HINSDALE, IL – With its legal bills surging, the Hinsdale High School District 86 board may change its law firm.
Last week, the board chose Oak Brook-based Engler, Callaway, Baasten & Sraga to handle “select students, special education and other matters.” On the surface, this did not appear to affect the district’s main firm, Chicago-based Robbins Schwartz.
Click Here: lions rugby jersey
However, the board on Thursday is set to discuss in an open meeting a request for proposals for a “board attorney.” That seems to be the job held by Chicago-based Robbins Schwartz, which the board appointed as the “general counsel” in January.
All seven board members and the district’s spokesman, Alex Mayster, did not return messages for comment Tuesday.
Last budget year, which ended June 30, the board’s legal spending amounted to $697,362 (over the $460,000 that was budgeted), according to public records. That was more than 40 percent over the previous year and far higher than other districts, even those much larger.
In response to a complaint from Patch, the attorney general in late July found the board violated the state’s open meetings law in May 2023 by deciding behind closed doors to suspend then-Superintendent Tammy Prentiss. Such a vote must be in public.
At the time of the May 2023 meeting, the board was being advised by attorney Joseph Perkoski of Robbins Schwartz, who the board hired as special counsel to handle Prentiss’ ouster. His firm defended the secrecy.
Robbins Schwartz’s relationship with the district began with a secret meeting before a new board majority took office on May 3, 2023. The firm met with a few current and incoming members.
This meeting was apparently hidden from some of their fellow members. Earlier this year, the district blacked out records revealing the meeting in response to Patch’s public records request. But Patch later obtained the documents unredacted.
With Thursday’s discussion, the board is returning to the idea of issuing a request for proposals. This is where the board would seek other law firms’ fees and offerings.
Under state law, the board has no obligation to go through a competitive process to seek bids for professional services such as attorneys.
Yet for months before Robbins Schwartz’s selection, board members publicly talked about getting a request for proposals. Board President Catherine Greenspon even appointed a committee for that purpose.
At a board meeting in early January, interim Superintendent Raymond Lechner updated the board on the request for proposals for legal services. Two members asked about the process.
Two weeks later, Lechner gave another update, but no member asked any questions. Later in the meeting, without any discussion, the board unanimously voted for Robbins Schwartz as its law firm, with member Terri Walker noticeably pausing before voting. (She is also the only board member to publicly question the skyrocketing legal spending.)
After that, resident Yvonne Mayer, a critic of the board, filed an Open Meetings Act complaint with the attorney general. She argued the board must discuss the process of selecting a law firm in public. The board jumped from wanting a request for proposals to choosing a firm without competition.
At the time, Mayer questioned why the board was not open with residents.
“Taxpayers might have viewed a decision to not proceed with an RFP in order to review multiple firms’ legal service and pricing proposals as fiscally irresponsible, but at least the D86 (school board) would have been honest and transparent,” Mayer said in the complaint.
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.