Rock Falls School District's FOIA Response

8/7/2019 Rock Falls School District's FOIA Response

1/5

Hodges LoizziEisenhammer Rodick & Kohn LLPCynthia L. [email protected]

March 29, 2011 RECEVEDVia First Class andElectronic Mail A P R 0 4 2 0 1 1

Public AccessSarah Kaplan, Assistant Public Access Counselor CounseorOffice of th e Attorney General500 South Second StreetSpringfield, Illinois [email protected]. il.usRe: District 3 0 1 ' s Response to David Giuliani' s FOIA Request for Review

2011 PAC 12695

Dear Ms. Kaplan:

T h i s l e t t e r is i n r e s p o n s e t o y o u r l e t t e r , d a t e d M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 , in which y o u d e t e r m i n e d t h a tf u r t h e r i n q u i r y i n t o D a v i d Giuliani' s FOIA R e q u e s t f o r R e v i e w is w a r r a n t e d a n d r e q u e s t e dc e r t a i n a d d i t i o n a l information from t h e District. Specifically, y o u r e q u e s t e d ( 1 ) u n r e d a c t e dc o p i e s o f d o c u m e n ts r e la t e d t o t w o o f M r. G i u l i a n i ' s t h r e e FOIA r e q u e s t s , ( 2 ) in f o r m a t io nre g a r d in g w h e th e r a h e a r i n g t o o k p l a c e r e g a r d i n g M r . B u s e r ' s d i s c i p l i n a r y m a t t e r , a n d if s o , w h ow a s p r e s e n t a n d w h a t w a s d is c u s s e d , ( 3 ) a factually s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e explaining why t h ea s s e r t e d e x e m p t io n s a p p l y , a n d ( 4 ) w h e t h e r th e D i s t r i c t b e l i e v e s a n y o f t h e r e s p o n s i v e d o c u m e n t sare e x e m p t from disclosure under other FOIA e x e m p t io n s .A s a p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r , y o u a s k e d th e D i s t r i c t to c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y a n y i n f o r m a t i o n th e D i s t r i c tbelieves to be conidenia. Generally, t h e District d o e s n o t s e e k to withhold a n y o f t h ein form at ion* in this response letter f rom y o u r review, bu t it believes al l of the underlyingdocumentation e n c l o s e d with this letter is confidential a n d exempt from disclosure t o thirdparties.Background

T h e s u b s t a n c e o f M r. G i u l i a n i ' s FOIA r e q u e s t s t e m s f r o m th e District' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f A . J .B u s e r , a f o r m e r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r a n d w r e s t l i n g c o a c h in t h e D i s t r i c t , f o r h isi n a p p r o p r i a t e t e x t m e s s a g e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s with a f e m a l e h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t in l a t e J a n u a r y ,2011. The District was aerted to the text messages by the studen s paren. Districta d m i n i s t r a t o r s promptly c o n d u c t e d a f u r t h e r in v e s t i g a t io n , , p l a c i n g M r. B u s e r o n a d m in i s tr a t iv eleave pending the outcome of i ts investigation.

N o t e : W e h av e re d a c te d th e n a m e s o f s t u d e n t s a n d a v e r y l im i te d a n -m u m of c e r ta in o t he r c o n f id e n t ia l in f o r m a t i o n .from the enclosed documents.

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS3030 Salt Creek Lane, Suite 202Arlington Heights, IL60005t e r 8 4 7- 6 7 0- 9000 f ax 8 47 - 6704334wwwhlerk.com Arlington Heights Belleville


2/5

Hodges LoizziEisenhammer Rodick & Kohn LLP

Sarah Kaplan, Assistant Public Access CounselorMarch 29, 2011Page 2

O n F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 1 1 , in a p r o p e r l y - c l o s e d s e s s i o n o f t h e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , S u p e r i n t e n d e n tDr. J a n e Eichman recommended to the Board that M r. Buser b e dismissed. Pursuant to Section2 4 - 1 2 o f t h e Illinois S c h o o l C o d e , t h e District adm inistration p r e s e n t e d its e v id e n c e a g a i n s t M r.Buser, an d Mr. B use r w as af forded an opportunity t o r esp o nd. Present at this pre- term inationp r o c e e d i n g w e r e : a l l B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n m e m b e r s , S u p e r in te n d e n t Dr. J a n e E i c h m a n ; P r i n c i p a lR o n McCord; S e c r e t a r y t o t h e B o a r d / S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , Toni C a i n ; a n d B o a r d a t t o r n e y s C i n d iDe Cola an d Debra Jacobson. Also present during a portion of th e closed session m e etin g w e reMr. Buser and his representative, IEA-NEA UniSery Director, Susan Goudreau.F o l l o w i n g t h e p r o c e e d in g , b u t p r i o r t o th e B o a r d t a k i n g a n y a c t i o n t o d i s c i p l i n e M r. B u s e r , M s .DeCola, Ms. Jacobson, and Ms. Goudreau negotiated th e terms of a resignation agreement o nbehalf o f the parties. The Board returned to open session to approve M r. Buser' s resignation. Asa result o f the resignation, there w as no f inal disciplinary action taken. Moreover , pursuant toIllinois law, the Board of Education p o s s e s s e s only a n investigatory/ charging function whenc o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r ; final disciplinary a u t h o r i t y fo r a n y d i s m i s s a l r e s t swith a h e a r i n g officer a p p o i n t e d b y t h e Illinois S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n . Board o f E d u c a t i o n o fC o m m u n i t y C o n s o l i d a t e d S c h o o l District N o . 5 4 v . S p a n g l e r , 3 2 8 Ill. A p p . 3 d 7 4 7 , 7 6 7 N .E . 2 d452, 263 Ill. Dec. 1 ( 2002).On the night of the B o a rd m e etin g, Mr. Giuliani verbally requested a co p y of the resignationagreement with M r. Buser, a n d h e was a s k e d to submit his FOIA request in writing. H e did s ot h e next morning ( February 2 5 ) , a n d t h e District provided him a copy o f t h e resignationagreement that same day. Mr. Giuliani' s FOIA request also sought:

1 . " T he t ex t s , l et te r s, e m a ils o r o th er written m ater ials that Mr. B u s er sent to th e s tu de nt th atwere deemed in a p p ro p r ia te b y th e schoo l district;" an d

2. " A n y written i n v e s t i g a t o r y r e p o r t s o r o t h e r f a c tu a l d o c u m e n ta t io n u s e d in t h e c a s einvolving Mr. B us er t ha t le d to his resignation."On M a r c h 3 , 2011, the District denied the rem ainder of Mr. Giuliani' s FOIA req uest o n thegrounds the records he requested were e x e m p t a s " relating to a public body ' s adjudication ofempoyeegrievancesordisciplinary cases" 5 ILCS 140/ 70)( n) .Substantive Response

T h e District a c t e d properly in considering a n d ultimately denying a portion o f M r. Giuliani' sFOIA request. However , to b e very clear, the District' s denial of a portion of M r. Giuliani' sFOIA request was unequivocally no t to protect M r. Buser or to cover up his actions. T he publich a s a right to know generally why M r. B u s e r is n o longer employed in t h e District, a n d t h e y h a v eaccess to that information in the fo rm of Mr. Buser ' s resignation agreem ent. Additionally,momensaterthe Board approvedaresgnaionagreemenwthMr. Buser, Dr. Jane Eichman


3/5


Sarah Kaplan, Assistant Public Access CounselorMarch 29, 2011Page 3

i n f o r m e d M r. G i u l i a n i , a n d a n o t h e r r e p o r t e r w h o w a s a l s o p r e s e n t , t h a t M r. B u s e r h a d b e e n th es u b j e c t o f a p a r e n t c o m p l a i n t r e g a r d i n g h is i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s with a s t u d e n t . Dr.E i c h m a n a ls o c o n ta c te d t h e R e g i o n a l S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s Office. T h e District h a s a s s e r t e d t h a t t h es p e c if i c t e x t m e s s a g e s a n d i n v e s t i g a t o r y m a t e r i a l s a re e x e m p t b e c a u s e it w i s h e s t o p r o t e c t t h eminor, f e m a l e s t u d e n t w h o w a s t h e recipient o f t h e s e u n w a n t e d communications a n d to allow t h es tu d e n t t o p u t t h is s e n s i t i v e a n d s t r e s s f u l m a t t e r b e h in d h e r w h i l e s h e c o m p l e t e s h e r h i g h s c h o o leducaionT h a t b e i n g s a i d , S e c t i o n 7 ( 1 ) ( n ) of th e F O I A a l l o w s p u b l i c b o d i e s t o d e n y r e q u e s t s f o r " [ r j e c o r d srelating to a pubic body' s adudcaonoempoyee. . . disciplinary cases; ho wev er , thise x e m p t i o n s h a l l n o t e x t e n d t o t h e final o u t c o m e o f c a s e s i n which d i s c i p l i n e is i m p o s e d . " U n d e rt h is e x e m p t io n , e v e n w h e n d i s c i p l i n e is i m p o s e d , o n l y th e f i n a l d i s c i p l i n a r y o u t c o m e h a s to b edisclosed; t h e underlying records related to t h e disciplinary actio n rem a in ex e m p t regardless o fth e d i s c i p l i n a r y o u t c o m e . I n t h i s c a s e , M r . G i u l i a n i ' s r e q u e s t s a r e f o r e x a c t l y th e t y p e o finformation that is exempt under Section 7( 1 ) ( n) .T h e a t t a c h e d r e s p o n s iv e d o c u m e n t s c o n s is t o f ( 1 ) t e x t m e s s a g e s b e t w e e n M r. B u s e r a n d t h estuden, (2 ) a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' n o t e s f r o m i n v e s t i g a t i v e c o n f e r e n c e s w i t h w i t n e s s e s , a n d ( 3 )a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' a n d M r. B u s e r ' s s t a t e m e n t s from M r. B u s e r ' s p r e - termination p r o c e e d i n g . T h etext m e s s a g e s were s e n t between the pr ivate cell phone o f M r. Buser a n d the private cell phoneo f a s t u d e n t . T h e y o n l y f e l l w i t h i n th e a m b i t o f" p u b l i c r e c o r d s " u n d e r F O I A b e c a u s e t h e y w e r eg a t h e r e d b y D i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a s e v i d e n c e o f t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n s o f o n e o f it se m p l o y e e s . T h e o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r y d o c u m e n t s w e r e c r e a t e d s o l e l y a s p a r t o f t h e District' sinvestigation of M r. Buser a n d were used a s evidence supporting the Board' s adjudication of a ne m p l o y e e ' s d i s c i p l i n a r y c a s e . A s a r e s u l t , t h e y a re e x e m p t u n d e r S e c t io n 7 ( 1 ) ( n ) .Applicability of Other FOIA E x e m p t io n sA l t h o u g h th e D i s t r i c t c o n t i n u e s to b e lie v e i t s a s s e r t i o n o f t h e S e c t i o n 7 ( 1 ) ( n ) e x e m p t i o n isp r o p e r , y o u r l e t t e r a l s o a s k e d w h e t h e r th e D i s t r i c t a s s e r t s a n y o t h e r F O I A e x e m p t io n s . W ebelieve at least three other exemptions apply.F i r s t , S e c t i o n 7 ( 1 ) ( c ) a l l o w s t h e District, with a p p r o v a l f r o m t h e P u b l i c A c c e s s C o u n s e l o r , t od e n y a r e q u e s t f o r " p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n p u b l i c r e c o r d s , th e d i s c l o s u r e of w h i c hwoudconstituteanunwarranedinvasion opersona privacy." In this case, the individualw h o s e p e rs o n a l privacy is a t s ta k e is th e f e m a l e s t u d e n t , n o t M r. B u s e r . T h e s p e c i f i c c o m m e n t sm a d e b y M r. B u se r t o t h e s t u d e n t w o u l d b e " highly p e r s o n a l o r o b j e c t i o n a b l e t o a r e a s o n a b l eperson" andbased onconversaionswththe studenandher parensactually were highlyp e r s o n a l a n d o b j e c t io n a b l e t o th e s tu d e n t a n d h e r family. M o r e o v e r , b e ca u s e th e s t u d e n t is aminor, her privacy outweighs any public interest in knowing exactly what was said , particularlywherethe District already publicly saedthe mater involved inappropriate communcaons


4/5


Sarah Kap lan , Assistant Public Access CounselorMarch 29, 2011Page 4

T h e r e f o r e , t h e e n c lo s e d d o c u m e n t s a re e x e m p t u n d e r S e c t io n 7 ( 1 ) ( c ) . It s h o u l d a l s o b e n o te d t h es t u d e n t ' s p r i v a c y c a n no t a d e q u a te ly b e p ro te c te d b y s i m p l y r e d a c t i n g h e r n a m e in t h e r e c o r d s . I na c o m m u n i t y t h e s i z e o f R o c k F a lls , t h e s t u d e n t c o u l d b e i d e n t i f i e d b y i n d i v i d u a l s b a s e d s o l e l yo n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e s e d o c u m e n t s . T h e r e f o r e , it is a p p r o p r i a t e t o completely e x e m p t t h e s edocuments.

Second, Section 7.5 ( r) exemps from disclosure any "[ i] nformation prohibited from beingdisclosed by the IllinosSchool Student Records Act." The ISSRA defines a student record asany writing ... c o n c e r n i n g a s t u d e n t a n d b y w h i c h a s t u d e n t m a y b e i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i e d ,mananedby a schoo..." Under the I S S R A , student records a r e prohibited from beingd i s c l o s e d t o a n y o n e o th e r th a n a p a r e n t , e x c e p t i n l im i t e d s i t u a t i o n s n o t a p p lic a b le h e r e .T h e r e f o r e , s in c e th e e n c lo s e d d o c u m e n t a t i o n identifies t h e f e m a l e s t u d e n t a n d a t le a s t two o t h e rs tu d e n t w i tn e s s e s , it is p r o h ib i t e d f r o m b e i n g d is c lo s e d to t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c u n d e r t h e I S S R A

an d Section 7. 5 ( r) of th e FOIA.Third, Section 7.5 ( q) exemps from disclosure any "[ i] nformation prohibited from beingdisclosed by the Personnel Records Review Act." Although the PRRA does not explicitlyprohibit t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f m u c h information, it d o e s prohibit t h e e m p l o y e e from i n s p e c t i n gi ] n f o r m a t i o n o f a p e r s o n a l n a tu re a b o u t a p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n th e e m p l o y e e if d i s c l o s u r e o f t h einformation woudconstituteaclearly unwarranedinvasionothe otherpersons privacy." 820ILCS 40/ 10( d). If e v e n th e e m p l o y e e w o u l d n o t h a v e a c c e s s t o information a b o u t t h e f e m a l es t u d e n t o r o t h e r w i t n e s s e s , it f o l lo w s lo g ic a l l y t h a t th e s a m e i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d n o t b e d i s c l o s e dto th e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . T h e r e f o r e , th e e n c l o s e d d o c u m e n t s a r e a l s o e x e m p t u n d e r S e c tio n 7 . 5 ( q ) .Public PolicyF i n a l l y , r e q u i r i n g th e d i s c l o s u r e of i n v e s t i g a t o r y m a t e ria l s r e la t e d t o d i s c i p l i n a r y m a t t e r s wills e v e re ly h a m p e r th e a b i l i t y of p u b l i c e m p l o y e r s to c o n d u c t f r u i t f u l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . W it ne s s e s be they empoyees sudens or third parties often already are hesitant o r unwil l ing tocooperae fully in disciplinary investigations, somemesunderstandably so. If those samew i t n e s s e s a r e a w a r e t h e i r s t a t e m e n t s will b e s h a r e d with t h e public a n d p o s s i b l y p r in te d in t h elocal newspaper, it i s very likely they.will b e even m o re unwilling to cooperate with a schoolDistrict' s disciplinary investigations. As aresut, it woudbe easerfor msconductlike Mr.


5/5


Sarah Kaplan, Assistant Public Access C o u nselo rMarch 29, 2011Page 5

B u s e r ' s t o c o n tin u e u n c h e c k e d . S u c h a r e s u l t is n o t in th e i n t e r e s t s o f th e p u b l i c o r th e D i s t r i c t ,and a s a result, the District' s investigatory documents should re m a in e x em p t.Sincerely,HODGES, LOIZZI, EISENHAMMER,

RODICK & KOHNLLP

Cyn/hia L. DeColaAttorney fo r District 301CLD/jah

Enclosures

cc: Dr: Jane Eichman, SuperintendentHarold Wagner, Board President

196366_ 1 . DOC

Documents

Rock Falls School District's FOIA Response