Parent and student tell Huntley 158 board an investigation into alleged sexualized comments remains unfinished

At the June 12 Huntley Community School District 158 Board of Education meeting a parent and her daughter urged the board to finish an investigation after repeated allegations that another student made sexualized comments to the daughter.

“My name is Mary Holzkoff,” the parent told the board, and described meetings and correspondence with district staff. “They have removed the child who was making sexualized comments to my daughter from her pod next year. They have ensured that he will not be in any of her classes, and I have that in writing. They also have allowed her to switch counselors.”

Her daughter, who spoke next during the public comment period and identified herself as Hadley Holzkoff, said she was repeatedly questioned by staff and said one encounter left her embarrassed and confused: “My counselor brought me to her office many times that day, and one of those times, she had made me remove my sweatshirt, which was a purple Adidas sweatshirt, to check my wrists. I did not know what she was doing at this time. That made me feel confused and uncomfortable.”

Hadley told the board she had asked staff what the district’s investigation entailed and that she was still waiting for answers. “Simply asking a counselor, ‘did this happen?’ her saying ‘no,’ and you saying ‘radio’ is not investigation enough for me,” she said. “Either do something about it or the next time that you hear from me, it will not be from me. It will be from my lawyer in the form of a lawsuit.”

Board members thanked the speakers for their courage. Administrators on the dais — identified in the meeting transcript as Miss Lombard and Mr. Zaire — were listed by the parent as people she had contacted; the board’s public record shows no formal vote or final administrative determination reported during open session on June 12 itself.

Why it matters: The speakers said district officials have taken some steps the family described as positive — removing the student from shared classes and permitting a counselor change — but they also said parts of the inquiry remain unresolved. Parents asked the board to ensure staff follow a complete investigation process and to act on any unmet procedural steps.

What the board record shows: The public comment exchange occurred during the board’s public comment period; there is no separate agenda item reporting the outcome of an investigation or a board directive recorded in the open session minutes that night. The speakers asked for specific evidence review (video footage) and for the district to complete a documented investigation. The parent said she had provided written assurances about class assignments but told the board the portion of the encounter that occurred behind a closed door remains disputed by a staff member.

Next steps noted in the meeting: Board members signaled they heard the comments and recognized the family’s request. The transcript shows the board then proceeded with agenda business; no additional public action, vote or formal directive appears in the open-session minutes for June 12.

Community context: The speakers asked the board both to respect the student’s privacy and to follow up on the procedural steps they say were not completed. The family stated their preference to pursue internal remedies but warned they would pursue legal remedies if the family believed the matter were not resolved.

Ending: Board materials and recordings show the June 12 public comment record. The family’s remarks and the district’s follow-up requests are part of the open meeting record; the board’s posted minutes for the meeting do not show any separate board vote or final finding on the matter in open session.