Hazel Park school board's official minutes drop key exchanges from meeting now tied to superintendent's lawsuit

This is the first part of an Oakland County Journal series on the Hazel Park Schools board and its superintendent.

On March 16, a divided Hazel Park Board of Education voted 4-3 to have its lawyers negotiate a buyout of Superintendent Amy Wilcox's contract. Sixteen people spoke during public comment that night, according to the minutes. All 16 spoke in support of Wilcox or against the buyout. They included:

• district employees
• two longtime former board members
• a principal speaking for the district's administrators

That meeting is now part of a federal lawsuit Wilcox filed Sept. 21. The official record of what was said there is much shorter than the earlier draft.

The Oakland County Journal compared two versions of the March 16 minutes, both posted on the district's public meeting portal. The first was placed before the board on April 20. The second was approved Aug. 24. The approved version condenses the debate before the vote into one paragraph. Gone with it are several passages about contacts between board members before the meeting.

What the April draft said

According to the draft minutes in the board's April 20 packet:

• Board President Beverly Hinton said other trustees had been offered chances to meet before the meeting with her and Vice President Deborah Laframboise. Trustee Monica Rattee and Secretary April Beaton declined.
• Beaton said she declined because of concerns about the Open Meetings Act, the state law that requires a quorum of a public body to deliberate in public.
• Wilcox raised concerns about alleged "round robin" communications. The term describes a series of private one-on-one contacts that together add up to a quorum. She also raised claims that support for the motion had been secured before the meeting, citing a phone call with Trustee Darrin Fox.
• Board members "expressed differing views on whether prior discussions occurred." Treasurer Heidi Fortress said she was not involved in any prior discussions or agreements.
• After the vote, Fox asked to change his vote to no. He cited concerns about personal liability after having told Wilcox there "may have been four supporting votes." The draft says Fox acknowledged making the statement but said he had not discussed the matter with other board members beyond the board president.

The draft also recorded objections from the trustees who opposed the buyout. Rattee cited what the draft called unanimous public comment against it. Becker raised concerns about cost, legal fees and the district's ability to attract future leaders.

What the approved minutes say

The version approved Aug. 24 replaces that discussion with a single paragraph. It says board members "expressed differing views" on the buyout, "including concerns about community opposition, financial and legal implications, and compliance with the Open Meetings Act."

It still records two things:

• Fox asking to change his vote, now described as citing liability concerns "related to a prior communication with Superintendent Wilcox concerning the anticipated vote"
• the board's attorney advising that the vote could not be reconsidered

The approved version does not include:

• Hinton's statement about the pre-meeting offers
• Beaton's explanation for declining
• the "round robin" reference
• Fox's acknowledgment and his account of whom he spoke with
• Fortress's denial
• the statements of the trustees who opposed the buyout

More than five months in limbo

On April 20, the board voted 6-0 to approve its consent agenda with the March 16 minutes tabled. Fox was absent.

The April 20 minutes say there was conversation about whether the board needed to discuss why the minutes were being removed. Then the motion was amended to table them "no further discussion." The March 16 minutes did not appear on another regular or committee-meeting agenda until Aug. 24, the Journal's review of posted agendas found.

They passed Aug. 24 as a separate action item, 4-3:

• Yes: Trustee Nathan Becker, Fox, Laframboise and Hinton
• No: Beaton, Fortress and Rattee

During that vote, according to the Aug. 24 minutes, one board member said she had reviewed transcripts after allegations that the minutes were inaccurate and had not found them incorrect. The minutes do not name her. She also expressed concern about changing minutes that were "currently the subject of legal proceedings." The minutes do not say which version she meant.

Wilcox's federal complaint says separate litigation alleging Open Meetings Act violations is pending in Oakland County Circuit Court.

The lawsuit

Wilcox has led Hazel Park Schools since 2015. Her contract runs through June 2029 at a salary of $185,744, according to her complaint.

Her lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It makes three claims against the district and the board:

• Due process. It says the board violated her due-process rights.
• Whistleblower retaliation. It says the board retaliated against her under Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act for telling the board, at the March 16 meeting, that the pre-meeting contacts amounted to an Open Meetings Act violation.
• Open Meetings Act. It says board members deliberated in private before the July 22 vote that put her on leave and appointed an interim superintendent.

Two other key allegations in the complaint:

• After the March vote, the district offered about $996,000 to buy out the roughly three years left on her contract. She declined.
• About four months later, on July 22, the board voted 4-2 at a special meeting to put her back on paid, non-disciplinary leave. Hinton, Laframboise, Fortress and Fox voted yes. Beaton and Rattee voted no. Becker was absent.

The board's July 23 letter to families said the leave was "pending an investigation into potential Board policy violations and Michigan Department of Education compliance issues in the Special Education Department." In that letter, Hinton said "no conclusions have been reached."

According to Wilcox's complaint, Laframboise filed complaints with the state Department of Education about special-education services in May and July. The department reviewed the district, not Wilcox, according to the Oakland County Times. That review found the district had fallen short of some requirements and set corrective-action deadlines in October 2026 and March 2027. The report did not name Wilcox as responsible.

At the July 22 meeting, Wilcox told the board the district had already been addressing the concerns through staff training, weekly special-education meetings and progressive discipline, according to the board's minutes.

On Sept. 14, a motion to bring Wilcox back immediately failed 4-3. Rattee, Beaton and Becker voted yes. Fortress, Fox, Laframboise and Hinton voted no.

Disputed points

The complaint and the board's records don't line up on everything.

What Fox said in March

The complaint says Fox stated at the meeting that he had been offered a chance to meet with Laframboise and Hinton beforehand, and that he had been told there were "already four votes."

The April draft minutes put it differently:

• It was Hinton who spoke about offering pre-meeting meetings, which Rattee and Beaton declined.
• Fox is recorded as having told Wilcox there "may have been four supporting votes."
• Fox said he had spoken with no board member other than the president.

Who made the July 22 motion

The lawsuit says Hinton made a "surprise motion" to place Wilcox on leave. It says she told trustees the board's counsel had advised her in advance that she could bring it forward.

The board's minutes record the motion as made by Laframboise and seconded by Fortress. They do not record the remark about counsel.

The minutes also record that:

• The agenda was amended at the start of the meeting to "add discussion of a state complaint."
• Hinton said the district was not required to post an agenda, only notice of the meeting.
• The motion itself placed Wilcox on leave "pending the Michigan Department of Education investigation into potential Board policy and legal violations."

Whether an investigator was hired

The complaint says, "upon information and belief," that as of Sept. 18 the district had not hired any firm to investigate Wilcox.

The board did vote 7-0 on Aug. 24 to hire The Williams Firm, a Grand Blanc law firm, at $350 to $450 an hour. The minutes say members wanted "an independent firm with no prior history with the district" given "the seriousness of the allegations." They do not say what the firm was hired to do.

At the same meeting, Rattee said the board had not provided information on the status of ongoing investigations.

A second engagement

A second Williams Firm agreement, dated Oct. 5, is on the board's Oct. 12 agenda. The file attached to the agenda is titled "2026 October Investigation 2 Hazel Park Schools Representation Agreement."

The cover memo from interim Superintendent Griff Mills describes the scope only as legal services "in matters for which the Firm is retained." It lists the general fund as the funding source.

The 2025 investigation

Wilcox was also placed on paid leave in January 2025, for more than 100 days, while an outside law firm investigated her.

According to her complaint, the firm found "insufficient evidence to substantiate the majority of the allegations." It found sufficient evidence on three issues:

• the commingling of Hazel Park Junior Vikings youth-sports funds
• the length of a previously approved contract extension
• the lack of a district wellness committee

She was reinstated unanimously in May 2025 and later received a written reprimand.

The findings have never been released, so Wilcox's account can't be independently checked. In July, a motion to waive attorney-client privilege and release them failed 3-3. Beaton, Rattee and Fox voted to release them.

At the Sept. 14 meeting, Hinton said she had been advised that comments made about those findings in a recent news interview were not accurate. The minutes do not identify the interview.

The interim superintendent

Mills was appointed by a 4-2 vote the same night Wilcox was placed on leave, effective July 23, according to board minutes. The minutes record trustees raising concerns about how little they knew about his qualifications, background, recommendation and pay.

Mills is a former Taylor School District superintendent. He is paid $800 a day plus a $200 monthly travel stipend while Wilcox remains on paid leave, according to the Oakland County Times. Wilcox's complaint said she was still on leave as of Sept. 18.

A Hazel Park resident later filed a public records request for "the List" of superintendents that Hinton, according to the request, mentioned at the board's July 27 meeting. The request also sought any referral documents used to choose Mills.

The district's law firm, Thrun Law Firm, denied the request on Aug. 19. It said the district "does not have any such list or referral documents in its possession related to the District's current Interim Superintendent." The letter noted that the records law does not cover oral communications.

Still unanswered

• Who decided to condense the March 16 minutes, and why
• What The Williams Firm was hired to do in August, and what "Investigation 2" covers
• How much the district has spent on outside lawyers, the interim superintendent and Wilcox's salary since July 22
• Whether the district is meeting the state's October corrective-action deadline for special education

Board President Beverly Hinton, Wilcox's attorney Heidi Sharp and the district's law firm, Thrun Law Firm, have not yet commented on the records described in this story. The Journal will update it with any response.

Next in this series: what the district has spent, and what the state found in Hazel Park's special-education program.

Sources: Hazel Park Board of Education agendas and minutes on the district's BoardBook portal, including:

• the March 16 draft minutes in the April 20 packet
• the approved March 16 minutes in the Aug. 24 packet
• minutes from April 20, July 22, July 27, Aug. 24 and Sept. 14
• the Oct. 12 agenda

Also: Wilcox v. Hazel Park School District, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No. 2:26-cv-13556; the district's letter to families, July 23, 2026; and the Oakland County Times, Sept. 16, 2026.