Barrett-D86 Records Dispute Goes Back to Court

Little headway was made in the Dianne Barrett-dispute over the school board member’s right to access non-redacted school records during a hearing Tuesday at the DuPage County Courthouse.

Circuit Court Judge Thomas Dudgeon ruled that District 86’s 2-615 motion to bar Barrett from disclosing information from confidential documents she already has, and will have in the future, needs to be redone in the form of a 2-619 motion.

“There’s not much difference,” District 86 attorney James Petrungaro said of the two types of motions.

The 2-615 motion by the district also stated the district's belief that Barrett's case is without sufficient statutory basis. 

Petrungaro told Dudgeon the district would have the new motion ready within seven days. The next hearing in the case will be Aug. 7.

After asking for the new motion from District 86, Dudgeon ruled that the motion filed by Barrett’s lawyers to dismiss the district’s motion is “premature.” The judge also ruled that between now and the next court date, Barrett is not to disclose any confidential district information from documents she already has.

Clint Krislov, Barrett’s lawyer from the Center for Open Government, said his client had planned to work with advisers to go over the documents she already has.

“She can’t do that for the moment and that’s OK,” Krislov said. “We were willing to abide by what the judge determines for the appropriate handling of these documents.”

Petrungaro said an investigation into what information the school board member has released is the goal of the district.

“The school district’s going to need discovery, which is an opportunity to learn facts from Ms. Barrett as to whom she has disclosed records she has received from the school district,” Petrungaro said.

Although Tuesday’s hearing was mostly concerned with a motion made by District 86, the original legal action was taken by Barrett.

In summer 2009, the board member sought documents related to the district’s special education program. When she received the documents in July 2010 with what Krislov previously called “significant redaction.” District 86 maintained the redacted information was confidential.

Barrett, who is currently serving her second term on the school board, filed suit against Supt. Nicholas Wahl and school board president Dennis Brennan believing, that as a board member, she had a right to access the documents without any information withheld.

“We don’t doubt that she may have a confidentiality obligation with respect to [the documents],” Krislov said. “But she still, as a board member, is entitled to see them because, otherwise, a board member would not be able to determine if there were problems or concerns in the way those things are handled.”

Barrett’s lawyer also said he believes that if his client weren’t a minority voice on the school board, this string of events would never have occurred.

“People who are a disfavored faction on a school board are often deprived access to the documents that they need to do their job,” Krislov said.

District lawyer Petrungaro said the main idea of the district's case is that it does not want to give out personal information of particular students.

“They’re confidential student documents,” he said.

One thing both sides said they want is a speedy result.

“Our school district is eager to have this case resolved as quickly as possible,” Petrungaro said.

Krislov said, “Justice delayed is justice denied … It is important to have this move along as fast as possible because people often get tired and they give up.”