District Issues Response to 'Stonewalling' Accusation

This letter was written and submitted by Allen Albus, Deputy Superintendent and a FOIA officer for the District 115.

The district responds in a timely matter and to the full extent of the law on all requests. If, as the writer stated, there are “public documents that are clearly subject to disclosure under the Act,” they would have been provided. There are specific exemptions in the FOIA statute that exist for very valid reasons. If the writer does not agree with what is exempt by law, she should take that up with her legislator. If the writer does not like the time it takes the State’s Public Access Counselor to process appeals, she should take that up with the Public Access Counselor.

There are some misleading statements in the post that was printed. The writer states “I still have appeals pending for documents the District denied regarding the 2011 Steinert scandal, allowing former Superintendent Harry Griffith to retire without the public scrutiny he was due concerning his role.” On September 24, 2013, the State’s Public Access Counselor sent the writer a letter asking if she was still interested in the matter. On October 15, 2013, the State’s Public Access Counselor sent another letter informing her that the file was being closed due to the fact that she did not respond to the September letter.

The writer also stated, “I also still have an appeal pending from post-union negotiations in October of 2012 when the district refused to produce documents I requested, including production of any “strike plan” the District had in effect.” The State’s Public Access Counselor reviewed the matter and on September 9, 2013, sent the writer a letter stating, “We have reviewed the records in question, which consist of preliminary drafts of the School District’s strike plan and e-mails that suggest revisions and express opinions concerning the plan. Such records clearly relate to collective bargaining between the School District and the teachers’ union. Accordingly, we conclude that the School District has sustained its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that these records are exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(p) of FOIA.” (emphasis added).

The School district has and will continue to follow the law on all requests.