Sycamore board adopts statement responding to disputed report passages after hours of debate

The Sycamore Community City Board of Education on June 4 approved a board statement addressing records released via a public records request and passages in an investigative report that some board members said had been misread or taken out of context.

Board members spent more than two hours debating the precise language of the statement before voting. The board ultimately approved the statement after edits intended to add context about the meeting minutes and to avoid asserting facts the report did not prove.

The statement notes that “the minutes of the board meeting 06/28/2022 are clear evidence that one board member voted in favor of the candidate, and the other board member cast their vote based solely on the candidate’s qualifications and experience, never on race.” It also says allegations of race-based comments were not substantiated by other interviews and condemns statements that “misrepresent the facts” and “are an affront to the professionalism and integrity of the board.”

Superintendent Michael Lewis (listed in the minutes as Mister Lewis) delivered a public response after the vote, saying, “I do not support or condone false allegations or personal attacks on anyone, including members of this board or the staff, including me.” He described the personal and professional toll of repeated, unsupported claims and urged the district and board to remain focused on students.

Several board members said they could not support the earlier drafts because the wording appeared to assert findings that the investigator’s report did not reach. “I do not feel that it does,” Board Member Doctor James said of an earlier draft’s clarity for the public, adding that readers who are not close to the matter would not understand some of the drafted language.

The motion to approve the board statement was made by Doctor Stiefer and seconded by Doctor James. Missus Logan called the roll; the record shows all voting members present voting aye: Doctor Steger, Doctor James, Mister Ballack, Mister Harris and Missus Bitter.

Board discussion included repeated requests to limit the statement to verifiable facts, to cite meeting minutes when relevant, and to avoid language that would imply the report proved allegations it did not. Several members urged the board to craft a high-level statement about professionalism, trust and collaboration rather than a line-by-line commentary on the investigator’s findings.

The board did not take additional investigatory action at the meeting. Members who raised concerns about the scope of the investigator’s review noted they were constrained by what material the investigator examined and by open-meeting rules that limit discussion of personnel investigation details in public.

The board recorded the approved statement in the meeting minutes and heard a separate public comment period in which community members asked the board to continue transparency and to pursue solutions focused on students.