After hours of public opposition, Hazel Park board authorizes law firm to negotiate with superintendent

The Hazel Park Board of Education on March 16 authorized a law firm to prepare and negotiate a settlement agreement with Superintendent Dr. Amy Wilcox and her representatives, setting a March 25, 2026 deadline for a response. The motion, moved by Board Member Debbie and seconded by Heidi, passed on a 4–3 roll‑call vote.

The vote followed an extended public‑comment period in which dozens of parents, para‑professionals, teachers and community members urged the board not to pursue a buyout. Multiple speakers said the district had already spent roughly $500,000 on a prior investigation that produced no findings of misconduct and argued a buyout could cost close to $1 million — funds they said should instead be spent on classroom needs, raises, and building repairs.

Staff members and union representatives described low pay, infrastructure needs such as leaking ceilings and unreliable walkie‑talkies, and repeated appeals for raises and stability. Para professional Cindy Thomas said, “We are being asked to consider spending over $1 million, money we don't have, to buy out the contract of our current superintendent.” Nancy Anderson, an 18‑year district employee, said a buyout would be “incredibly irresponsible” and warned that prior investigations and legal fees had already consumed substantial district resources.

Board discussion before the vote included repeated procedural disputes about closed sessions and whether some communications outside public meetings violated the Open Meetings Act. Several speakers and some board members alleged off‑the‑record discussions or pre‑voting contacts; the board’s legal counsel advised on procedure during the meeting but did not present a written ruling on alleged violations.

The motion authorized the law firm named in the motion to prepare and present a settlement offer and to negotiate with Dr. Wilcox's counsel; it directed that Dr. Wilcox’s representatives must provide a response to any agreement by March 25, 2026. The board did not disclose a settlement amount in public session.

After the authorization passed, the board adjourned amid audible audience reaction. No final settlement or contract termination occurred at the meeting; the authorization allows the district’s legal representative to pursue negotiations through the deadline set by the board.