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

Plaintiffs sued the school district for alleged violations of NCLB’s choice provision. The School Code does not provide a private cause of action for damages, nor does Illinois recognize the tort of educational malpractice. The Tort Immunity Act further bars such complaints. The purpose of the Tort Immunity Act is to protect local public entities and public employees from liability arising from the operation of government. By providing immunity the Ill. Gen. Assembly sought to prevent public funds from being diverted from their intended purpose to the payment of damages claims.

Read the entire decision here: www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2015/2ndDistrict/2140704.pdf.

Update on the case which serves as a reminder to school officials that nothing online is truly anonymous. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s order requiring the disclosure of the identity of an anonymous poster of allegedly defamatory comments about a county board candidate on a newspaper’s Internet message board.

8/26/2015: Doe’s attorney has filed a motion to postpone the enforcement of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision. This motion will attempt to maintain the anonymity of Doe until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear an appeal.

See the information posted in Hadley v. Doe, - N.E.3d--, 2014 WL 1847824, (Ill.App. 2 Dist.,2014) for more background.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the school officials in this case should not be viewed as law enforcement agents, and the statements made by a young child to the teachers were not given with the “primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” This decision is important to school officials because the Court recognized that school teachers who ask their students questions about suspected child abuse are not acting as law enforcement officers but instead fulfilling their mandated state duties to keep children safe.

Confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements that directly relate to a public body’s use of public funds will not exempt the public body from having to provide such records under FOIA. FOIA specifically provides that all settlement agreements entered into by or on behalf of a public body are public records subject to inspection and copying by the public. In addition to the issue above, when responding to FOIA requests, public bodies must perform searches calculated to uncover the requested documents.

The take away here is that public bodies (a) may not use confidentiality agreements as a shield from responding to FOIA, and (b) must perform reasonable searches calculated to uncover the requested documents.

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