The availability of records through discovery (during the litigation process) does not affect a person’s right to access records under FOIA.

A school district placed a referendum on the ballot seeking to increase the school’s property tax limiting rate. The school district engaged in a number of activities to encourage voters to support the referendum, including hosting a student rally, producing a television program, mailing referendum literature, allowing teachers to blog on the subject, and providing school space to pro-referendum groups.

Although the referendum was defeated, Mr. Peraica and Taxpayers United of America (TUA) filed suit against the school district. The group claimed that the school district had deprived them of the right to free speech under the first amendment to the United States Constitution, because they were “forced to struggle against the public funds” in their opposition to the referendum. The taxpayer group alleged that the school deprived them of a constitutional right under the appearance of authority, in violation of section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.

The Illinois Fourth Division appellate court agreed with the trial court’s dismissal of the claims in favor of the school district.

NOTE: Two of the group’s claims did not reach appeal:

1. Mr. Peraica and TUA had claimed that the school violated the Property Tax Code by understating the amount of the tax increase.

2. Mr. Peraica and TUA had alleged that the school violated section 9-25.1 of the Illinois Election Code, which says that schools cannot use public funds in support of a proposition. The court replied that claims under the Election Code are properly made to the Board of Elections.

Referendums are complicated and school officials should always consult the board attorney throughout the process.

Brennan McLoughlin, IASB Law Clerk

Taxpayers brought actions against school district employees, the district’s accountant, and district school board members (collectively “defendants”). They alleged the defendants engaged in or permitted improper spending of money from the district’s working cash fund and they sought to (a) recover the money and (b) impose criminal penalties, including an order requiring the board members to forfeit their offices.

The court found that:

(a) The taxpayers could not recover a monetary award from the defendants because the taxpayers did not allege that the money transferred from the working cash fund was put toward an improper purpose forbidden by law. All monies were spent on legitimate school expenses, and the school board eventually effected a permanent transfer of the money by passing resolutions to abate and/or abolish the working cash fund.

(b) The taxpayers are not authorized under the law to seek criminal penalties or forfeiture of office (only the State of Illinois may impose such penalties under this law). The law does not authorize a civil suit to recover vast sums of money personally from district defendants for the alleged violation of the working cash provisions of the law when there are no allegations of monies being used for anything other than legitimate school expenditures.

A public body’s motion “to approve the recommendation for dismissal of Employee A due to performance concerns” was insufficient to inform the public of the nature of the business under consideration prior to taking final action. The Public Access Counselor found that failing to identify the employee by name in the motion violated OMA. School boards should consult their attorneys for guidance about how to manage compliance with OMA while balancing an employee’s privacy interests.

A public body’s special meeting 26 miles from its regular meeting location was found to violate the OMA requirement that such meetings must be convenient and open to the public. A meeting can be open to the public but still inconvenient if “the public, as a practical matter, would be deterred from attending it.” Here, the meeting was held outside of the district, 26 miles from its regular location, and at 9:00AM on a weekday as opposed to the usual 7:00PM. In addition, the public body did not claim that the meeting could not have been held at a suitable facility in the district. While the public body met other procedural OMA requirements and no action was taken at the meeting, the meeting was still found to violate OMA.

Brennan McLoughlin, IASB Law Clerk