Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

May 19, 2024

College of DuPage – disturbing questions from Higher Learning Commission –

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On July 22, 2015

DuPage Co. (ECWd)
The current board of trustees have had less than 90 days together since the election.  That election placed a clean slate team of 3 on the board that brought a chance for reform because of a clear majority established with Hamilton supporting them.  This new majority has shown they have the ability to see the problems, admit there are problems, and implement solutions to fix the problems.
The Higher Learning Commission met with the full board last night and in light of all the criminal investigations, whining, dining, hunting, parties and straight-up malfeasance by Breuder and his team, it was disturbing to hear some of the questions they raised.
The evaluation team member Dr. Kerr asked why there’s been a 4-3 vote split on the board.
Sorry folks but this question has NOTHING to do with accreditation and should have never been raised. The reasons this question is disturbing are numerous.

  • 110 ILCS 805/3-9 – “When a vote is taken upon any measure before the Board, a quorum being present, a majority of the members voting on the measure shall determine the outcome there of “.

The above quote is from the Community College Act. I don’t know what other state laws are pertaining to voting and maybe these evaluators, who come from three different states, have different rules on the passage of measures before the board.  In Illinois, all measures pass with a majority of the members voting.  On a 7 member board that means it only takes 4 votes to pass a measure if all were present and voting.
The language is clear that passage is based on members voting, which can be a game changer on another front.  For example, two members who miss a meeting means they still have a quorum so they can have a meeting but since there are only 5 present, it only takes 3 (majority of members voting) to pass measures before the board.
The legislature passed the law and felt it sufficient to have a majority to pass all measures.  To question legally compliant votes leaves the perception that there is something wrong with the law that is being complied with.  Accreditation has nothing to do with legally voted-on measures, and such, a question should raise concerns as to a possible agenda by this group of evaluators.
Dr. Wendler then insinuates that such a split points to a problem at the college.  “It’s hard to grasp why there is a split.”  


Over $300,000.00 in spending on wine, dinners, hunting, taxidermist bills, hotels, guns, etc. and this guy can’t grasp why there is a split?  Sorry folks, but this person is either ignorant to the facts or has an agenda.  These board members were not elected to go along and get along.  They were elected to clean up the corruption that Erin Birt, Diane McGuire, and Joe Wazniak all ignored and actually participated in.
Unanimity in voting is called rubber stamping. That is what was basically happening under Brueder’s kingdom, other than Hamilton’s vote.  Every time I see unanimous voting by public officials we typically find spending that is well outside the scope of the law.  Everything slides through and those working for those public bodies all know that fact very well.
There are numerous other concerns raised from last nights meeting and we will get to those in due time but for the record, legally passed measures have nothing to do with accreditation and questioning legally passed measures has nothing to do with accreditation.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


  • Linus C. Hand
    Posted at 12:41h, 22 July

    Maybe it was asked because they feel the block of three is simply obstructionist, voting against simple things like agendas.

  • Richard Jarman
    Posted at 13:03h, 22 July

    Good points here. Unanimous votes on all and everything are not necessarily a sign of a functional board – witness the last several years at COD. Methinks the HLC team were set up to pursue this to try and discredit the new board majority, which of course is completely innocent of all the issues that brought the HLC team here in the first place.

  • Roger Kempa
    Posted at 04:11h, 24 July

    The evaluation team member Dr. Kerr asked why there’s been a 4-3 vote split on the board.
    Yes; Didn’t understand the reasoning of the “4-3 split on the board” question related to COD accreditation. Before the last election there was the “6 -1 split on the board.” Despite the clear actions of the then six board members to make the board “7 – 0,” the voting public of the COD District made their decision at the ballot box. HLC team member Dr. Kerr’s answer to his question lies with the split voting public, the fundamental source for adding new, and deleting existing board members. I am unaware of any weight given the voting public, and other constituent COD stakeholders (e.g. tax payers) in the accreditation process. There probably is a reason why HLC includes, or excludes them from the process.

  • danni smith
    Posted at 23:23h, 28 July

    If I were to answer, it would be, those three have committed crimes against the public. Their plan is one of a frantic nature and personal concern about their respective future, possibly spent in and under a type of secured area. Perhaps, budget busting legal fees from their pocket instead of the taxpayer. Breach of the public trust was once punished by beheading. Guilt and innocence were not adjudicated. Those obstructers, are the pickpockets pointing to the sky with one hand while they stick the other in your pocket. That’s why the split, Dr. Kerr. And you need ask?