Recently reelected District 220 Board of Education member and now candidate Erin Chan Ding poses with 220 Board of Education Vice President Barry Altshuler (giving thumbs up) for a photo at her June 18th launch of her Illinois State Rep campaign.
The District 220 Board of Education (BOE) met last Tuesday, and BOE President Sandra Ficke-Bradford began her presentation by addressing the elephant in the room (the elephant wasn’t actually in the room, as Member Erin Chan Ding was absent from the July 15 BOE Meeting) stating:
“As many are aware, District 220 Board Member Erin Chan Ding has declared her intent to run for State Representative of the 52nd District, and it’s within Erin’s right to do so, and Erin is aware of the Board policies and the laws that are in place.
We have consulted with our counsel, um, to confirm that merely running for an office, um, for political office, while refraining from engaging in any prohibited political activity while acting as a Board member or on School District property does not constitute a violation of the Board’s Code of Conduct. Erin and all Board Members are aware of the policies the Board does have in place.
Um, that being said, the goal of this Board is to focus on Framework 220 and the daily work of the School Board. Therefore, I will be working with you guys, the Board, um, in the coming weeks prior to our next Board meeting in August to assign other Board Members to the following committee assignments that Erin holds currently. Um, Policy Committee, ED-RED Representative and Legislative Committee. So, if you’re interested in those, please let me know. Um, but we will be making those changes before the next, before those meetings.”
Ficke-Bradford did not ask the other BOE Members if they had any questions or comments relative to the removal of Ding from her committee assignments. Following Public Comment, where a member of the community spoke about the conflicts presented by Ding’s decision to run for a partisan political position, Ficke-Bradford chose to reiterate some of her prior statements adding:
“I just want to touch on, I just want to repeat what I had said earlier, that um, regarding Erin Chan Ding running for um State Representative, um, we did consult with our counsel, and um, we did confirm that merely running for political office, again, while refraining from engaging in any prohibited political activity while acting as a Board Member or on School District property does not constitute a violation of the Board’s Code of Conduct. Um, but I would like to remind the Board, right, that we do have policies that are in place and we should be very careful to make sure that we do not violate the Open Meetings Act. So, thank you for that.”
In watching the video from the July 15th meeting, at 37:52, one can see Ficke-Bradford pointedly look towards Members Altshuler and Srivastava while she reminds the BOE Members of their obligations under the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA). As reported on by The Observer in Ding’s D220 Deception, both Altshuler and Srivastava were present at Ding’s launch party for her run for the 52nd. The Observer further pointed out the potential for an OMA violation in that article, as three Members of the BOE constitute a quorum and Ding’s platform for the 52nd District mostly surrounds her activities on the BOE. So, now Ficke-Bradford has put the entire BOE on notice due to Ding’s decision.
For nearly a month, The Observer has written about the conflict of interest Erin Chan Ding created when she announced her political ambitions weeks after being reelected to the BOE (see “Ding’s D220 Deception” and “Ding Doubles Down”).This past Tuesday evening, apparently without discussion or vote, Ficke-Bradford decided Ding’s position on 3 BOE committees would be eliminated, and not one Member of the BOE or the Superintendent voiced an objection to this decision.
It should be noted that the BOE had a lengthy Closed Session prior to the regular meeting of the BOE, with one of the Closed Session Agenda items being “Self Evaluation.” School boards can hold closed-session meetings to discuss specific topics legally permitted under the OMA. These sessions are not open to the public, and the topics discussed are specifically limited by the OMA. It’s certainly possible that the BOE and Superintendent Winkelman determined to discuss Ding’s run for the 52nd in Closed Session, as Ficke-Bradford’s statement appeared to be prepared written comments. The Observer, however, cannot identify a legally recognized exception to the OMA and the premise that BOE actions should take place in front of the public which would have allowed for such discussions in Closed Session.
Ficke-Bradford’s choice clearly confirms her belief that Ding’s decision to run for a partisan political position makes her conflicted if she remains on the Board of Education. Further, so long as Ding remains on the BOE, every Board vote will require scrutiny for objectivity and everything Ding says or posts in her Democratic campaign for the 52nd District must also be scrutinized before it’s determined whether or not she should abstain from BOE activities.
The baggage Ding has now burdened our Board of Education with is one taxpayers were not bargaining on when they voted in April. And, if Ding chooses to keep her BOE seat, it will only serve to increase the burden of responsibility on her peers.
We believe that Ficke-Bradford, without calling for Ding to step down, has opened the door for Ding to do the right thing by taking that action on her own and step down before further action must me taken. The removal of Ding from committee assignments is a clear admission that her run for the 52nd District, including her website and social pages that actively advertise her BOE activities as support for her run, constitute violations of BOE policies.
Additionally, we’d like to point out from Ficke-Bradford’s comments, it appears that our BOE believes that the burden should be on the D220 taxpayers, as opposed to the Erin for Illinois Democratic political committee organized and raising funds on behalf of Ding’s run for the 52nd District, for the responsibility for obtaining legal opinions as to whether Ding is conflicted from serving the dual functions of partisan and non-partisan. We suggest to Ficke-Bradford, the BOE, Superintendent Winkelman and the D220 attorneys that this is an irresponsible use of taxpayer money and this burden should be on the Erin for Illinois campaign, not the taxpayer.
Related: “Ding Doubles Down,” “Ding’s D220 Deception,” “Chan Ding running in Democratic primary in 52nd,” “Three (3) Democratic candidates queued to run for the IL 52nd District House seat in 2026”