D46 FAQ

I continue to receive many question about the ongoing ethics and criminal investigations in Grayslake D46.  Below is a quick FAQ of the situation at this point.

Has Grayslake D46 turned over all the FOIAed emails?

No, they have not.  In fact Superintendent Correll and Board President Millington have both emailed me to claim they have provided all emails.  See the picture below to see why their statements are false.

Have you tried working with the board directly to resolve this and stop costing the district money?

Yes, I have met with the Board President and another Board Member.  We discussed many different scenarios to resolve the ethical issues while I would withdraw the ethics complaints totally eliminating the need for a full invesitgation.  None of my compromise offers were accepted.

My final attempt to get this resolved as soon as possible, was for the board to release all emails to the investigator (Hon. Judge Tonigan) to be reviewed.   If any violations were found, they would be turned over to the State Atty for further investigation to ensure there was no criminal wrong doing.  I would have dropped the complaints for a few of the more minor violators if the board agreed to have a training class each year for staff on the proper use of email.  This too was rejected by the board.

I thought the State’s Atty was already investigating.  Is that not accurate?

The State’s Atty is only investigating Sue Facklam’s gift card for voter registration incident.  Paying for voter registrations is a Felony.

(10 ILCS 5/29‑1) (from Ch. 46, par. 29‑1) 
    Sec. 29‑1. Vote buying. 
    Any person who knowingly gives, lends or promises to give or lend any money or other valuable consideration to any other person to influence such other person to vote or to register to vote or to influence such other person to vote for or against any candidate or public question to be voted upon at any election shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony. 
(Source: P. A. 78‑887.)

The board has to complete the investigation on the remaining ethics violations first and then give the finding to the State’s Atty before they will investigate the rest to ensure no criminal laws were broken.  The board is thus preventing the State’s Atty from investigating the remainder of the email issues.

Ellen was reprimanded and apologized. Can’t we move on?

According to board policy, Ellen’s violation should have been turned over to the States Atty.  It was not.  In addition I appealed the ruling of the board.  Again, according to board policy, the board was supposed to review the appeal and act on it within 30 business days.  The 30 days came and went on August 16th without any board action.  Why is the board willingly violating their own policy?

Second, when Ellen’s reprimand was read, there was a supplemental report from Mr. Mittleman finding Mary Garcia had also violated the D46 board policy.  This was never acted on as well.  In an email from Board President Millington, he stated they did not have to act because Mary was no longer on the board.  The problem with that statement is the board acted on an earlier report when Mary Garcia and Sue Facklam were found innocent. This was also after Mary was off the board.  You can clearly see another selective enforcement of Board Policy.   Why is the board willingly violating their own policy?

The board and administration is continuing to stone wall the investigation.  They are the ones preventing this from being over.  It could have been over in June, and probably July at the latest if they would have allowed it.

We are supposed to teach our kids good behavior.  The district does this with their PBIS program.  Why should the board and administration be allowed to demonstrate unethical and possibly criminal behavior with so much as a thorough investigation?  If you allow continued bad behavior, it just encourages it to happen again and again.

How long before this negative saga be over?

I really don’t know at this point.  It is really up to the board and administration.  They have the power to end this swiftly by releasing the remainder of the emails so a complete and thorough investigation can be completed.  Until they do this, the investigation will continue.  This includes the possibility of a court case to force the release of the emails.

How much has this investigation cost the district?

At the board meeting on Wed, Sept 7th, a cost of over $30,000 was mentioned.  This question will have to be answered more definitively by the district.  Again, it is they who have forced the costs to continue.  I offered compromises to resolve this and the district refused.   They have also prolonged this by refusing to release the remainder of the emails.  I have to ask myself, what else are they hiding?

These are just emails, what is the big deal?

First, the email system is paid for by the taxpayers and it is a violation of board policy to use taxpayer resources to electioneer.  In many instances it is illegal.

Second, many of the emails were sent during hours when these employees should have been working. If these employees had been doing their work instead of campaigning, maybe the failing subgroups would have met AYP.

In the private sector, if you were campaigning on company time or using their resources, you’d most likely be fired immediately.

Lastly, when you allow unethical behavior to continue, you are just asking for trouble.  This behavior will continue and next time it will probably be worse.

What about all the new email evidence mentioned at the board meeting Wed night?

I am awaiting direction from the board as to how they want the new evidence handled as mentioned in the Mittleman report. I will release it as soon as that takes place. If the board decides to ignore their own board policy again, I will be asking Hon. Judge Tonigan on Tuesday if he can include it in the current investigation. If so, I will release it publicly at that time as well.

This does include additional evidence of similar activities that Superintendent Correll was reprimanded for already. It also shows Superintendent Correll and Karen Weinert researching how to get a board member kicked off the board.

Is this a personal vendetta against Superintendent Correll?

No, it’s about ethics and possible corruption. The continued use of the “it’s personal” argument is just an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the alleged wrong doing by MULTIPLE people within the district. The list of those involved includes current board members, former board members, administrative employees, union leaders and several other district staff members. The case itself is all about the unethical and possible criminal behavior of those listed. The exact charges range from minor to that of possible felony. They all stem around the use of taxpayer resources to collaborate against the taxpayer during the last election to keep elect people who would maintain the quid pro quo apparently taking place within the district.