Recent Court Decisions

THIS AN OHIO CASE THAT MAY BE OF INTEREST TO IASB MEMBERS; IT IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL IN ILLINOIS.

The Ohio Court of Appeals has held that a plaintiff seeking access to the school board member's individual evaluations of the school superintendent, failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the evaluations. The Court found that because the board only kept the composite evaluation, and did not retain the individual evaluations, the individual evaluations were not "kept" records subject to disclosure as public records.

The facts of this case began in an online chat on a suburban newspaper's comment board. The chat was between two individuals (one later identified as a minor) who posted various sarcastic comments about a local election under anonymous screen names. The minor's mother, a candidate in the election, was the subject of much of the chatter.

Using Supreme Court Rule 224 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 224), she ultimately filed a petition on her son's behalf, seeking the discovery of a commenter’s identity (referred to as John Doe). The comments were allegedly defamatory of her child. Initially, the trial court ordered that the identity of the subscriber to the internet protocol (IP) address used by John Doe when posting on the website would be revealed to petitioner.

John Doe appealed. He asserted that the trial court applied the wrong standard because the challenged comments were not defamatory. John Doe also contended that the challenged comments were immune by the Citizen Participation Act, which protects the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government.

The appellate court held that John Doe’s identity should not be revealed because the minor’s mother did not allege enough facts to show a cause of action for defamation, which is required under Ill. S. Ct. R. 224. Based upon its ruling, the court did not address John Doe’s assertion that the challenged comments were immune by the Citizen Participation Act. However, this case serves as a reminder to elected officials that citizens have broad First Amendment rights that require elected officials to have thick skin.

A subdivision petitioned to be detached from its current school district and annexed to another school district. However, sixteen of the relevant signatures deviated from the signatures recorded with the county election authority. These sixteen signatures were crucial to the eligibility of the petition. The Board granted the petition, but the Illinois circuit court reversed that decision and the appellate court agreed.

The circuit court disagreed with the Board and determined that the relevant sixteen signatures did not substantially comply with the statute. The court found that using initials for either the first or last name, omitting the first name, or writing in print rather than cursive made the signatures substantially noncompliant. Neither the ability to identify the voter by the signature, nor the voter’s willingness to testify, substantially satisfy the statute’s requirement that the signatures match the voting record.

Brennan McLoughlin, IASB Law Clerk

A school principal wrote a rebuttal to a separation of employment letter from the superintendent. A local newspaper requested the copy of the rebuttal letter under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The school denied disclosure under section 7(1)(C) for personal privacy and 7.5(q), which prevents disclosures otherwise prohibited under the Personnel Record Review Act. The school sent the office of Public Access Counselor (PAC) a preauthorization request indicating the intent to deny disclosure under the two exemptions under the FOIA. PAC addressed both exemptions and found that neither was applicable to the school. The Illinois Press Association then sent the school a letter asking them to reconsider the denial of releasing the letter. The school responded by asserting a third exemption under the FOIA. This exemption was section 7 (1) (n), which exempts records relating to a public body’s adjudication of an employee grievance or disciplinary case. The newspaper did not wait to hear from PAC concerning the third exemption and filed suit. After filing suit, the school released the letter to the newspaper on their own accord.

In filing suit, the newspaper was now looking to collect attorney’s fees and to impose a civil penalty on the school for their delay in disclosure. The school did not have to pay the newspapers attorney’s fees because the newspaper did not prevail. In order to prevail, the newspaper had to have received judicially sanctioned relief. The school released the letter without any direction from the court and the newspaper did not prevail. A civil penalty was imposed on the school according to section 11 (j) of the FOIA. The court found that the school willfully and intentionally failed to comply with the FOIA and was fined $2,500.

Rachel Prezek, IASB Law Clerk

District 159. The contract contained plans to formulate performance goals. After the superintendent’s first year, the Board of Education opted not to renew his employment contract. The superintendent filed suit against the Board, seeking to enforce the employment contract and retain his position. The superintendent also stated he had a property interest in his employment and termination without a hearing was a violation of his due process rights. The Board claimed that the employment contract was void because it did not include performance goals as required by the Illinois School Code, only plans to formulate goals. When a contract violates the law, it is rendered void. The Court found the employment contract was in violation of the Illinois School Code, and therefore void and unenforceable. Because the contract was void, the superintendent did not have a protectable property interest in continued employment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the superintendent’s due process claim.