Following this morning‘s article on Erin Chan Ding confirming, in her own words, her conflict of dually serving on the D220 Board of Education (BOE) while simultaneously running for a partisan Democratic office for Illinois House Representative in the 52nd District, we have received information obtained by a resident pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to D220.
These records confirm that D220 Superintendent Winkelman and BOE President Ficke-Bradford have used D220 taxpayer funds to obtain attorney opinions on Ding‘s ability to run for the 52nd District while simultaneously serving on the BOE. (The Observer queried in a recent article why taxpayer funds would be utilized by the D220 School District to obtain attorney opinions in this regard.) They further confirm that the BOE is engaging in closed door sessions regarding Ding and her campaign for the 52nd District. We posit whether this is a violation of the Open Meetings Act.
Ding is raising her own campaign funds for her run for the 52nd. Isn’t it more appropriate that Ding’s Erin for Illinois Campaign pay for these attorney consultations rather than the D220 taxpayers? Additionally, why would D220 need taxpayer paid attorney consultations related to BOE Policy and Code of Conduct questions?
Are we seriously paying attorneys to opine on whether a BOE Member has violated Board Policy or Code of Conduct? Does our Superintendent and BOE President need an attorney to tell them if a BOE Member has “surrendered her responsibilities to special interest or partisan political groups”? Do they need an attorney to tell them whether a BOE member has engaged in the “appearance of impropriety” or that she has used her “Board of Education membership for personal gain or publicity”? This is beyond absurd.
Additionally, these records show that these policy discussions are taking place behind closed doors rather than in front of the public? Isn’t policy something that should be discussed and set with full BOE participation and public scrutiny? Since when is the policy of how our duly elected officials conduct themselves in their duly elected positions determined without the public’s participation?
Craig and Sandra, we urge you to get back to the business of running the D220 School District instead of using your D220 positions and the taxpayer’s resources to engage in the partisan politics of the Ding campaign for the 52nd District.
Related: “Ding In Her Own Words – CONFLICTED!,” “District 220 Board of Education meets this evening (07.15.25)” “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”
Craig & Sandra: Newsflash! Here’s who tells you if one of your board members has engaged in “the appearance of impropriety.” Me. The taxpayer! Not your hired gun lawyer. Not only is this an abuse of authority, it definitely smells of the appearance of impropriety by both of you!
Craig & Sandra: Newsflash! Here’s who tells you if one of your board members has engaged in “the appearance of impropriety.” Me. The taxpayer! Not your hired gun lawyer. Not only is this an abuse of authority, it definitely smells of the appearance of impropriety by both of you!
It is deeply troubling to see Barrington 220 leadership attempt to defend what is plainly indefensible. The District’s own policies make this clear:
• Policy 2:80-E (Board Member Code of Conduct) states board members must refuse to surrender responsibilities to partisan political groups, avoid conflicts or even the appearance of impropriety, and never use their Board membership for personal gain or publicity. Using one’s Board status in campaign invitations and publicity, as highlighted here, cuts directly against these principles.
• Policy 2:105 (Ethics & Gift Ban) prohibits the use of public resources—including district-paid counsel—for political activity. The FOIA disclosures show taxpayer-funded legal consultations were used to navigate a partisan campaign, which is exactly what this rule was written to prevent.
• Illinois Open Meetings Act (and Policy 2:220) require transparency and limit closed-session topics to narrow statutory exceptions. Discussions of campaign matters behind closed doors undermine public trust and violate the spirit—if not the letter—of open government.
Defending such choices not only undermines the ethical obligations of the Board but also erodes the transparency and independence our community expects. These actions model to students and families that rules bend for the powerful, partisanship supersedes stewardship, and that trust is expendable.
This is not simply about one candidacy—it is about whether those entrusted to govern our schools will uphold the standards they swore to maintain. The cascade of rationalizations presented here insults the intelligence of families and disrespects the very students the Board exists to serve.
Barrington 220 has steered dangerously off course. The community deserves leadership focused on students, education, and integrity—not partisan maneuvering, closed-door deals, and taxpayer-funded legal gymnastics to justify conflicts of interest.
These 2 articles should be called Ding Steps In Her Own Shit and the second one Ficke-Bradford Wipes It Off. How revolting that our school board & superintendent are acting this way.
Thank you for your thorough and consistent coverage of this ongoing issue. The lack of transparency here with our leaders continues to be a real problem. As a taxpayer and parent in the district, this is all so concerning. I couldn’t say it better than the above comment: “Barrington 220 has steered dangerously off course. The community deserves leadership focused on students, education, and integrity—not partisan maneuvering, closed-door deals, and taxpayer-funded legal gymnastics to justify conflicts of interest.”
Why does D220 intimate in its response letter that this is “discovery in litigation”? Could only be one of two things, either a sneaky way of trying to evade transparency to the public or Ding is suing the school district.