Barrett, District 86 Again Go Before Judge

Those waiting for a decision in the Dianne Barrett v. District 86 lawsuit, which has been ongoing for nearly two years, have another date to circle.

After a brief session in front of Judge Thomas Dudgeon Wednesday morning at the DuPage County Circuit Court, lawyers were given a hearing date for the case that pit board member against school district in a fight over the entitlement of board members to have full access to district documents. According to one of Barrett’s lawyers, Terrence Norton, the latest hearing is set for June 14 at 10:30 a.m.

“We want this to end we want a decision that school board members are entitled to seek all the documents in the district’s possession,” said Clint Krislov, Barrett’s other lawyer. “It’s an incredibly straightforward issue of law.”

Norton said the hearing will entertain much more argument than did Wednesday's five-minute "status call."

"You’re wrong, you’re right--that’s a hearing," he said.

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 “significant redaction,” according to Krislov, of what the district says is confidential information. The lawyer said it took more than a year for Barrett to receive the documents.

It is Barrett’s right as a board member, Krislov said, to have a “full, complete, unlimited right of access” to district documents.

“In order to have the citizen’s interest protected, board members have to have access to all documents,” he said.

Barrett’s complaint was made against District 86 Superintendant Nicholas Wall and board president Dennis Brennan. Krislov said it’s a matter of a board majority violating the rights to the board minority.

At the June 14 hearing, District 86 lawyers will argue against Barrett’s complaint and for a counter claim that seeks an injunction to prevent Barrett from disseminating confidential information and, in effect, violating state and federal records law, according to lawyer Darcee Williams, who represented District 86 Wednesday.   

“If you look at her complaint, it appears that she has un-redacted copies of this information and may have already shared them with third parties,” said Williams, who suggested that Barrett, who is in the middle of her second term, might have gotten the un-redacted documents from her years on the school board.

Williams said, “Indeed, if you look at their 2-619 [motion to dismiss the counter claim], it appears in there that she claims that even if she did disclose them, there’s no harm.”

Krislov said the district’s counter claim “a sideshow” meant to divert from the main issue. Norton said the fact that so much information was redacted discredits the counter claim.

“If there’s no identifying information, they wouldn’t be able to connect it to any name or student or family so therefore it’s not confidential,” Norton said.

Barrett has the support of the Center for Open Government at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

“From our standpoint, the importance of this case is that this is not the only board that we’re aware of that’s doing this,” Krislov said. “We want a definitive declaration that will stop this practice of a majority board group deciding what a minority position on the board gets.”

Barrett's lawyers said they don't anticipate the case being resolved before the June hearing. They gave Dudgeon a copy of the redacted documents to show the board member has no confidential information to reveal.