About Last Night

Along with around a hundred other community members, I tuned into the 301 Board of Education Meeting last night. With the gaslighting and rhetoric that unfolded on social media since the Board Book that was published last Friday, this felt less like a local meeting and more like tuning in to watch a tabloid gossip podcast to follow the drama between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni on the latest This Ends With Us controversy. I have so many thoughts on the chaos of the proceedings last night, the manufactured outrage, and everything in between that I’m going to dissect in blogs over the next few weeks, but let’s start with digestible chunks.

I know, Blog 2, and I’m backtracking a bit, but stick with me. In the next few blogs I will strive to provide unbiased facts, supporting research, and data driven information, but this blog was also created to provide my perspective, and last night was wild. So, buckle up, this is a doozy.

Setting the tone for the evening, the first public comment began with an individual introducing herself as a ‘Christian and Patriotic American,’ which struck me as an odd way to start, especially for a public school board meeting. As the speaker continued, there was a reference to school board member Jennifer Volpe as a ‘liberal’. This was not only odd in its inherent assumption, but it set an unsettling tone. What relevance do labels like ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ have when it comes to a public school or school board? How does focusing on political affiliations serve the community or benefit the students? It felt as though the stage was being set, with information selectively chosen to support a larger agenda that has very little to do with student success.

There’s a lot to unpack here, not least of which was the President of the Central Education Association (CEA), backed by the Illinois Education Association—a statewide teachers’ union and one of the largest in Illinois—speaking about ‘bullying.’ All the while, he made unsubstantiated insinuations in what I could only perceive as a thinly veiled attempt to bolster the CEA’s position in the upcoming contract negotiations. But I digress. Let’s move on to the more scandalous details of the censure against my husband, Jeff Gorman, introduced by Junaid Afeef.

The Details from My Perspective

1. How did this start? According to the comments made by Superintendent Dr. Esther Mongan at last night’s Board of Education meeting, it appears that a private communication between her and the Board of Education (BOE for short) was leaked to a community group (person?) sometime in the spring of 2024. This information had not been made public through official channels, and its unauthorized publication understandably raised concerns. According to last night’s discussion, it sounds like all BOE members were present—except for Morgan Pappas, who was absent—when this leak was discussed and all agreed that the situation was troubling. It was not made clear who, but from what I heard in the meeting last night (can someone please check the audio in the district office?) one of the BOE members admitted to the transgression.
2. Emails. Like most businesses, emails on private servers, in this instance the school district servers, should not be considered private. For the district specifically, this is due to public records laws. School district emails are often categorized as public records, meaning anyone can request to see them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Given the circumstances as described above, it would appear there was an audit of communications by the admitted party to determine if any additional violations occurred.
   • It’s worth noting that Junaid Afeef, who admitted to submitting a FOIA request, also argued that certain emails should remain private—contrary to the law. This statement was met with applause from the seated audience, which struck me as surprising, especially given the number of FOIA requests that have been made, including those for my own emails, by this group of individuals, to the district. The position seemed, at best, contradictory.
3. Fred Vogt. Fred, according to ratemyprofessors.com, is a Biology Professor at Elgin Community College. Fred spoke during public comment and stated he was contacted by Superintendent Dr. Esther Mongan to attend a private meeting. Dr. Mongan, who stated she had conferred with district legal counsel on how to proceed in this unprecedented situation prior to the meeting, requested that Jeff, in his capacity as board president, also be in attendance. It has been disclosed by Junaid through his censure, and Fred in his public comment, that this meeting was conducted because it was identified that Fred committed a FERPA violation. Let’s unpack that:
   • Based on the debate between the board at the meeting last night, in an earlier meeting there was some confusion as to how private school board information was transmitted to the public, and one member, presumably Fred based on the following actions, admitted to sharing privileged information outside the BOE.
   • In a secondary offense, Fred, a teacher and then-seated BOE member, used his district-assigned email account, housed on the district server, to violate FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) by illegally sharing private student records. As an educator, one would expect Fred to be well-versed in his legal responsibility under FERPA to safeguard the confidentiality of student information. Moreover, as a school board member who took an oath of office (see 105 ILCS 5/10-16.5), he had a dual obligation: to protect the integrity of the board and to uphold the privacy rights of students.
4. “The Meeting”. In a private meeting where Dr. Mongan, Fred and Jeff were present, Fred was confronted with his wrongdoing. This is all we can confirm or verify. Why? Despite Junaid’s unsubstantiated accusations, no one else was present. Everything proposed by Junaid is hearsay. What is hearsay? According to Dictionary.com, hearsay is “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor”. What is known is that Fred left that meeting and later that day resigned from the BOE for “personal reasons”.
5. Board Communication. Jeff stated, in accordance and with respect to Fred, that Fred resigned for “personal reasons”. He then proceeded to call each BOE member individually to inform them of Fred’s decision.
6. Censure. On January 7, 2025, Junaid forwarded two motions to the BOE to censure Jeff and remove him from the board, alleging that Jeff failed to publicly disclose Fred’s illegal activity(ies) to the BOE. Just to interject here, but it seems as though this claim ignores the fact that there were no intermediary meetings during the time of “the meeting” and Fred’s resignation. By the time the next meeting occurred, as stated by Dr. Mongan, the matter had been settled by Fred’s decision to resign.
7. Considerations from My Perspective.
   • Fred had an obligation as a BOE member to conduct himself in accordance with the Code of Conduct as described in 105 ILCS 5/10-16.5 and outlined by the Illinois Association of School Boards (“IASB”), and he failed in this basic duty.
   • In accordance with the rules of BOE governance, as written and provided by the IASB, misconduct discussions can vary depending on the nature of the events. This includes, but is not limited to, discussions, disciplinary measure, reprimands, training, and, finally, censure or removal from the board.
   • Did Dr. Mongan and Jeff expect Fred to resign? We have no context for their intent. We have Junaid’s hearsay and accusations, but he was not present. What we know is that Fred did not immediately resign. He left the meeting, thought on it, and later resigned.
   • Dr. Mongan stated at the meeting last night that it was confirmed that the breach in records and protocols was not disseminated and the felt the FERPA violation was contained, thus limiting district – and taxpayer – liability.  
8. Should this have been made public? Open Meetings and accessible records, including minutes, budgets, policy, and other records, especially as it relates to financial decisions, contracts, and policies, should always be public and communicated. However, there are many challenges to transparency in these situations due to legal and ethical constraints including:
   • FERPA and Privacy Laws: Protecting student and staff privacy is critical and may restrict the sharing of certain information.
   • Executive Sessions: Some matters, like personnel issues or litigation, must be discussed privately to comply with the law.

This situation involved a FERPA violation by a BOE member, who is also an educator at risk of damage to his position and reputation, and the privacy of student information. Should this have been made public? I would argue that the potential legal risks to the district and the harm it could cause do not justify the publicity. The decision had no impact on the budget, contractual obligations, or other significant ‘business’. To me, it resembles a private disciplinary meeting between a ‘supervisor’ and ’employee,’ after which the ’employee’ chose to resign.

Also, I am just surprised that no one at last night’s meeting addressed Fred’s transgression(s). In a meeting where public comment emphasized the need for apologies and transparency, it was interesting to see the crowd applaud efforts to obscure public records and rally behind Fred without holding him accountable. Accountability is key to moving forward—where is Fred’s acknowledgment, apology, or sense of responsibility? It seems the blame somehow shifted to Jeff to take responsibility for Fred’s intentional decision to share private information, attend a meeting, and then ultimately resign. If we are going to foster accountability and responsibility to ensure the community can rebuild trust and move forward, this is not a great start.

On a personal note, Junaid, who made a point of reminding everyone at least three times last night that he is an attorney, constructed a case based purely on hearsay and essentially put Jeff on trial. However, this wasn’t a trial in the traditional sense—it was an uneven playing field. Junaid, as an attorney, is trained in argumentation, skilled in presenting a case, and adept at leveraging rhetoric to sway an audience. Jeff, on the other hand, is a numbers expert with a head for fiscal responsibility and a commitment to balanced budgets, but public speaking is not his forte.

This imbalance was glaringly obvious. Junaid used his professional expertise to frame Jeff as a villain, not in a court of law where rules of evidence and cross-examination would apply, but in a public forum designed to evoke emotional responses. Jeff’s struggle to articulate a defense only compounded the inequity.

It’s hard to believe that someone like Jeff—who clearly found it challenging to defend himself against this orchestrated narrative—could have been the same person allegedly capable of articulating the legalities to “bully” Fred into resignation. Ultimately, the situation felt less like a genuine effort to uncover the truth and more like a spectacle aimed at influencing public perception and scoring personal or political points.

And Junaid, just to clarify, Jeff didn’t respond to your unsubstantiated accusations earlier because he was focused on taking care of me and our family while I was recovering from a medical procedure. He chose to act ethically, respecting my privacy—even at the cost of his own reputation. That’s the kind of man he is.

I’ll leave today with this: “What’s right is not always popular, and what’s popular is not always right.”