite amazing. Now Justin. Get your homework done!

To All: This whole lawsuit issue will be a mute issue with no money being spent if the information that is requested was given. I wonder why we can not see the minutes and what was being disscused ? There
shouldn't be anything worth the school board spending the money on lawyers that the tax payers will have to pay for. Furnish the information and then the lawsuit will be nul and void and be dropped or dismissed.

Folks, the story is about Ms. Hughes complaint about the SD113a school board members not allowing her to have access to board related information while she was a board member. The author of the article has provided the reader with a quick link to the actual Open Meetings Act, as written by the Illinois General Assembly. You should read it to see why Ms. Hughes may have a complaint. Talking trash about her or anyone else does not make a problem go away- it just divides people more. You can also go to:www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/openmeet.pdf and read the lay person's explanation of this act. Is Ms. Hughes complaint that the school board did not follow the Open Meeting Act rules on how to plan and enact a closed meeting? Did they not propely document the data? No one knows. We as private citizens do not have access to closed meeting minutes- but should be available to the board members. According to this article, Ms Hughes was filing while she was still a board member. Why was she denied closed meeting info in the first place? Why was she not at those meetings? Only Ms Hughes and the other peole on the board know the answers. Nice article- thank you for keeping the citizens of LEmont informed.

What I wish more than anything is that we, as a community, could move forward from the mess that has ensued. I think I speak for many when I say that if for this one reason and one reason only, I wish Ms. Hughes would re-consider this lawsuit. Do I think that her case may have merit? Do I think she should have received access to the information she was seeking? Honestly, I don't care. I am just tired of the nonsense and political maneuvering. If Ms. Hughes is really concerned about the greater good, she should resign herself to the defeat of her (BOE) position and let this go. When I think of the dollars that the district has to spend to defend themselves with these matters, it really does sicken me because the money should be spent on the kids, not paying attorney fees. Further, could it be that perhaps Ms. Hughes was denied access to the records she requested not because there was anything sinister or illegal or unethical in their contents but just because people were tired of the endless requests and combative behavior of Ms. Hughes and her cohorts?