Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

May 27, 2024

College of DuPage hatchet job fails miserably…

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On June 19, 2015

DuPage Co. (ECWd) –

An article published yesterday by the Chicago Tribune reported that College of DuPage Chairman Kathy Hamilton violated the ethics policy as it relates to prohibited acts.

The Taxpayer-funded, electioneering, witch hunt at COD

In an effort to show the level some people will stoop to, we will break down the failings in this “audit” one at a time, as there are number of them and it is clear this was use of taxpayer funds in an effort to discredit Hamilton.

An ethics complaint was filed.  According to our sources, Breuder DIRECTED a COD employee to file the complaint.  Does that give you an indication where this is going?

According to the internal audit report, COD adopted the state ethics policy in its entirety.  Board policy reflects they also adopted their own ethics Ordinance (instead of the Attorney General’s Model Ordinance), which address the minimum requirements of Gift Ban, Prohibited Political Activities, and Penalties.  Interestingly COD’s Ordinance fails to address several key points.

  • Who do you  file an ethics complaint with?
  • Is there an ethics commission or board?
  • What is the process for evaluating such a complaint?
  • Is the person entitled to provide a response to the complaint?

It would appear that the ethics policy adopted missed key elements as it is impossible to assess penalties to violations if you don’t have a process in place for complaints to be reviewed, and a decision made that offers the person being complained about an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Board Policy 15-27 outlines the reporting of wrongdoing and it is clear those requirements were not complied with. Specifically, “Complaints involving a Board member will be brought to the Board’s attention by the President upon receipt of the same.”

Breuder violated Board Policy because he DID NOT bring this complaint to the attention of the board.  If you were not aware of his previous violation simply review the Gift ban and cross referenced all his eating, drinking, and gifts to Senior Administrators, or click here to read the little piggy article on the matter.

“Alleged wrongdoer’s name may be disclosed only upon completion of the investigation and if found guilty.”

Found guilty by who?  Under what authority?  Sadly, the policy fails to outline answers to those questions.  Even more laughable is the fact there is no input provided from the accused because they were never made aware of a complaint.  Isn’t that special!

Now let’s get to the meat of the complaint.

  • Ken Florey is involved in providing definitions to the non-lawyer who drafted the internal audit report.

No need for tax payer funds to be spent on Florey when the statute pertaining to this issue defines the very points raised in the report. What I find very odd is the report provides a legal opinion on matters, yet the auditor is not an attorney.  What type of justice is obtained when the single person making legal statements of facts never once asks the accused a question?

  • “Based on the advice of legal counsel, it is my understanding that an officer is “executing official duties” any time that officer is holding themselves out in their official capacity, which in this case would be as a Trustee or Vice-Chair of the College of DuPage Board of Trustees.”

According the the Attorney General, “a public officer or employee, while on compensated time or on public property, engages in organizing a prohibited political activity or otherwise actively participates in a political activity, for example, by giving an introduction or endorsement of a candidate, then the officer’s or employee’s conduct would violate the Ordinance.”

The above advice of the legal counsel is in direct contradiction to the AG opinion.  It should be noted that this is the same attorney that tried to cancel the Candidate Forum, and the AG opinion I cited was used to prove him wrong.  Since Hamilton was not on compensated time or on public property, she is free to do what she wants as it relates to political involvement.  All of the examples presented in the audit report clearly point to matters outside the scope of the laws intent.   (Click here to read AG opinion)

Any time that officer is holding themselves out in their official capacity.

The audit report claims other people’s Facebook pages and campaign flyers reference Kathy Hamilton in her capacity as Vice Chairman.  Are these people actually trying to imply that another person’s use of her title means she violated a policy because other people used her title?

  • “Soliciting Contributions for a Political Fundraiser”

How is another person’s political fundraising twisted to imply Hamilton violated policy?  Because her picture was on the flyer?  Seriously?  I guess the auditor missed the campaign flyer by Savage and Svoboda where Savage referenced her title as COD Trustee.   (Click here to see the use of the title Trustee in an article we published previously.)

  • “Participating in a Political Event” – “Pictures taken during the event show Vice-Chair Hamilton was there participating in the event.”

I guess these people have no clue what the First Amendment is.  The more I read in this report, the more amazed I am.  When a person is not performing the duties of their elected position they are on their OWN time and can do as they please. You cannot legislate what a person does on their own time.

  • “Soliciting Votes on behalf of a Candidate” – “The online
    story was accompanied by a video of the event in which Kathy Hamilton is clearly identified as the College of DuPage Vice Chair and she specifically endorses each of three candidates.”

How special.  The Daily Herald published a video that has typed text identifying Ms. Hamilton as Vice Chairman, however, when she made her endorsement she made NO MENTION of her position at COD.  Is this audit actually taking the position that since a newspaper used her title in their video, it means Hamilton violated policy?  If that is not a stretch I don’t know what is.  If you enter the link below into a Google search you can read the article and watch the video. IF you have a subscription simply click on the link.  (

I have seen some witch-hunts in my day but I think this one takes the cake.   The report is so out of line I suspect even Erin Birt saw it for what it was and that is why she never brought it to the board.

May I suggest the policy pertaining to false reports be implemented on this situation?

I believe Hamilton’s response to this absurd report was appropriate and I hope they are able to move on to fixing the bigger problems at COD.  May I suggest they start with law violations by Breuder referenced in this article?

Hamilton’s response:

“This memo is absurd. I saw it for the first time yesterday, June 17, 2015. It shows politics gripped COD leadership prior to the April election, and COD leadership spent tax dollars to hold onto its power.

Prior COD leadership cancelled a candidate forum. It used taxpayer-funded counsel and public relations advisers to give political advice to trustee candidates. It spent $400,000 on unprecedented campaign-style mailings. It overlooked Trustees Nancy Svoboda and Kim Savage campaigning together as an incumbent slate. It gave me no notice of the complaint against me, nor opportunity to tell my side of the story. And now, with the memo leaking today, we see the then-president used public resources to create political points to use against an elected member of the board. Free speech and due process reign at COD, as does the entire U.S. Constitution. It always will.”

Internal Audit Report:

[gview file=”” save=”1″]



Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • Richard Jarman
    Posted at 08:21h, 19 June Reply

    Well said Kirk. This was a total hatchet job, but not atypical of the Breuder regime. The odd thing is why and how it has only just come to light.

  • Kirk Allen
    Posted at 11:18h, 19 June Reply

    What will be interesting is to read the first report that cleared her. Its been reported to us that Breuder blew a gasket when the report was done and did not produce the results Breuder wanted. Supposedly he ordered the auditor to get iwth Florey and re-write the report they way he wanted it.

  • Linus C Hand
    Posted at 11:43h, 19 June Reply

    If they released complaint 6 can we see the rest?

  • Richard Michael
    Posted at 13:23h, 19 June Reply

    Good post. Two points.

    1. Isn’t releasing of the name without having been found guilty a violation of the policy? Is the auditor exempt from that rule?

    2. Not every minute detail of due process needs to be written out if a parliamentary authority, like Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, has been adopted. Robert’s Rules lay out an extensive set of rules about Disciplinary Procedures in Chapter 20. If COD had adopted Robert’s Rules, it would be bound by those procedures where their other rules are silent.

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 16:15h, 19 June Reply

      I suspect they are taking the position she is guilty because the auditor says so.

      • Richard Michael
        Posted at 16:29h, 19 June Reply

        My point was that assigning the auditor to conduct what amounts to a trial is a gross violation of the process laid out in Robert’s Rules. Only the body of which Hamilton is a member could conduct such a trial and it would have to be done in executive session.

  • screech0000
    Posted at 13:46h, 19 June Reply

    To her credit, Trustee Hamilton did not attend COD Trustee candidate forums and so cannot be accused of influencing the direction of the forums. The same cannot be said of Dr. Breuer. Breuer cancelled the forum at COD sponsored by the Adjunct Faculty. It was reinstated after redress of this action was sought in court. However, Breuer himself attended the forum and became the “elephant in the room” as the candidates discussed the problems he had created at the college.

  • Betty
    Posted at 13:52h, 23 June Reply

    Well once again its the same pigs feeding at the trough and drinking the tea party Kool-Aid.
    Kathy Hamilton broke the state law and violated board policy. Why isn’t she being prosecuted in DuPage County? Did she make the state’s attorney a nice campaign donation?
    I am calling the IRS today to audit you and look into your not for profit status. You are not a watch dog group at all; you are not objective. Seems to me you showed up at the same time all of Hamilton’s gang showed up and have been a blind supporter. How much has Hamilton contributed to your organization? Democracy needs to reign again in DuPage County and not this tea party propaganda. Hamilton is a political opportunist and has her spin doctor Chris Robling create her fictional stories. Go home Edgar dogs!

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 16:16h, 23 June Reply

      The “audit report” did not identify any state laws Hamilton broke, only eluded to COD policies. We are still trying to get copies of the original audit report – the one that found nothing wrong but Breuder ordered it changed…

      Do you need the phone number to the IRS? Let me know, I will get it for you.

      You can look at our annual financial statements online through the Illinois Sec of State and Attorney General’s websites if it would make you feel any better.

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 20:20h, 23 June Reply

      We welcome the scrutiny. Hamilton has NEVER donated to our organization and even if she had there is no law against that. To claim this is Tea Party propaganda shows the level of intelligence you have. Name the law she broke. PLEASE cite the law. Cite the Board Policy she violated. The AG made it clear in their opinion that was referenced and her actions did not violate Board Policy in spite of the witch hunt.

  • Rob
    Posted at 13:56h, 23 June Reply

    What do you mean she did not attend any events. She most certainly did. Plus she had about 5 robo calls made to everyone in the District saying she was vice chair of the COD board and was endorsing these candidates and solicited donations. Her and her husband contributed over $130,000 to their campaigns so she could buy the Chair position.
    I think you people believe your own bologna.

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 17:01h, 23 June Reply

      Who said she didn’t attend any events? It certainly is not in this article. There is a comment that said she did not attend any “candidate forums”.
      Is it against the law to make campaign donations? NO!
      Is it against the law to make robocalls? NO!
      Is it against the law to endorse candidates? NO!

      You must still be upset about who the majority of the voters overwhelmingly supported in the election.

Post A Comment