Erin Chan Ding is at it again, and this one is a doozy! The Chan Ding and D220 Board of Education (BOE) saga continued at Tuesday’s meeting. As readers are aware, Chan Ding has been flagrantly violating BOE policies since announcing her run as a partisan democratic candidate for State Representative of the 52nd District. The policies flagrantly violated by Chan Ding are the very policies she reviewed, drafted and recommended to the BOE while serving on its Policy Committee. She further voted to implement and swore to uphold those policies on multiple occasions during her tenure as a BOE member over the last 4+ years. The Observer’s many reports of these violations had seemingly fallen on deaf ears.
But, in a shocking turn of events, at its November 18, 2025, meeting, the BOE voted 6 to 1 to finally take action and hold Chan Ding accountable for her continued flagrant violations of BOE policies. (Yes, Chan Ding actually exercised a vote, in complete violation of Robert’s Rules and a continued display of her conflict of interest in serving in a dual capacity to the D220 Community and the Democrat Party). While we would like to believe the BOE would have the decency to uphold the very oath they swore to and hold Chan Ding accountable of their own volition, it, of course, took an anonymous source to file a formal Grievance against Chan Ding and force this action.
The following Action item appeared on the November 18th BOEE Agenda:
Action Items 5.03 – Consideration to Approve of Written Decision Regarding Uniform Grievance Procedure Complaint Concerning a Board Member
The Grievance Complaint was against BOE darling and Democrat candidate for the 52nd Chan Ding. And, it appears that you and me, the taxpayers, had the honor of paying an “outside investigator” from the law firm Robbins Schwartz (R&S) to look into the violations alleged in the Grievance, interview Chan Ding, and review her political postings and social media pages to formalize a report and recommendations. Instead of rising to the occasion and showing true leadership by taking accountability for her actions, like a true politician, Chan Ding decided to spin a web of half-truths, bald faced lies, and mea culpa excuses to cover for her blatant disrespect of her position as a nonpartisan BOE member. (She’s also thrilled to go through remedial training, also likely on the taxpayer’s dime, rather than being forced to step down from her BOE position).
The essence of the Grievance focused on Chan Dings’s violation of Policy 2:105 Ethics and Gifts Ban and Policy 2:80 Board Member Code of Conduct. The Observer has been reporting these violations over the last six months for its readers, documenting Chan Dig’s policy violations and conflict of interest in attempting to serve two masters, the nonpartisan BOE and the partisan Democrat Party. Not surprisingly, R&S’s written decision regarding the Grievance against Chan Ding found she did indeed violate the above policies multiple times. In a brief moment of candor, Chan Ding admitted to the many violations, but pivoted to a discussion as to whether the violations should be considered “technical”, as suggested by R&S, or “flagrant”, as characterized by her fellow BOE members.
In Chan Ding’s self-aggrandizing speech to the BOE and public, she claims that once she was informed of her violations by fellow BOE members, she immediately ceased activities that were in violation of Board policy. (Insert the “Cough, cough, bull sh!t” sound effect). The pure ABSURDITY of this statement even caused fellow BOE members, Ficke-Bradford, Altshuler, Collister-Lazzari and Wang to speak out against Chan Ding:
Sandra Ficke-Bradford: “…just one last reminder (Erin) that I said at back even in June and July that you know it’s your … responsibility as it is all of our responsibility to comply to understand and comply with school policy.”
Barry Altshuler, in refusing to withdraw/amend his motion to characterize the policy violations as flagrant: “…nobody’s above the law and um I just think as a board I know we’re putting a lot of pressure on ourselves, but I just think we need to be above reproach and… I just know Erin, … you wear your board cape everywhere you go. So, you know, at at high school, at the middle school, at cross country meets, you know, you’re you’re board member Erin Chan Ding, I think the community sees you that way.”
Chan Ding responded, “…(B)y rejecting that, you’re saying that you’re disagreeing with the investigator’s findings and you’re disagreeing … with me when I’m telling you what my intentions were…”
Ficke-Bradford followed up, in support of Altshuler’s refusal to amend his motion: “I talked to the whole community this summer and presented that we all understood the policy. Franczek (D220 BOE’s legal counsel) gave us a report and … explicitly told us back this summer that you know the prohibited political activity and the violations still occurred… (W)e all agreed. You even wrote back to me acknowledging that you understood the report that was provided to the entire board and we still had policy violations.”
Leah Collister-Lazzarri further chimed in: “Just looking back over these policies … 2:105, ethics and gift ban… and noting when you last reviewed it, it was reviewed by the policy committee um in December of 2024 and from what I understand … policies are reviewed pretty thoroughly and at that time you were on the policy committee…”
Finally, Steve Wang followed up with one of the key issues related to Chan Ding’s policy violations, despite Chan Ding being on the Policy Committee and the several reports related to her violations: “(Y)ou were on the policy committee. I know these were reviewed. I do think that there needs to be some sort of accountability for that… (T)he reality is that it did happen and it didn’t happen once. It was a repeated cycle. And because of this, there is also the perception that this board now has some degree of viewpoints that are partisan and we’re intended to be nonpartisan. And then finally, the … funds that we have spent as a District. I mean, we as you mentioned, we engaged a third-party law firm … in addition to Franczek. It’s all adding up…”
In the web of lies identified throughout our reporting on Chan Ding, and the many more that have been enumerated in the transcript of the BOE’s November 18th meeting, Chan Ding finished the Agenda discussion with the following: “…And I’m truly sorry for all the time we spent on this. I will do better and I think I have in the last couple of months and I will continue to adhere to our policy…” Yet, as we know from two recent Observer articles, Chan Ding has violated the policies on at least two occasions since September. (See “Erin Chan Ding: The violations just keep piling up…“)
(Also see “Erin Chan Ding starring in another episode of, ‘Rules For Thee But NOT For Me…’“)
Chan Ding seemed to take issue with the fact that the Grievance was filed anonymously, failing to recognize that the very procedures used to file a grievance are set up to protect the victim. It is well known that parents throughout the 220 District are reluctant to speak out against the BOE and the D220 Administration for fear of backlash against their children. Chan Ding may have participated in the investigation process, but it is clear from R&S’s suggestion that the actions were not “flagrant” that she was not entirely forthcoming in the investigation. Indeed, Chan Ding herself acknowledges that the R&S report indicated “the finding that Ding appears to have ceased engaging in political prohibited activities…” Clearly, appearances are deceiving in this instance. If Chan Ding had been candid with the R&S investigators, they would never have reached the demonstrably false conclusion that Chan Ding had “ceased prohibited political activity” and “did not purposefully or intentionally violate schoolboard policy.”
Chan Ding argued that when she collected signatures at BHS and Station Back to School events for her run for the 52nd that she was doing so as a parent and not a Board member. But, as BOE Member Altshuler pointed out, nobody is above the law and the community sees BOE members as BOE members wherever they go, but particularly at D220 school sponsored events. This is not a position you can pick and choose to uphold whenever convenient. This is the exact reason legal precedent has already established that Dual School Board and State Representative positions are legally Incompatible. (See “Ding In Her Own Words – CONFLICTED!“)
Additionally, Chan Ding unequivocally stated during the November 18th BOE meeting: “I’ve revised my state rep campaign Facebook page so that it no longer shares or mentions posts from the school district.” This is a blatant and demonstrable lie. Chan Ding’s Erin for Illinois Facebook page, as of November 20, 2025, contains several posts that mention D220, that highlight BOE accomplishments, as though they are her own, and that squarely violate Policy 2:80(2): “(I) shall not use my Board of Education membership for personal gain or publicity.”
This is one of many Facebook posts on Chan Ding’s Facebook political page for the 52nd District that references D220, her “accomplishments” on the D220 BOE, and her political ambitions. Chan Ding seeks a compensated position in her run for the 52nd, so there is clear personal gain and her Erin for Illinois page is solely meant for publicity in that State Rep run.
The Observer has pointed out that Chan Ding’s political ambitions are costing the D220 taxpayers a pretty penny. BOE member Wang noted that the District is expending additional time and funds so Chan Ding can be protected in her dual rolls of BOE member and Democrat State Rep candidate. This is obscene. Chan Ding is already amassing a political war chest, yet we are to pay for her continued policy violations and conflict of interest? The Observer wonders how much money taxpayers have spent defending Chan Ding’s run for 52nd. Perhaps an enterprising community member will FOIA that and share it with us.
Most damning of all may be that Chan Ding refused to recuse herself from the very vote that was being taken to sanction her. Even when reminded by President Ficke-Bradford that the BOE was made aware of the conflict of interest her vote presented, she still voted against her own sanction. Clearly there are no lines Chan Ding won’t cross in her pursuit of partisan politics.
Is this someone you want representing your children?
Click here to watch the full policy violation discussion and vote recording.
Related: “Erin Chan Ding: The violations just keep piling up…,” “Erin Chan Ding starring in another episode of, ‘Rules For Thee But NOT For Me…’,” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency (Updated),” “District 220’s Lack of Transparency,” “Ding Politicking on School District Property,” “Dual School Board and State Rep Positions Legally Incompatible,” “D220 Abuses Taxpayer Funds in favor of Partisan Campaign,” “Ding In Her Own Words – CONFLICTED!,” “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”
