Judge Not Convinced of Barrett's Right to 'Unfettered Access'
DuPage County Circuit Judge Thomas Dudgeon will make a decision on District 86's motion to dismiss the case over unfettered access to student records in November.
Photos
A written decision on whether or not to dismiss District 86 board member Dianne Barrett’s lawsuit against the district’s superintendant and board president won’t come until Nov. 18, but at a hearing Thursday in Wheaton it seemed clear Judge Thomas Dudgeon does not think Barrett's side has proved her right to access to unredacted student records.
Dudgeon cited Section 6(a) of the Illinois Student Records Act (ISRA), which sets the conditions for when a person can have access to student records. For employees and officials of a school district to have access, according to the ISRA, they must show “current demonstrable educational or administrative interest in the student, in furtherance of such interest.”
Barrett’s lawyer, Clint Krislov of Krislov & Associates, Ltd. and the Center for Open Government, has argued that as a board member, Barrett should be entitled to all district documents, including student records, without redaction.
“You haven’t addressed ISRA,” Dudgeon said.
The judge said that Barrett needs to meet the conditions set forth in ISRA, and has to show interest in a specific student or students. Until then, Dudgeon said to Krislov, “It’s clear as a bell; you don’t get to see student records.”
Dudgeon also talked about how the case has gone from a narrow dispute over the specific District 86 special-education documents Barrett originally wanted unredacted, to a big-picture case about unfettered board member access to all district documents.
“You have pleaded a cause of action that has gone far beyond the parameters of the dispute,” Dudgeon said to Krislov.
Dudgeon said he will present his written decision on the district’s motion to dismiss Barrett’s case on Nov. 18. District 86 lawyer James Petrungaro said after the hearing he was pleased with what he heard from the judge Thursday.
“Although the judge has not entered a decision yet, it appears his ruling will be in the district’s favor,” Petrungaro said.
Krislov agreed that it doesn’t sound like Dudgeon will rule in his client's favor, but he said he hopes the judge will provide a clear decision so that Barrett can take the decision to the appellate court.
The case stems from requests filed by Barrett in July 2009 seeking documents related to special-education-related issues. She took legal action in July 2010 after the district gave her documents with what her side said was significant redaction. The district has maintained that what was redacted was confidential student information.
Barrett's suit was specifically filed against District 86 Superintendant Dr. Nicholas Wahl and Board President Dennis Brennan.
Karen
8:36 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
Dear Dianne,
Please feel free to use my case with district 86 to verify the problems with the special Ed department. This will address the fundamental issues which need to be addressed.
Thank you
Karen
Joe O'Donnell
9:22 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
Thanks for the comment, Karen.
What was interesting at the hearing yesterday was that the words "special education" were hardly spoken, if at all. The case seems to be a big-picture case about the rights of board members to have access to all district documents. (Judge Dudgeon's quote: “You have pleaded a cause of action that has gone far beyond the parameters of the dispute.”)
What do folks think about that?
RegularGuy
10:17 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
Should Barrett have limited her court case to the specific records in the immediate dispute?
Maybe. It's a pretty safe bet that if she did, D86 would limit her access to anything else going forward by arguing that any court ruling was narrow and specific. We would have been treated to round after round of litigation because this school Board works hard to avoid transparency.
It looks like Barrett's attorney decided to 'swing for the fences' and settle the matter once and for all. It was the right thing to do, but it also gave the political judge a basis for dismissing her case.
What happens behind closed (D86) doors will apparently STAY behind closed doors.
Joe O'Donnell
11:01 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
The judge cited the state-wide ISRA (linked to above, scroll down to Section 6) in the opinion he expressed Thursday. Do you think that document is the problem or is it something specific to D86? Should board members have "unfettered access" to students' records and personal information?
KC
11:45 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
I don't believe (and apparetly neither does Judge Dudgeon) Ms. Barrett's interest in any District 86 special ed students rises to the level allowing her access to unredacted records. Clearly the judge felt her interest did not meet the criteria set forth in Section 6(a) of the Illinois Student Records Act (ISRA). It will be the right decision.
RegularGuy
12:16 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
The judge was presented with a much broader issue than Barrett's access to Special Ed records. Her suit asked for unfettered access to any student records. I believe she made that request to avoid future head-butting with a Board clearly aligned against her.
Had Dudgeon been presented with the simple issue of the Special Ed records, he might have taken a different position.
The IRSA is necessary so that records are open only to school personnel with a legitimate interest. Suggesting that a Board member - elected by the voters of the school district - has no legitimate reason to review records is wrong. The issue here is simply 'Board vs. Barrett'. If you want to maintain status quo, you isolate anyone who might have the ability to change it. This Board operates as a clandestine body, and it wishes to continue doing so.
KC
1:33 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
It was Ms. Barrett's attorney who made the decision to broaden the complaint. I assume he did so with her permission.
RegularGuy
2:11 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
If Barrett had limited her case to the Special Ed records, and she won, that would be ALL she'd ever see. The next time, if different records were involved, I fully expect the D86 Board would have stonewalled her again. Which could have resulted in more litigation.
Instead, I get the feeling Barrett and her attorney sought a ruling that would resolve the immediate impasse, and prevent it from happening again.
It's too bad that the political judge can't distinguish a School Board member's interests from other district staff.
Nancy Urban
3:39 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
I read this with interest as I live in this district. However, I came in "late" to this story. Can someone tell me exactly WHY she was requesting access to the records? I'd appreciate being brought up to speed! THANKS!
RegularGuy
8:14 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
Dianne Barrett is an elected member of the Hinsdale District 86 Board of Education. In her capacity as a member of that Board, she asked the district administration for documents relating to specific students enrolled in the district. The district administration and a majority of D86 Board members disagreed that Barrett should have access to un-redacted copies of student records. The two sides were unable to resolve the impasse.
In turn, the Center for Open Government at Chicago-Kent College of Law agreed to represent Barrett in a lawsuit against the school district, and the Board over access to student records. What's at issue is the language of the State statute at: '105 ILCS 10/6', and whether a school Board member has a ". . . current demonstrable educational or administrative interest in the student . . . " which would permit that Board member access to student records.
The case has had the usual web of legal proceedings, and is now scheduled for a written ruling next month. The judge apparently broadly hinted that he is going to rule against Barrett, setting the stage for an appeal to the Second District Appellate Court.
KC
3:42 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
And a school board member (Ms. Barrett) isn't "political"? This case began with special ed student records...imagine the litigation if the district released unredacted personal/medical records to Ms. Barrett? I would be first in line.
RegularGuy
4:01 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
I won't argue that an elected Board member (all of them) have political interests. JUDGES, however, are supposed to be above that. We all know better, of course. Our State judges, especially DuPage County judges, are on the bench solely due to politics.
Karen
11:29 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
KC,
Exactly what if the attorney for district 86 abstained records illegally and it was your child? Well it is happening and if you can not pay off attorney to negotiate in mediation. Remind you they seal those records. Settle one family 2009 2011 over 200 thousand dollar to keep mouth shut second mediaion. WHY IN GODS NAME? One family
JWH
4:48 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
If this is an accurate reporting, it sounds like Ms. Barrett has already decided to take this to the appellate court, even before a ruling has been made:
"Krislov agreed that it doesn’t sound like Dudgeon will rule in his client's favor, but he said he hopes the judge will provide a clear decision so that Barrett can take the decision to the appellate court."
Joe O'Donnell
4:51 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
The quote is correct. Krislov said based on what he heard from Dudgeon Thursday, it didn't sound good for his side. But he, Barrett, and the Center for Open Government did plan on appealing as of Thursday after the hearing.
RegularGuy
4:57 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
It's hard to say whether it's a tactic, or just incompetence, but DuPage judges often create rulings that appellate courts can't understand, much less overturn. A federal judge trying to interpret a DuPage Court judge's ruling described it as, 'Less than crystal clear.'
The Appellate Court usually gets around that confusion by entering an equally obtuse ruling, always under IL Supreme Court Rule 23. That means the appellate ruling is not published, and is not permitted to be used as precedent for any other case. We actually have two distinct bodies of caselaw - the one published in the law books, and another one that is a unique, one-of-a-kind decision that only the parties can see or use.
Karen
10:57 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
No Ms Barrett ,
Clearly understands Dupage court. I pray it goes to appellate court. The abuse of children,tax payer fund, FOIA violations, pay offs cash in mediation is UN lawful. District 86 should be put in jail.
Karen
Karen
11:33 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Thank God Dianne,
I have lost everything and nearly my life. Take it to appellate court. This is clear , clean cut facts. Good luck and God Less you.
Karen
KC
7:36 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
yes...I was wondering about case law on this type of issue...anyone?
Karen
11:36 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Kc,
Best you read abuse of disability act. This will not give you information you need. You are reading information tring to help kids. It is criminal now.
Karen
10:40 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
I am Parent who had worked with the special Ed dept at Hinsdale Central since 2005 thru 2011. I have authorized Ms. Barrett tie my case.,in open court . The. Corruption will ring loud and clear. Allot the cost of children, and families.
I agree open my case will find why Hinsdale Central fails at no kid left behind. Neglect miss allegations of tax payer funds.
Karen Strumillo
Karen
10:49 pm on Friday, October 21, 2011
Hinsdale central special Ed miss alligations of funds is tragic. Are Dupage county lawyers in the arena to even know special Ed was ? No.
Nancy Urban
3:27 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Ok...so WHY did she need to see these records? I cannot see a reason WHY she would need these. HOWEVER, if she was looking for inconsistencies or a misuse of funds or information that was not reported properly-that may be ok. But so far I haven't seen her actual reason for needing to see individual students records.
Honestly, guys, I have never seen such a mess in a local government as I have seen in DuPage County/Darien/District 86. It's scary.
RegularGuy
4:10 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
I don't presume to speak for Dianne Barrett, but earlier articles suggest she was looking into a complaint from a D86 parent of a special education child. Among those complaints was the allegation that D86 had more SED complaints against it 'per capita' than any other school district in the state, and that the District has spend tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars to defend itself against SED lawsuits.
By way of background, the D86 Board previously censured Barrett over a public comment she made. Barrett said the school district was 'money laundering' because it shifted funds between capital and operating budgets.
Also, in June, 2010, Barrett made what the D86 Board Chairman called an 'unsupervised visit' to Hinsdale Central's campus. The Board Chairman said Barrett's visit 'disruptive' and 'compromised school security.'
The essence here is that this school Board is fiercely at odds with one of its own members. The animosity seems to stem from Barrett's 2009 request for SED records, but no one knows how it will end.
Karen
10:55 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Dear Nancy ,
Great questions... I am a parent willing to open my file and provides violations the board of education has approved without notify other board me members. One family paid off by district special Ed depart for Second Nature not approved by I SBE, also do o neglect Hinsdale Central paid this parents medical expenses until the age of 26.
This is not legal...2009 same family with attorney I gave to family filed second suit 2011. In mediationation cash settlement was over 200,000. To wave illegal activities.
Charlie Fox attorney I believe was attorney ask Mr. Brenan., N Whal, Joyce Powell.
Best question who refured this wealthy family to me to explain IEP. Hinsdale hospital.
We have serious problems and families and district 86 better ask Dianne Barrett for help.
I never thought district 86 would break FOIA FAPE but they do and where
is money going. No one knows.
What happened to my family will turn heads in Dupge here are special Ed priorities. I known the answer it isbtimebthe federal government step in.
Katen
Nancy Urban
10:25 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Hmmm. How do we find out how many lawsuits were filed and what the outcomes were? It seems to me that this board doesn't like anyone who doesn't "toe the line". To be part of the board you cannot ask questions or offer a dissenting opinion. I no longer have a child in the district, however I still find this appalling.
Karen
11:09 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Nancy,
They cover them up in mediation. They pay cash settlements to shut patent up. The family I worked hard ith t Clearview horizons, second nature,aims house, non approved by ISBE.
Who would know we trust the closed door system of mediation to shut parents up. On wrong doing . With Attorney Charlie Fox.....Kevin Gordon.
My daughter has IEP never tested my Hinsdale Central listed in 4 papers as graduate. 7.25 credits.
Faulty test scores , faulty graduation statistics, settlements to shut parents up , mediation settlements should open flood gates abuse of kid.
Let the Ferdel Goverment go through funds, I will handmine over this has to be addressed. Kids are dieing but it is covered up .
Karen
Karen
11:20 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Nancy,
Also I have given permission to Dianne Barrett, to review my complaints by attorney Charlie fox. My complaint to Govenor Quinn . To Nancy Blazer head of special Ed il, Preident Obama.
Why has all been ignored .? Please open my case file from district 86 since 2005. So many questions will be answered.
They all should be held to the high test standard of abuse of children. I also suggest you have all computers from 2005 impounded.
Dianne Barrett never knew of my case until I read suit . I notified all ISBE, Board members, Govenor Quinn, Joe Burkett list goes on. Hinsdale wants to be number one regardless what they do to children .
I refuse to sit back.
Karen
KC
2:16 pm on Monday, October 24, 2011
Regular Guy is right about background of Ms. Barrett's request. The litigation costs for the district were extremely high so Ms. Barrett thought the answer might lie in the student personal/medical records? Karen, If you wish to release your childs records to Ms. Barrett, that is your right. I choose not to.
RegularGuy
3:58 pm on Monday, October 24, 2011
One thing that makes this whole controversy interesting is the fact that in 2009, D86 released personal information on 1,400 former Hinsdale Central students without their prior permission. The information included the former students' name, DOB, SSN, address and parents' names - everything someone would need to commit identity theft. The District turned the student records over to ACT, who sent then sent them (again without permission) to the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, where the personal student information was stolen from an improperly secured computer system.
That historical background only reinforces the belief many of us have that the real issue here is the Board Chairman's personal animosity toward Dianne Barrett, not the sanctity of student records.
Dan Leigh
8:43 pm on Monday, October 24, 2011
Let’s correct some statements. The records had been released to the UofN pre-Wahl,hired in 2005. Read about it here- http://old.nabble.com/Security-breach-compromises-information-on-District-86-grads-p26690199.html Other points are incomplete. 2009-Ms Barrett accused the board, in print, of “money laundering”-an illegal activity. The board censured her due to her quote in the paper, not for her public comment. Read the minutes from meeting, June 1, 2009. http://www.hinsdale86.org/sb/Minutes%20Archive/2009/06-01-09%20Committee%20of%20the%20Whole%20Meeting.pdf During the censure, Ms Barrett stated she distributed the confidential Censure document to others before the board had a chance to discuss the action. As KC stated it’s Karen’s right to give her child's documents to Ms Barrett. Since the documents Ms Barrett wants (see the July 20, 2009 minutes where she asked for ALL SPEC ED cases, not SPECIFIC Spec Ed cases) are confidential, if parents want Ms Barrett to have them they can give them to her, thereby bypassing the district’s liability. The question about how many lawsuits is valid. Joe should FOIA the district for all lawsuits the district/board are named in within the past 2 1/2 years and update how much this lawsuit has cost. Ms Barrett & the Ctr for Open Gov't seem to have deep pockets as they are taking this further. The District is funded through the taxpayers. I would rather my tax dollars go to educating students not to defending this lawsuit!
RegularGuy
9:12 pm on Monday, October 24, 2011
No one here has blamed Wahl for releasing 1,400 confidential student records without permission. The District released the records, but Wahl WAS the District Superintendent when the computer breach occurred. The letter sent from the District - under Wahl's administration - accepted NO responsibility for the loss/theft of personal student information.
Barrett's "money laundering" choice of words was unfortunate, but it was the D86 Board which diverted money from an operating budget to fund a capital expense - a capital expense which should properly have gone to referendum before the voters (read: taxpayers).
I understand your sentiments about spending money to educate instead of litigate. Does that extend to taking funds from the education operating budget - money collected and earmarked for day-to-day educational operations - to put artificial turf on the stadium and practice fields?
I also don't see any reason why the voters (read: taxpayers) in this District can't have BOTH an open and transparent School Board AND educated students. I just don't see how the D86 Board's propensity for clandestine action is necessary. So if it's not necessary, don't do it.
Dianne Barrett has ruffled feathers, stepped on some toes, and the School Board has decided to take the low road in response, then complains about the cost of their chosen path.
Karen
10:03 am on Friday, October 28, 2011
Dan,
I believe the issue is much larger then Mrs. Barrett complaint. More parents are wondering why we failed no child left behind. Other parents have no idea of mediations why records are sealed, what is due process?
Dianne should redraft her complaint. I truly. Believe she was not aware of the serious problems within the Special Ed Department when she first filed complaint.
Childerns lives are at stake.
Karen
10:10 am on Friday, October 28, 2011
Maybe a First Class Action suit against the Special Ed Dept.District 86 and BOE may make a faster change. I would suggest certain BOE members be excluded.