Hazel Park board declines to enter closed session amid dispute over law-firm invoice and retention

The Hazel Park Board of Education on Jan. 22 voted against a motion to recess into closed session to discuss an attorney-client matter, amid disputes about an invoice and whether a law firm had been retained before the board authorized counsel.

The motion to move into closed session “under section 1(h) to consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by State and Federal statute — attorney-client privilege,” was made by Trustee Fortress and seconded by Trustee LaFromboise. The board clerk announced the tally as 4 to 3; the motion therefore failed and the board did not enter closed session.

Trustees spent much of the public portion debating the circumstances that led to the special meeting. Several trustees said an invoice from Truen Law Firm was dated Jan. 2, before the board’s organizational meeting and before any single board member had been given authority to secure counsel on the board’s behalf. Trustees said the invoice’s date, the firm’s apparent retention, and conflicting statements about the firm’s purpose — whether to review board policies or to address a finance issue — had caused confusion and concern among board members and the community.

One trustee described a lack of advance notice to the board and public about the purpose of the meeting and the legal work. That trustee said the board had been told previously the firm would be retained to review board policies; later information indicated the discussion might instead concern district finances. The trustee also said the board’s regular recording secretary had been asked not to attend the special meeting.

Other trustees defended the president’s authority to contact legal counsel. In the meeting, Trustee Fortress moved the closed-session motion and told the board, “I move the Board of Education recessed into closed session under section 1 h to consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by State and Federal statute. Attorney client privilege.” That motion was seconded by Trustee LaFromboise.

Trustees repeatedly referenced meetings and documents from earlier in January: an invoice dated Jan. 2, an organizational meeting on Jan. 6, and a Jan. 13 meeting where trustees discussed paying the invoice. At the Jan. 13 meeting, trustees said they were told the reason for the law firm’s involvement was a review of board handbooks and policies. Some trustees said they later learned the firm might have been contacted about a finance matter, which they said they had not been prepared to discuss.

Several trustees said the timeline raised transparency and open-meetings concerns. The Open Meetings Act and the board’s bylaws were invoked multiple times during the discussion; one trustee asserted the board’s president has authority under the bylaws to contact legal counsel before a meeting, while others said an invoice dated before authorization undermined public trust. A trustee noted the statutory threshold for certain closed-session votes and said the board’s rules require a specific vote threshold for section 8(h) sessions.

After the vote failed, the board moved on to other business. Trustees discussed adding the matter to the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting so the issue could be addressed with more notice and preparation.

A student submitted a written public comment, read aloud at the meeting, praising the district superintendent and urging support for students to attend school despite cold weather; that comment was delivered during the public-comments portion of the meeting and did not alter the board’s decision on the closed-session motion.

The board did not take any other formal actions during the special meeting related to hiring or approving payment to the law firm on the record at that time.

What happened next: Board members said they would place the matter on the next regular meeting agenda to allow additional discussion and to provide the public clearer notice of topics to be discussed.