The public body violated section 2a of OMA by failing to reveal and record in the meeting minutes that they were asserting section 2(c)(1) and section 2(c)(2) as its basis for closing a portion of its meeting.

The public body improperly discussed the elimination of an employee’s position for reasons unrelated to the performance of the employee, which is not within the scope of the section 2(c)(1) exceptions. In addition, discussion of a hiring freeze was not within the scope of the section 2(c)(2) exception. Because the county was not engaged in collective bargaining at the time of the meeting, the hiring freeze did not constitute a collective negotiating matter.

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

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

The court at the Board’s request dismissed this case. The superintendent brought claims for declaratory judgment, which alleged that the Board improperly dismissed her. She also brought a claim for breach of contract. The Board had good cause for the dismissal of the superintendent because she acted outside the scope of her authority by transferring “disruptive” students to alternative schools without board hearings for extended periods of time. These students were not given any other form of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Even if the practice of transferring students to alternative schools without a hearing was routinely done for years in the school district, this did not negate the superintendent’s responsibility to know the law and follow the School Code. If the Board had ulterior motives in terminating the superintendent, this did not negate the reasonable basis that existed for the superintendent’s dismissal.

The superintendent’s due process rights were not violated because there was no evidence to suggest that she did not receive an impartial hearing.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

The amount of compensation paid by the public body is subject to disclosure unless it is otherwise exempted. The amount of compensation by itself is not exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(b) of FOIA because it is not a “unique identifier” that could be considered private information. Additionally, the compensation information directly relates to the public body’s use of public funds and is also subject to disclosure pursuant to Section 2.5 of FOIA.

Residential addresses may be withheld under section 7(1)(b) but post office box numbers must be disclosed because they do not uniquely identify an individual or constitute a home address.

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

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