Logan board wrestles with AG ruling 2016 closed session on layoffs violated Open Meetings Act

Before the regular monthly meeting of the John A. Logan board of trustees was gaveled to order by Chairman Bill Kilquist Tuesday night, the crowd was buzzing with the news that the attorney general had ruled the board in violation of the Open Meetings Act when they convened a closed session on March 2, 2016 to discuss laying off 55 employees.

The layoffs - which included 35 faculty members, 15 staff members and five janitors - came as the board worked to find ways to cut millions of dollars from the budget. Like most public colleges in the state, JALC had not received promised state funding due to the budget impasse in Springfield, which began in July 2015.

On June 3 - more than three years after the initial complaint was filed - the Illinois Attorney General's office sent a letter to Ron House, president of John A. Logan, and attorney Patrick Hewson, of Gilbert, Huffman, Prosser, Hewson & Barke, the Carbondale firm that represents the college, to inform them of the violation and to order that they make a copy of the recording of that session public.

The letter was sent as a result of a request for review filed by Brandi Husch, the student trustee at the time. Husch said that she filed her complaint because of what she called bullying by Trustee Bill Kilquist. Husch was the only trustee who opposed the layoffs being discussed, and when she attempted to argue her position during the closed session, she said Kilquist brought up an old and unrelated legal issue of hers in an attempt to "shame her into silence."

"I was ridiculed by a board member because I chose to speak up for Logan students," she said at the March 22, 2016, board meeting. At that time, Board Chairman Don Brewer cut Husch off and admonished her for talking about what was said in a closed session. That was when she decided to file her complaint, she said, which resulted in the June 3 letter from the attorney general's public access counselor.

In that letter, Edie Steinberg, the assistant attorney general in the office's Public Access Bureau, wrote that the board publicly cited Section 2(c) (1) of the Open Meetings Act before going into closed session to discuss "the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of specific employees."

"The General Assembly did not intend to permit public bodies to hold general discussions concerning categories of employees in closed session," she wrote, adding that "the board only discussed specific employees by name for less than six minutes of the meeting," which was just over one hour and ten minutes long, "and spoke about specific employees without naming them for just over two minutes."

"To remedy this violation, this office asks that the board vote to release to Ms. Husch, and to make publicly available, a copy of the verbatim recording of its March 2, 2016, closed session at issue here," she wrote. "The Board may redact only those portions that discuss specific employees."

Near the start of Tuesday night's monthly board meeting, Chairman Bill Kilquist addressed the issue.

"You have all received a copy of the attorney general's opinion on June 19," he said. "That was the first time I saw it. It has been given to our attorneys for their legal opinion, so there was not enough time to put a discussion of the letter on this meeting's agenda."

Trustees agreed to put the issue on the July 23 agenda.

Meanwhile, the board attorney, Rhett Barke, said the college board voted to destroy the recording in February, with other meeting recordings that were about as old. However, a written account of the meeting was preserved, and a recording of the meeting was sent to the Public Access Bureau along with the complaint.

State law allows public boards to vote to destroy executive session recordings after 18 months.

Several trustees went on to complain about the delay in receiving a copy of the letter.

"The first time I saw a copy of this letter was in the packet I received for this meeting," said Smith. "I find it strange that two weeks go by before I received this information. Can you tell me why I'm learning about it first from local media?"

House replied that it was board policy that communications of this type first go to the board leadership and the agenda committee, and added that the attorney general's finding "did not require this board to do anything."

House was referring to the fact that the attorney general's finding was not a "binding opinion."

Smith, who was visibly upset, pressed on.

"Can you tell me why you, Mr. House, waited six days before you contacted the board chairman about this letter? I find that very problematic," Smith said. "I think a document of that kind of importance needs to be disseminated quickly."

House did not reply directly to Smith's question.

Trustee Rebecca Borgsmiller added that she first learned of the letter when she was contacted by members of the press for her comment.

"I had to tell the reporter that I knew nothing about it because I didn't," she said.

"The board should have been notified immediately," said Trustee Ray Hancock. "It was embarrassing and awkward for me. People were calling me about it and I knew nothing about it."

House offered no further explanation, and Chairman Kilquist moved on to other items on the meeting agenda. However, later in the meeting, the topic came up again.

Trustee Glenn Poshard said that he understood Trustee Smith's consternation and asked the chairman if board members would receive the lawyer's opinion before the next meeting.

"I need to get information from our lawyer before I could make an informed decision about supporting or not supporting the release of this information," he said. "I want to see everything together before I vote. I've never agreed with using executive sessions except when absolutely necessary. There has to be a good reason for having them. It's now legally privileged information, so I want to know what the lawyers say."

But Trustee Mandy Little quickly suggested that the discussion should be tabled until the next meeting.

Before Tuesday's meeting began, each trustee was asked if he or she would support the release of the minutes or the recording of the March 2016 meeting.

Kilquist: "We may or we may not. I intend to make an offer to put the issue on the agenda for next month's meeting."

Little: "I prefer to wait until after the board discusses the matter."

Poshard: "I want to get more information before I commit to that."

Borgsmiller: "Yes, yes, yes."

Jake Rendleman: "I will wait until after the board's discussion to make my decision."

Aaron Smith: "Without question. I don't know why in the world we would not comply with the attorney general's request."

Hanna Dobrynsky, student trustee: "It's a tricky situation. On one side, I believe it should be made public. On the other side, we have to consider the fragility of the rebuilding process, It could cause some tension. I'm torn."

Hancock: "Sure I would. I'm just not sure of the legal implications or what's available to release."

Of the current trustees, only Kilquist, Hancock and Rendleman were trustees in March 2016.

The 2016 layoffs are still a sore spot for many employees, former employees, students and community members. David Cochran, a professor at the college, said that the layoffs caused irreparable damage to the college's reputation, "damage that the college hasn't fully recovered from."

"Many among the professional staff who lost their jobs were not rehired," he said. "Among the faculty, several retired, others found jobs elsewhere. Of the seven tenured faculty members who were laid off for a year or more, all were recalled, eventually. But they lost out on a year of pay and benefits and that proved to be quite a hardship for many, if not most of them."