This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Is a petty lawsuit seeking to silence a reformer on the Lake Forest District 115 school board?


Golan/Moorman lawsuit should be dismissed as petty and unfounded Newly elected LFHS School Board member Ted Moorman of Lake Forest starts off his term with an unnecessary cloud hanging over him. Moorman, who ran as an independent on a platform advocating more Board oversight, transparency and accountability, has been sued by former Board president Sharon Golan in connection with statements he allegedly made during his election campaign.

As reported in the Gazebo News, Golan’s lawsuit accuses Moorman of defamation and invasion of privacy and seeks $250,000 in damages for allegedly causing Golan to experience severe emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, and injury to her reputation.  http://gazebonews.com/2013/08/01/former-lake-forest-high-school-board-president-sues-current-board-member-ted-moorman/
 
Golan’s lawsuit claims that Moorman made false and misleading oral and written statements concerning her participation on the Selection Committee for the construction manager for the $50-million-plus renovation of LFHS.  The contract was awarded to Pepper Construction, a company owned by the uncle and cousins of Golan’s husband, Stephan Golan.  Bringing family ties full circle, Mrs. Golan is represented in her defamation lawsuit by her husband’s law firm, Golan & Christie. 

As an outsider looking in, it appears that Golan’s lawsuit is nothing but a very expensive exercise in hair-splitting.  Golan indisputably put herself in a position that created, at the very least, an appearance of impropriety.  She does not dispute the essentials of the matter:  1) that her husband has close familial ties to Pepper Construction; 2) that she accepted a position on the Selection Committee; and 3) that Pepper’s bid was selected by the Board.  

What Golan does dispute are the peripheral facts of whether or not she “publicly” disclosed her familial relationship to Pepper and whether or not her immediate family had any financial interest in Pepper.  Golan claims that she disclosed her family ties to her fellow Board members once she learned of Pepper’s bid, but it is debatable whether making a disclosure to fellow board members is a “public” disclosure.  Was the disclosure made during a public meeting or was it made behind closed doors?  What disclosures were made to the general public?

Golan further claims that the Board’s lawyer gave her the green light to continue her participation in the selection process because her immediate family had no financial interest in Pepper.  (Despite the green light, she recused herself from the final Board vote on the contract award.)  Did the Board’s lawyer do an independent investigation of Golan’s financial interests or did he accept her assertion that she had none?  Did the Board’s lawyer explore whether Golan’s husband’s law firm represents Pepper, in which case the contract award could well have been at least an indirect financial benefit to her immediate family?  

Regardless of whether Golan’s disclosure can fairly be characterized as “public” and regardless of whether Golan had any financial interest in Pepper, the uncontested facts reveal that her involvement on the Selection Committee created at least the appearance of impropriety.  Indeed, Golan’s act of recusing herself from the final Board vote on the award seems to suggest her acknowledgement that there was something amiss about her being involved in the selection process.  Why else would she have recused herself? 

The topic of Golan's role on the Selection Committee and her connections to the successful bidder was plainly fair game in Moorman's election campaign urging the need for reform.  Freedom of speech for our political candidates is essential to an effective democratic process.  Using or abusing the judicial process to silence one’s political opponents on legitimate issues should not be tolerated.

If the facts are as they appear, hopefully Golan’s suit will be found to be frivolous and she will wind up paying Moorman’s legal fees incurred in his defense.  Moreover, if this controversy is going to be re-examined, the focus should not be on whether Moorman’s campaign statements precisely described the situation, but rather should be on what Golan knew regarding the elements of the competitors’ bids, when she gained that information, and what role she played in the Selection Committee’s recommendation of Pepper to the board for its final vote. 

If her connection was close enough for her to forego her vote, it seemingly was close enough for her to play no role in the selection of the bidder to be voted on.   I sincerely hope that Golan's lawsuit isn't a ploy to derail Moorman's laudable agenda of change and greater accountability.  The honorable thing for Golan to do would be to drop this lawsuit against an independent and sensible voice in the community and allow him to go about his mission for the reform that many taxpayers believe is needed. 

The Golan/Moorman lawsuit does bring front and center a fundamental problem that exists on many school board throughout Illinois.  Candidates for school board positions are chosen and supported by local caucuses, but not before vetting has been done so candidates are more or less in tune with what the administration and superintendent wish to enact policy-wise.  This is why seldom does an independent candidate get elected to a board position, especially one who will not toe the line or rubber stamp every issue brought up for a vote.

Having a reformer like Ted Moorman on the Lake Forest District 115 School Board is a breath fresh air and worth fighting for.  For too long school board members of Lake Forest District 115 have functioned as "yes" men and women for whatever the superintendent desired.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?