Should D135 Have Released Records from Park School Parapro Hearings?

John Russell stood before the Orland School District 135 board on April 8 and read from documents released to him by the district, detailing what may have happened in a Park School early childhood classroom.

The documents are titled “Findings and Conclusions of the Board of Education,” and describe why the board voted to fire the three paraprofessionals in March. District 135 claims in the documents that the Park School teacher, who resigned in February, called a parent a “fat slob,” said in regard to a student “I hate him so much I could kill him,” described students as “gross and disgusting,” made demeaning comments about students’ clothing and said several other statements with expletives in students’ presence.

The documents claimed the three paraprofessionals did not acknowledge witnessing these actions and statements, which were verified by several other staff who are not identified, and were fired for being “dishonest” by a 5-2 vote.

The documents did not include the original claim that Russell said Monday night started this lengthy and murky examination of the Park School class — that his 4-year-old son was instructed to lick soap off of his hands.

The Illinois Federation of Teachers has responded to both the firings and documents release with unfair labor practice claims and three grievances filed within the last two weeks, claiming several employee rights were violated.

IFT Taking Action Against Firings, Interview Aspects

The three grievances filed are in regard to the paraprofessionals first being transferred, then suspended and then terminated.

“We refuted many of the points discussed in the hearing,” said IFT Field Director Deneen Pajeau. “We also provided written evidence that refutes points in those findings.”

Three sets of “Findings and Conclusions” were released, one for each paraprofessional. The district claims that the paraprofessionals’ testimonies were not in line with those made by “the Vision Itinerant, Physical Therapist, Social Worker, School Nurse, Occupational Therapist and Behavioral Consultant,” but do not specifically cite any content from those statements. The documents also refer to “12 other staff members” as the total number of people interviewed, but do not identify them beyond the six noted for their occupations.

The union also said there were differences in the various testimonies given on this matter, while the district has presented as if all statements other than the parapros are exactly the same, Pajeau said.

The unfair labor practice claims involve aspects of the interviews summarized in the “Findings and Conclusions” documents and leading to the terminations, Pajeau said.

“Union representatives attended these hearings, but (the paraprofessionals) were denied the right to speak with the reps,” she said. “They were told they would be charged with insubordination if they did not describe conversations with union reps held prior to the interview.”

Similar to an attorney-client privilege, union members do not have to disclose pre-meeting conversations held with union representatives to the district. Union representatives are permitted to not just speak during such meetings, but can speak on behalf of the members, Pajeau said. Union reps were not permitted to speak during the meeting and no breaks were offered, Pajeau continued.

In each of the three paraprofessionals’ records, the following is included:

“she was not credible in her statements before the Board of Education based upon the substance of her testimony and her demeanor while providing said testimony. This included the fact that she was repeatedly asked leading questions by her attorney.”

Pajeau said that since they have the right to representation, they were punished for invoking that right.

As for the documents, the union claims D135 did not have the right to release them. IFT is asserting that the documents should be considered part of a personnel file, which should not be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.  

“These are written notifications for reasons provided to the employees as to why they are terminated,” Pajeau said, regarding what type of record the “Findings and Conclusions” documents are considered. “It is an employee’s right to have these provided to them. These are unlike formal documents, such as a contract. Not only is it legally wrong, it is ethically wrong.”

Pajeau said the employees received the documents about three days after they were released to parents of students in the Park School class and the media. Some of the parents did not submit a request in writing, rather they asked verbally for the documents, Pajeau said.

“It is my understanding that the district does not have a verbal FOIA request policy,” Pajeau said. “We will be proceeding with action on unlawful terminations. There may be (civil) legal action they can take against the district as well.”

District Asserts that the Documents Could be Legally Released

D135 Board President John Carmody did not return phone calls to Patch to discuss the firings, the release of documents and the subsequent union response, though he told the Chicago Tribune that he stands by the documents’ contents and the board’s actions.

When asked if the district can respond to a verbal FOIA request, Orland School District 135 Director of Human Resources Julie Oberwise wrote in an email that the district can release documents through a verbal request if “the document sought by the requester is easily identifiable and there is a personal conversation taking place in a setting which is conducive to understanding and fulfilling the request.

“This was the situation which presented itself when parents requested copies of the Findings and Conclusions regarding the paraprofessionals who were discharged by the Board,” Oberwise wrote.

In response to the union’s claim that the documents are part of a personnel file and exempt from FOIA, Oberwise wrote that whether a document is part of such a file or not isn’t the main deciding factor as to whether it can be released or not.

Oberwise cited a section of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(n), that indicates a public body is not exempt from releasing “the final outcome of cases in which discipline is imposed.”

“Since the Findings and Conclusions of the Board of Education with respect to the discharge of the paraprofessionals is a document which concerns the final outcome of discipline imposed upon them, this document was required to be released pursuant to the FOIA,” Oberwise wrote.

Back to the Parents

Russell also said during the April 8 meeting that he wants to know what the board plans to do in the future to prevent what was described in the documents from happening, and how long his son was exposed to the language alleged in the documents.

Carmody said the district’s incoming superintendent Janet Stutz is aware of the situation and will come with an action plan.

“What needs to be done will be done,” Carmody said.

Katie O’Connor, whose daughters are the fourth generation in her family to attend Park School, said she was first told that her children weren’t involved but that couldn’t be the case if the whole class was affected.

“Now I am ashamed to say I am from District 135,” O’Connor said. “I don’t know if this has to do with your election, or if it is to win votes, but I can tell you I am a graduate of this school district and I am ashamed.”

Looking for more Orland School District 135 stories?

• Four Challengers Unseat Three D135 Incumbents
• Board Members Clash Over Park School Incident and More (Live Blog)
• The Full D135 Candidate Forum (Video)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There are plenty of ways to keep up on local news:

• Join Patch. Sign up for a user account and converse with your neighbors.
• Like Orland Park Patch on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.