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.

The State of Illinois filed a complaint against the Defendant, who held three public offices: alderman, school board member, and park district commissioner. The State sought Defendant’s removal from the office of park district commissioner, alleging it was incompatible with Defendant’s position as alderman. The First District Appellate Court held that the offices of alderman, school board member, and park district commissioner were incompatible, and removed Defendant from all three offices. There does not need to be an actual conflict for offices to be incompatible, just that there will eventually be a conflict. Offices are incompatible when the functions or duties of the offices are inherently inconsistent and repugnant so that one person would be unable to faithfully, impartially, and efficiently discharge the duties of both offices. The Court reasoned that the positions of alderman and park commissioner were incompatible because of contractual relations that may exist between a park district and municipality. A conflict can also arise between an alderman’s duties in voting on the allocation of revenue-sharing funds to a school district, and a school board member’s duty to provide revenue to maintain schools.

Nicole Cudiamat, IASB Extern

Are teacher e-mails sent through the school district’s email system considered public records?

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently held they were not records under Wisconsin’s Public Record Law, and therefore that they were not subject to disclosure. The court found that materials are public records only if they have a connection with a governmental function. Under certain situations, such as when a disciplinary investigation is occurring, personal e-mails would be subject to disclosure, but this was not the case here.

Though not applicable in Illinois, the Freedom of Information Act 5 ILCS 140/ has the same connection to a governmental function that is discussed in this opinion. School officials and employees should take note of this case and not use school email systems for personal e-mails or information to avoid future conflict. For more information, please see the Illinois Attorney General website on OMA and FOIA.

Nika Grabavoy, Extern, Valparaiso University School of Law

A public body referred a FOIA requester to a responsive document without making the requested copy, stating that the document was available for inspection and review. This was not a sufficient response to the FOIA request, which requested a copy. FOIA requires public bodies to provide a copy on request.

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.