The Hinsdalean said its attorney advised against running the ad. A resident disputes the paper's contention about her public statement.
Posted Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 1:07 pm CT
HINSDALE, IL – The Hinsdalean weekly newspaper responded Wednesday to a critic who questioned the publication's decision not to publish an advertisement.
"A claim by a community member at the May 29 Hinsdale High School District 86 Board meeting that a district official, specifically board President Cat Greenspon, threatened the Hinsdalean with litigation regarding a potential advertisement is false," the newspaper said.
The Hinsdalean did not name the resident, but it appeared to be referring to Yvonne Mayer, who spoke about the ad at the meeting in question.
Facing the board on May 29, Mayer said the newspaper did not run the ad "out of fear of legal retaliation by you."
She said residents specifically fear retaliation from Greenspon, as did many of the nearly 20 donors for the ad.
Find out what's happening in Hinsdale-Clarendon Hillsfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
"Just like Trump is running our nation, the board president of D86 rules by fear, so much so, that our local free press is afraid to run a paid ad and make $840 in the process with a statement protected by the First Amendment, anti-SLAPP laws, supported by evidence, and in defense of a family harmed by your actions," Mayer said.
In its statement, the Hinsdalean said a group of residents approached the newspaper about placing an ad. It said the contents of the ad triggered a review by the paper's libel attorney.
"The attorney advised The Hinsdalean paper against running the ad, and the ad was subsequently declined," the paper said. "The Hinsdalean did not inform anyone at the district about the requested ad or its content, nor did it receive any communication from a district official about the matter."
Patch left emailed messages for comment with the paper's editor and publisher on Thursday morning. They weren't returned.
Mayer emailed the Hinsdalean early Thursday morning, sending a copy to Patch. In the message, she asked the paper to correct its story.
She pointed to her statement to the board, noting she did not allege that Greenspon or any other official specifically threatened litigation against the Hinsdalean.
"Your article states that what I said during my public comment was false," Mayer wrote to the paper. "However, you have failed to accurately report what I actually said during my public comment, and in so doing, have cast me in a false light."
In her message, Mayer said the ad was about what she and others contend was the board's repeated retaliation against former board member Debbie Levinthal.
Here is the text of Yvonne Mayer's comment at the school board meeting:
Early this week, close to 20 community members came together in support of the Levinthal family and to shine a spotlight on the board’s repeated retaliation against them. We attempted to purchase a full page ad in the Hinsdalean to run Dr. Levinthal’s full statement released last week, a statement you well deserve after Members Akhras and Member Waters' statements at the board table on April 24th and the Board’s misleading April 25 statement, emailed to all stakeholders, thousands of them, that cast the Levinthal family in a false light. Surprise, out of fear of legal retaliation by you, the Hinsdalean refused to run the ad. It is confirmed that community members fear retaliation, for example, many of the donors for the ad wanted to remain anonymous out of fear of Cat Greenspon, the vast majority of teachers that I have spoken to fear retaliation by this board, administrators I have spoken to fear retaliation and why shouldn’t they after how you have behaved towards the Levinthals and the union last April. I hope the six other board members and Dr. Lach will let that sink in — just like Trump is running our nation, the board president of D86 rules by fear, so much so, that our local free press is afraid to run a paid ad and make $840 in the process with a statement protected by the First Amendment, anti-SLAPP laws, supported by evidence, and in defense of a family harmed by your actions. I hope at least behind the scenes you are pushing back on the blatant abuse of power and rule by fear and intimidation.