Column: The difference? Lawyers got involved
Comments (...)
|
| Buy Sauk Valley Media Photos » |
In December, the Erie school district gave its athletic director’s report on a hazing allegation to the family of the accusing student. The district confirmed the student’s allegation.
In January, the district conducted an internal investigation into a new wave of accusations from the student. Then it had its Chicago law firm do what the district called an “external” inquiry.
In public statements, the district said it couldn’t find any proof for the newer allegations.
So Sauk Valley Media filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the reports from the internal and external investigations.
The district denied the request. It decided to keep them secret.
Why did it release the earlier report but not the later ones? What was the difference?
The short answer: Lawyers got involved.
The district hired its 34-attorney Chicago law firm to try to find so-called loopholes in the Freedom of Information Act to keep the relevant records secret.
The denial letter was 7 pages long, signed by Superintendent Brad Cox but prepared by the firm, which he acknowledged in the letter.
The district asserted two main exemptions to the state information law. It said that the documents involved “pre-decisional, deliberative communications.” And it said that releasing them would reveal the identities of the student or students involved.
The reports are the results of investigations that have ended. They supposedly contain factual information, so why wouldn’t the district want to release the reports on which it based its determination that no hazing happened?
Yes, the district is right that it shouldn’t reveal the identifies of any student. But it can redact such information.
Keep in mind that the public records law includes exemptions, but it doesn’t mean the Erie district has to use them. Unfortunately, law firms assert exemptions – no matter how remote – to keep documents secret. They’ll go for the bare minimum of what is required.
The school district and other government entities should strive for better. But they too often follow their attorneys’ advice when it comes to secrecy.
The Erie school district likely spent a good chunk of change to have the law firm come up with the denial letter, which cited case law to justify its decisions.
Last year, the Rock Falls High School District spent $4,300 to have its suburban Chicago law firm fight off a Sauk Valley Media request for information. We wanted to get text messages from a coach who was pressured to resign because of allegations he had inappropriate communications with a girl.
The district lost that public records battle. And the law firm got richer.
A little openness would be better for all concerned, except perhaps the lawyers.
The message: It’s none of your business
What is it with Morrison’s attorney bills? The city treats them like national security secrets.
A few months ago, Alderwoman Marti Wood got to look at the bills from attorney Tim Zollinger, but only under certain stringent conditions: An employee had to watch her in a basement conference room at City Hall, and Wood couldn’t take any notes.
No kidding.
Attorney bills had gone up, and she wanted to see why. That’s one of the main reasons we elect City Council members – to watch over spending.
The attorney’s client is the mayor and City Council. So it makes little sense that a council member has to go through such hurdles to see public records.
Of course, personality issues could be at play here. No love is lost between Wood and City Administrator Jim Wise, who has control over the records. She questions a lot, which rubs Wise and Mayor Roger Drey the wrong way sometimes.
Would pro-administration members have gone through such an ordeal to view attorney bills? I don’t know. The better question: Are the others even asking to see the documents in the first place? I’m not sure, but I doubt it.
Earlier this year, we had a struggle getting the reasons behind legal bills from a Chicago law firm that charged the city $320 an hour – quite a bit more than most firms.
The total bill from last spring was $1,408.
At a meeting, the mayor said the bill was for an issue involving public records and General Electric, whose now-closed plant caused industrial pollution in Morrison.
We sought those records, and the city released records relating to our request for a settlement agreement between Morrison and General Electric. The city earlier tried to keep the agreement a secret, but after a couple of months, it realized it was doing so illegally.
The legal bills from the Chicago firm, Chen Nelson Roberts, were from March 2011, a month after the city released the agreement to Sauk Valley Media.
So the bills were for something else, but what? Wise said he didn’t know, referring questions to the mayor, who didn’t return calls.
It’s still a mystery.
Sauk Valley Media reporter David Giuliani covers the Whiteside and Lee county governments. Morrison and other smaller communities. He can be reached at dgiuliani@saukvalley or at 800-798-4085, ext. 525.
Comments
Total Comments 0 View/Add Comments |
There have been no comments made about this story. |
