Following our recent posts Ding In Her Own Words – CONFLICTED! and D220 Abuses Taxpayer Funds in favor of Partisan Campaign we understand some believe Erin Chan Ding has the right to sit dually on both the D220 Board of Education (BOE) and as a member of the Illinois House of Representatives for the 52nd District. This is unequivocally false (and we didn’t need to consult any high paid lawyers on the taxpayer dime to figure that out).
While a person may be able to serve certain government positions dually, say Village of Barrington Hills Trustee simultaneously with Illinois State Senator for the 26th District, Illinois law recognizes that certain positions, including that of serving on a School Board and as a member of the House of Representatives, are deemed legally incompatible under Illinois law. Illinois law holds that the duties of those two offices conflict such that an individual cannot fully and faithfully perform the responsibilities of both. Illinois courts have applied this doctrine to prevent dual officeholding in cases where conflicts of interest or overlapping duties arise and have emphasized that incompatibility does not require an actual conflict but rather the potential for conflict between the duties of the two offices.
The duties of a school board member involve overseeing local education policies, budgets, and contracts, while a state representative is responsible for broader legislative functions, including education funding and policy at the state level. These overlapping responsibilities could create conflicts of interest, particularly in matters where state legislation impacts local school districts. Even if no actual conflict has arisen, the potential for conflict is sufficient to render dual officeholding incompatible.
One may look to the very partisan League of Women Voters who has previously provided context for this conflict, stating: “Recusal is not a sufficient remedy where two public offices have conflicting duties because public officials are elected to be the voice of the citizens and abstaining from a vote deprives the citizens of their voices. Also, public policy demands that an office holder must discharge his duties with the actuality of impartiality and undivided loyalty. Such conflicts of duty are public conflicts and cannot be cured by recusal. However, private conflicts of interests may be cured by recusal.”
To put this in perspective related to our prior posts about BOE Member Chan Ding,: She is currently violating her Oath of Office and the BOE Code of Conduct; BOE President Ficke-Bradford has effectively silenced Chan Ding, depriving the citizens of her voice, by removing her from the majority of her BOE committees; and, Chan Ding’s run for the 52nd has additionally raised the specter of partiality to the Democratic Party and divided loyalty between it and the BOE.
Related: “D220 Abuses Taxpayer Funds in favor of Partisan Campaign,” “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”
All your posts so far have valid. But even if Ding realizes it, she is WAY too narcissistic to give up any attention she is getting (even though it’s waning daily).
And the minimal steps Ficke(Me)-Bradford has taken will be all she’ll do for fear of a discrimination suit (Which Ding would welcome).
It’s astonishing that the Board continues to rationalize what is clearly a violation of both the spirit and the letter of policy.
• Policy 2:80-E (Code of Conduct) makes it clear that Board members must avoid conflicts of interest, partisan influence, and the appearance of impropriety.
• Policy 2:105 (Ethics & Gift Ban) prohibits the use of taxpayer-funded legal counsel for political activity — yet FOIA records show exactly that.
• And under Illinois law, serving simultaneously on a school board and running for state office is deemed legally incompatible due to the potential for conflict, not just actual conflict.
What the community deserves is not excuses, but answers: How does defending this serve our students and families? How does it model integrity for the very children this Board is charged with guiding?
Instead, we see partisanship, ideology, and personal ambition placed ahead of impartial stewardship of education. To suggest the public doesn’t see through this is insulting. Residents and property owners are not as ignorant as they’re apparently taken to be. The moral compass here is badly off course, and the continued defense of unethical, biased decisions only deepens the mistrust.
Barrington 220 was meant to serve students, not partisan politics. It’s time to put education first.
True, Milton. I don’t think I have come across someone quite so lacking in self-awareness in a very long time. Ding hears nothing but her own cackle, very similar to a former presidential candidate. Ding is certainly running, along with Winkleman, Ficke Bradford and the rest of the dog and pony show (excepting Wang), they are running our school board into the ground.
Can’t believe Ficke-Bradford is allowing this charade to continue. After three decades 🙄 or whatever duration too long it’s been, she should know better. Sandra, don’t let your legacy die on Erin’s terms.
It’s hard to miss the irony here. Barrington 220 is now proposing to strengthen Policy 2:80 to spell out consequences for Board members who violate their oath or Code of Conduct — including formal censure or even removal from office .
And yet, while this is being discussed, the Board refuses to address the very conduct these rules are meant to prevent. FOIA records already show:
• District-paid legal counsel was consulted for campaign-related issues, violating Policy 2:105 (Ethics & Gift Ban).
• Closed session discussions took place about a Board member’s political campaign, which are outside the scope of the Open Meetings Act.
• The Board member’s campaign activity openly uses their position, directly conflicting with the oath to avoid partisan influence and protect taxpayer trust .
If this policy is truly about accountability and protecting students and families, why won’t they enforce the standards already in place? The Board cannot expect the community to accept new “rules” for future violations while current, blatant breaches are being rationalized and defended.
Barrington 220 exists to serve students and families — not partisan politics. If leadership won’t uphold that principle now, no policy update will fix a broken culture of governance.