Recent Court Decisions

The public body violated section 3(d) of FOIA by failing to respond to a request for records within five business days without a written agreement to extend the time for compliance.

The calendar the public body produced qualifies as a public record under section 2 (c) of FOIA. An employee of the public body prepared and maintained the calendar. The public body used the calendar to schedule official meetings and other governmental events. Additionally, an unspecified number of members of the public body had access to the calendar.

The public body violated the requirements of FOIA by failing to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that portions of the records are exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(f)(exemption for predecisional and deliberative material) or section 7(1)(m). The public body did not meet its burden to redact information pursuant to 7(1)(m) because it failed to demonstrate that the redacted information could reveal the substance of confidential attorney-client discussions. The simple presence of an attorney in a meeting is not enough to demonstrate that section 7(1)(m) applies.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

The Illinois Supreme Court has held that a school district is subject to, and its school board must comply with, local government zoning and storm water restrictions, i.e., a city’s zoning powers. The case arose when neighbors to a high school didn’t like the bleachers being built in the football stadium. The city issued a stop-order against the board prohibiting the continuation of the work on the bleachers. The neighbors sued the district seeking to privately enforce the city’s zoning ordinances. The court considered the board’s arguments supporting its position that the city may not restrict a school district’s land use. The court disagreed in an opinion that reads like a reply brief. The court relied on a provision in the School Code expressly allowing boards to seek zoning changes, variations, or special new uses for properties held or controlled by the school district. The court reasoned that this provision demonstrates that the legislature intended to subject the local school board to the municipality’s zoning regulations.

A public body must cite the specific exception authorizing the closing of a meeting to the public. Section 2 (c) of the OMA allows an exception for discussions that directly involve specific employees. This section does not contain an exception that permits a public body to hold closed sessions to discuss employees in general or issues that may ultimately have an impact on employees.

The public should have advance notice that the public body is going to take final action. Here, the public body failed to incorporate in their regular meeting agenda an item indicating that a final action may be taken or any reference to the subject matter of the contract that was the subject of final action. The only reference to the discussion and vote on the contract was an item on the agenda titled “Executive Session”. Thus, the public body failed to give advance notice and violated Section 2.02(c) of the OMA.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

The school district has the right to discipline students for online speech if the speech creates a reasonable risk of a substantial disruption at school. Speech directed at the school community and that is understood to be threatening, harassing, and intimidating could reasonably be anticipated to cause a substantial disruption at school.

While this does not apply in Illinois, this case reflects the increasing trend of courts recognizing the right of school districts to discipline students for certain misconduct that occurs off-campus and online.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

Plaintiffs filed claims against the principal and school board for racial discrimination; violation of their son’s right not to be apprehended or taken into custody; violation of his right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures; and violation of his right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The school board and principal asserted that there are no disputed facts and trial is not necessary. The principal also asserted that she is entitled to qualified immunity, protection from liability and trial.

Regarding the principal, the court found that a trial was necessary. The principal is not entitled to qualified immunity because the rights she may have violated were clearly established and she had actual notice of the standards pertaining to school searches. Additionally, a jury could find that the principal violated the student’s constitutional rights by conducting a search without reasonable suspicion or carrying out a search that was unreasonable in scope

Regarding the school board, the court found that a trial was not necessary because the plaintiffs could not present any evidence to show that the school board acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of the student. The board properly trained the principal and all other employees on proper school search procedures by providing a detailed pamphlet explaining the current laws regarding school searches. The assistant superintendent also reviewed the school’s rules on searches with the principal.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk