$80,000 Settlement in Hinsdale 86 With Ex-Official's Family: Statement

HINSDALE, IL – A former Hinsdale High School District 86 official's family received a settlement in March after a complaint over a student privacy issue, the family said Tuesday.

In an email to local reporters, Dan Levinthal, husband of former Hinsdale District 86 board member Debbie Levinthal, revealed the information. The only settlement in March was for up to $80,000.

He said the settlement resulted from his family's complaint that the district violated their parental rights as well as the student privacy of all three of their children in the district.

District officials did not return emailed messages for comment left early Tuesday morning.

Last month, Debbie Levinthal said she resigned in September 2023 to protect her family from the board's harassment and intimidation.

Dan Levinthal had earlier released documents on social media and to local news media related to the issue. The records indicated his wife was told an employee had breached the privacy of one of their children.

But the Levinthals said the district never finished an investigation of the alleged breach, despite their request.

Instead, a September 2023 email showed that the then-interim superintendent asked the chief information technology official to sweep the district's computers for references to the Levinthals, along with various key terms. That, the Levinthals said, would have involved all three children.

Shortly before that email, Dan Levinthal wrote a letter of "parent concern" to the district that included an allegation that then-Superintendent Tammy Prentiss made "defamatory" statements and disclosed information about the Levinthals' student to board President Catherine Greenspon. Greenspon then shared the content of that conversation at a closed board meeting, he said.

"Our son’s private student information was allegedly disclosed by an employee to President Greenspon, who then used this improper disclosure as the fulcrum for separating with the former employee," Dan Levinthal said in Tuesday's email. "My son’s private student records were used by Ms. Greenspon, not for legitimate educational purposes but for legal leverage."

The board reached a severance agreement with Prentiss in June 2023.

A few days after Dan Levinthal's statement last month, the board emailed all students, parents and staff with the official response.

"While we are unable to comment directly on the recent allegations shared on social media – allegations we believe to be unfounded – we want to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to student privacy," the board said.

On Tuesday, Dan Levinthal said the email was "highly inappropriate" and "misleading." It was designed to attack his and Debbie Levinthal's credibility, he said.

But he said it was telling that the board did not deny any of the documented evidence of its "illegal" conduct. Nor did the board disclose that the family was party to the March settlement, he said.

"The board used their communications platform to cast Debbie and myself in a false light after they violated the privacy rights of all three of our in-district students as well as our parental rights, causing my family harm," Dan Levinthal said. "Their statement was false and retaliatory."

Dan Levinthal asked for the district to immediately revoke its policy giving the board president extra power in the reporting chain for the district's attorney.

He also requested a public apology to his family and a "mutually agreeable" retraction of the district's public statement.

And he called for the resignations of Greenspon and members Asma Akhras and Jeff Waters. He said they played critical roles in the privacy violations and retaliation through their statements. (The four other members joined the board earlier this month.)

In late March, Patch obtained the settlement through a public records request. Much of the information was blacked out.

The district is legally allowed to keep under wraps any personally identifying information about the student. It is unclear whether the district blacked out more information than the law permits.

The agreement mandated that both sides keep the terms secret. However, the district was allowed to release the document under the Freedom of Information Act.

According to the document, the district agreed to reimburse up to a total of $80,000 to assist with attorney's fees. Another category of reimbursements involving the $80,000 was redacted.

Tuesday's statement from Dan Levinthal, husband of Debbie Levinthal, former member of the Hinsdale High School District 86 board:

Late last month, I publicly released our Due Process Complaint against D86, along with the district’s internal litigation hold letter - two documents that reveal how the District, the Board, President Greenspon and other agents of the district first violated the privacy of one of our children, then two more, as well as Debbie and my parental rights.

I’ve been asked by multiple community members if our privacy issue has been resolved. First, in so far as we no longer have any D86 students, the Board and district shouldn’t be able to violate our older children’s privacy rights any further. Secondly, we arrived at a settlement in this matter with the district in March 2025.

Some may ask, why continue speaking out? I am a Hinsdale parent whose children's privacy rights were violated, whose parental rights to know about the violations were disregarded and whose character was attacked by the board issuing a statement effectively calling me a liar. I had hoped new board leadership would bring meaningful change, but political maneuvering and a concerning lack of integrity from some individuals prevailed. Consequently, student privacy and parental rights remain at risk under Greenspon’s leadership. As much as I would like to put this behind me, and despite my familiarity with the retaliatory nature of the board, as I have stated previously I believe that all students are entitled to the privacy, safety and care delineated in multiple federal and state privacy laws as well as board policies, not to mention common sense, common courtesy and plain human decency. Therefore, I am asking the community to demand that at the very least the board amend its policy 2:160 to remove the board president from the reporting chain.

That said, in response to “recent allegations shared on social media – allegations we believe to be unfounded,” the Board sent an unprecedented and hypocritical letter to District parents, students and community members on their distribution lists to “reaffirm our unwavering commitment to student privacy. Every member of the D86 BOE takes this responsibility seriously. We joined this Board to serve the best interests of our students, and we remain dedicated to upholding their safety, dignity and confidentiality in everything we do.”

These are hollow words, without substance, directed at me, a D86 parent and community member for speaking truth to power. Notably, the Board has not shown this concern when other parents have spoken out – only now, when confronted with truth.

In reply to the Board’s letter, and more recently public official Akhras’ and Waters' open session statements, I want to express my opinion that these public officials are being less than truthful in describing their self-proclaimed unwavering commitment to student privacy and serving the best interest of ALL students in everything they do.

Although no litigation was pending or threatened and no court order issued, the District distributed a so-called “Litigation Hold Letter,” which in addition to casting my wife and myself (a private family) in an untrue and disparaging light, directed staff to run unwarranted and improper searches for protected student information of ALL three of our then D86 students including health, mental health, 504, IEP and other protected information. (see below email confirming delivery of the results of said searches and demonstrating that our concerns are not “unfounded.”)

We only learned of the litigation hold letter by chance. Once aware, we sought transparency through every available means to obtain the contents of the letter, the distribution list and forwards, and most importantly the school board-sanctioned results of the overly broad searches for our children’s private school student records. On all fronts, the Board, District and agents fought our efforts and refused to provide a full and complete accounting of the details of the alleged initial privacy breach of one of our children’s protected student information. If not for our discovery of the litigation hold letter, we would have never known about the breach of the privacy rights of all three of our in-district children.

During this time, the School Board revised Board Policy 2:160 to mandate that the president of the board, currently Greenspon, be informed of all communications between the Superintendent and District legal representatives and all legal advice received. My interpretation of this policy is that it creates a disingenuous “educational interest” for the president to be provided with private, protected student information of any student in the district including health, mental health, disability, 504 and IEP information under the pretense of legal advice. That is not “educational interest” – that is abuse of power.

The Board’s hypocrisy deepened on April 24, 2025, when Asma Akhras and Jeff Waters made public statements. It is clear from context that Waters called me unethical. Akhras tried to excuse her closed session bullying of my wife. It’s my opinion that Akhras lacks both the ability to comprehend, or admit, how her statements in closed session were an act of intimidation, harassment, and interference with my wife’s parental rights. To Ms. Akhras I say:

• With your 30 years of “experience,” how can you be so maladroit regarding privacy statutes that you can’t grasp their real-life application and ramifications?
• Did you support the completion of an investigation into Ms. Greenspon’s allegations of a privacy breach of my child (one of ALL children)?
• How is threatening my wife with discipline for parental advocacy professional or an act of bridge building, to use your words?
• Why didn’t you follow through on editing minutes as requested by my wife, so the closed session minutes reflected ALL topics discussed?

Per FOIA 1463, the district has no records responsive to a request for the “5 pages of notes” Ms. Akhras referenced in open session. Were they destroyed? Fabricated? Taken in violation of confidentiality agreements?

The lack of answers only reinforces the absence of integrity. Perhaps Waters should take more interest in the ethics and integrity of his fellow board members than private citizens exercising their parental and first amendment rights. But, I digress.

The question is, should you believe the board when they have the audacity to issue a letter to the community re-affirming their dedication to protecting and preserving student safety, dignity and confidentiality? Given the facts of how this School Board and its agents knowingly violated the privacy, safety, dignity and confidentiality of not just one, but all three of my in-district children as well as Debbie and my parental rights, every parent should ask themselves if they feel comfortable with the board President, Greenspon, knowing the protected student information of their children? Can the community and all district parents trust that ours is the only family that has, or will be subjected to this type of treatment? We were just lucky we became aware of their misdeeds, but that does not answer how many other families’ privacy the Board, with Greenspon at its helm, are violating without their knowledge?

Actions speak far louder than words though, therefore I ask the community to demand that the new board live up to the words the prior board used to try to deceive them that they had an “…unwavering commitment to student privacy.” This board can spare us the words and instead must take action to remove the Board president from the reporting chain in policy 2:160. I doubt they will, but the challenge should be presented for them to be held accountable.