Legal ISSUE / Spring 2015
update Indispensable tool for School Business Management
Below
the Surface
24 | Student Data Privacy Laws 16 | HIDDEN RISKS : Social Media 40 | STAYING AFLOAT : FOIA
S OFFICIA ES L N
INOIS ILL A IATION OC of SS
S
Support Staff Forum
OL BU HO SI SC
at the 2015 Annual Conference
On Thursday, April 30 2015, send your support staff to enjoy all the Annual Conference has to offer in a track designed specifically for them! This essential day of professional development will include a morning of making connections at the PDC Networking Meeting, taking part in five professional development sessions, as well as networking in the Exhibit Hall.
Who will you send?
Get the full details at: www.iasbo.tools/supportstaff_forum
Inside
Illinois Association of School Business Officials Update Magazine / Spring 2015 / v.22 / i.03
Legal issue
The Next Issue: Technology
Below
The changing face of education through technology integration.
The Surface On the heels of advancements in digital learning, student data privacy and security concerns have emerged as a hot topic in educational technology. Current laws provide limited guidance as the issue resurfaces in 2015. By Anton Inglese
24
Looking for past issues? Visit ISSUU.com and search for Illinois ASBO.
On Public Display As commercial advertising on school property becomes more common, it is important to consider the legal implications before opening your school to the advertising world. By Kenneth M. Florey and M. Neal Smith, Jr.
14
www.iasbo.org
| 3
Perspective
From-the-podium The School Business Manager – A Visionary Leader. 07
From-the-office Changing the Mandate Conversation. 09
Collective Bargaining
Top Trends for 2015 By understanding the current trends and strategies, you will be better equipped next time you sit at the negotiation table. By Barney R. Mundorf
20
From-the-field Staying Above Reproach. 11
Business Partners Vision 20/20: From Vision to Action! 18
School Business 101 FOIA Requests: Timelines, Processes & Tips. 19
In the
Municipal Zone The recent “bleacher case” has crystallized the debate surrounding municipal zoning, with implications that present a potential game changer for public schools. By Robert E. Swain and Dean W. Krone
30
Securing Social Five Ways To Mitigate Cyber Risk. 16
Your Board Policy
LIFE CYCLE
Having a clear understanding of the purpose and functions of policy and setting up a review cycle are crucial to keeping your school policies in order. By Anna K. Lovern and Melinda Selbee 4 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
34
Open Door Policy: The Impact of Homelessness & Residency
The increasing number of reported homeless students in Illinois brings up numerous fiscal questions as to how local, state and federal resources are allotted to homeless students. By Hank Boer, Ph.D. and Richard J. Dombrowski, Ed.D.
38
Resources
FOIA: Staying Above Water FOIA provisions offer some relief to keep districts stay afloat in the seemingly endless sea of requests. By Shawn M. McLain
40
ON MY LIST Guidance for the person “in the office next door to the corner office.�
43
The Final Word Kristopher P. Monn. Ed. D. Asst. Supt./Finance Batavia USD 101 Kris believes that a strong knowledge base in state and federal law is necessary for school business officials as they guide the decisions and actions of the board and administrative teams.
46
Below The Surface Student data privacy, social networking and homeless education.
44 www.iasbo.org
| 5
The
Maga zine
Upcoming Spring
seminars
April 2015
S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
S 29 5 12 19 26 3
M 30 6 13 20 27 4
June 2015
May 2015
T W T F S 31 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 28 29 30 1 2 5 6 7 8 9
S 26 3 10 17 24 31
M 27 4 11 18 25 1
T 28 5 12 19 26 2
W 29 6 13 20 27 3
T F S 30 1 2 7 8 9 14 15 16 21 22 23 28 29 30 4 5 6
S M T W T F S 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Date
Time
3/6/15
8:30am
Recommendations for CSBO Contracts and Pitfalls
Naperville
3/6/15 3/11/15 3/13/15
8:00am
The Administrator's Role in Collective Bargaining AAC #809
Naperville Mt. Vernon Springfield
3/10/15 3/11/15 3/12/15
8:30am
ISDLAF+ School Seminar
Naperville East Peoria O'Fallon
3/11/15
8:00am
Debt Issuance from A to Z: Important Topics School Administrators Need to Know - AAC #821
Naperville
3/12/15
8:00am
Legal Standards for the Management of School Personnel - AAC #820
Naperville
3/13/15
8:00am
17th Annual Risk Management Seminar - AAC #1283
Naperville
3/13/15
8:00am
The Administrator's Role in Collective Bargaining AAC #809
Springfield
3/17/15
8:00am
Leading Yourself, Leading Others and Leading Your Boss - AAC #PENDING
Naperville
3/20/15
8:00am
Bookkeepers Conference
Naperville
3/30/15
8:30am
The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership - AAC #1133
Naperville
4/1/15
8:30am
The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader - AAC #1135
4/8/15
9:00am
Delegate Advisory Assembly Meeting
Naperville
4/9/15
8:30am
Leadership Requirements for Moving from Good to Great - AAC #481
Collinsville
4/10/15
8:30am
The 360 Degree Leader: Creating a Positive Leadership Culture - AAC #1164
Effingham
4/13/15
7:30am
CPMM Facilities Certification Training & Exam
4/16/15
2:00pm
Getting Your ROI from Illinois ASBO Service Associate Membership
4/28/15
10:30am 2015 Illinois ASBO Foundation Golf Outing
4/28/15
8:00am
6 |
Session
2015 Legacy Project at Clearbrook
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Northern Illinois University, IA-103 108 Carroll Avenue DeKalb, IL 60115-2829 P: (815) 753-1276 / F: (815) 516-0184 / www.iasbo.org
Update Editorial Advisory Board
Check out www.iasbo.org or the latest Calendar of Events included in the UPDATE mailing for full seminar listings including location and PDC sponsorship and register for professional development today. March 2015 June 2014
Illinois Association of School Business Officials
Location
PDC members Richard A. Lesniak Ancillary Services Kristopher P. Monn Educational Enterprise Yasmine Dada Financial Resource Management Robert J. Ciserella Information Management Kevin Dale Information Management Amy McPartlin Materials & Services Management Paul A. O'Malley Sustainability BOARD & EXTERNAL RELATIONS members Hillarie Siena Past President Mike McTaggart SAAC Chair AT-LARGE MEMBERS Seth Chapman St. Charles SD 303 Anton Inglese Batavia USD 101 John A. Gibson Homewood SD 153 Dean Langdon Illinois Association of School Boards Eric Miller Skokie SD 69 STAFF MEMBERS Michael Jacoby Executive Director (815) 753-9366, mjacoby@iasbo.org Susan P. Bertrand Assistant Executive Director (815) 753-9368, sbertrand@iasbo.org Angie Byers Communications Coordinator (815) 753-9371, abyers@iasbo.org Rebekah L. Weidner Staff Writer/Editor (815) 753-9270, rweidner@iasbo.org Tammy Curry Senior Graphic Designer (815) 753-9393, tcurry@iasbo.org John Curry Graphic Designer (815) 753-7654, jcurry@iasbo.org
Illinois ASBO Board of Directors
Bourbonnais
TBD Schaumburg Elgin/ Schaumburg Arlington Heights
Nelson W. Gray President Susan L. Harkin President-Elect Jennifer J. Hermes Treasurer Hillarie J. Siena Immediate Past President 2012–15 Board of Directors David H. Hill, Luann T. Kolstad, Ann C. Williams 2013–16 Board of Directors Dean L. Gerdes, Cathy L. Johnson, Lyndl A. Schuster 2014–17 Board of Directors Barry Bolek, Dean T. Romano, Paul Starck-King
Illinois ASBO Board Liaisons
Michael A. McTaggart Service Associate Advisory Committee Chair Audra Scharf Service Associate Advisory Committee Vice Chair Terrie S. Simmons ASBO International Liaison Debby I. Vespa ISBE Board Liaison Sherry Reynolds-Whitaker IASB Board Liaison Paul McMahon Regional Superintendent Liaison Calvin Jackson Legislative Liaison
Privacy Policy
All materials contained within this publication are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, displayed or published without the prior written permission of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. References, authorship or information provided by parties other than that which is owned by the Illinois Association of School Business Officials are offered as a service to readers. The editorial staff of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials was not involved in their production and is not responsible for their content.
Perspective / Board President
From–the–podium The School Business Manager – The Visionary Leader “Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.” – Joel A. Barker, Businessman Welcome to the year 2020. Illinois has emerged from the Great Recession with a strong and vibrant financial climate. Education funding is both equitable and adequate to meet the needs and development of the whole child – focused on their cultural, social, emotional and instructional needs. State funding utilizes an evidenced-based model and districts have the ability to focus curriculum on the values of the community they serve. Districts may elect annually to opt-out of instructional and programmatic mandates that are not federally required or safety-related that do not receive funding. There is an affordable statewide Internet service program, allowing all districts to access digital instructional material and integrate technology in instruction.
Nelson W. Gray Asst. Supt./Business Services Des Plaines CCSD 62
Simply Saying
Who will provide the vision, the voice and the leadership for changes in education as Illinois navigates this juncture? Is this a dream? No, it’s a vision – Vision 20/20! As you read this issue of UPDATE, you are likely well down the budget development path, with staffing models and financial assumptions mapped out for Fiscal Year 2016. But as has become the trend, there are many unknowns related to federal and state funding for FY 2016 – maybe more so than in the recent past. Illinois is at a historical juncture – with a newly elected governor full of new ideas, a reduction of temporary income tax increase resulting in a short-fall of revenue, legislation to revamp the nearly 20-year old state funding model and a potential pension cost shift. With Illinois more culturally diverse, regionally different and with greater poverty than ever, the needs of students have shifted. Who will provide the vision, the voice and the leadership for changes in education as Illinois navigates this juncture?
In recent years, we have seen many organizations and individuals with no foundation in education try to lead, persuade and dictate what education should look like in Illinois. Vision 20/20 was launched at the November 2014 IASB/IASA/Illinois ASBO Joint Annual Conference. This launch was the culmination of months and countless hours of work from dedicated and passionate individuals in the education field across the state of Illinois. It is a comprehensive education-based vision focused on Highly Effective Educators, 21st Century Learning, Shared Accountability and Equitable & Adequate Funding.
Get informed and get involved! Read the brief introduction to Vision 20/20 on page 18 and visit the Web site at www.illinoisvision2020.org.
www.iasbo.org
| 7
Hone Your Leadership Skills with Illinois ASBO
OL BU HO SI SC
Leading Yourself, Leading Others & Leading Your Boss (AAC # Pending) — March 17, 2015
Intact Leadership Team Development Bring Life Orientations Training® (LIFO®) or the Leadership Practices Inventory® (LPI®) to your district administrative team! Illinois ASBO facilitators will lead the discussion and help your team members analyze their survey results, understand each other’s leadership styles and learn how to enhance communication within the team (both trainings offer Administrator Academy Credit).
This course is designed to develop and provide insight to administrators’ behavioral leadership skills through analysis and assessment of what relational skills are needed to lead yourself, lead others and lead your boss.
S OFFICIA ES L N
INOIS ILL A
INOIS ILL A IATION OC of SS
S
S
IATION OC of SS
S OFFICIA ES L N
INOIS ILL A IATION OC of SS
S
S OFFICIA ES L N
S OFFICIA ES L N
Illinois ASBO leadership offerings give you and your team the opportunity to hone essential leadership skills. Consider attending one of these upcoming leadership offerings or bringing a leadership experience into your district or company!
OL BU HO SI SC
INOIS ILL A IATION OC of SS
S
OL BU HO SI SC
OL BU HO SI SC
Leadership Institute I
Leadership Institute II
This flagship Illinois ASBO leadership crash course incorporates two proven leadership measurement tools, Life Orientations Training® (LIFO®) and Leadership Practices Inventory® (LPI®), into one training program over the course of nine months (includes Administrator Academy Credit).
Coming soon! Build on your leadership foundation with training on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®) and the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO-B). Those who have completed the Leadership Institute I will have the option to integrate this knowledge with what you have already learned in a special session.
1
>> Register today at:
www.iasbo.tools/leadyourself
>> Learn more at:
www.iasbo.tools/leadershipadmin
>> Apply now:
www.iasbo.tools/leadershipinstitute
2
>> Watch for information
on this exciting new program!
Perspective / Executive Director
From–the–office Changing the Mandate Conversation Mark Twain once said that, “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” That is certainly true for schools and taxpayers in Illinois and is one of the reasons we (the Statewide School Management Alliance) often find ourselves taking defensive positions against new laws and reform initiatives. We are battling the continual erosion of freedom at the local level to make decisions regarding the instructional and operational elements of delivering educational services. In order to counter this “defensive” position, the Alliance partners created a new vision for education in Illinois called Vision 20/20. If you have not heard of it by now, you really need to catch up by visiting www.illinoisvision2020.org, downloading our policy briefs and looking at the district toolkit available for each district to begin engaging.
Michael A. Jacoby, Ed.D, CAE, SFO Executive director Illinois asbo
Simply Saying
As the Alliance partners worked through the development of Vision 20/20, we spent a great deal of time talking about mandates. As the Alliance partners worked through the development of Vision 20/20, we spent a great deal of time talking about mandates, both funded and unfunded. Three key goals emerged: 1. To change the dialogue by more regularly referring to mandates as regulations. Business leaders understand the meaning of regulations and also understand that when they are over-regulated, it leads to inefficiencies and a negative impact on the bottom line. This is true for schools as well. 2. To promote more flexibility in local decision-making. In order to be responsive to the continuing financial hardships that districts are facing, we have proposed that mandates/regulations should be assigned to one of two categories: A. Essential — Focused primarily on fully-funded, federal, student safety and civil rights related regulations. B. Discretionary — Focused primarily on unfunded, non-federal, educational process or delivery related mandates.
Sometime in the near future we would like to see a task force with broad representation tackle these categories. For the discretionary regulations we would like local boards of education to be able to, through a public hearing process and with input from the public and local bargaining units, make decisions related to implementation. 3. To allow districts that forego state funding or demonstrate high performance to operate with greater flexibility. They would look essentially like charter schools and experience the same statutory freedom from mandates/ regulations for up to four years. This is just one of the policy recommendations in Vision 20/20, but an important one as the legislature again deliberates how to “fix” schools by adding more and more regulations in 2015. Check out Vision 20/20 and join us as we move the discussion forward in Illinois this spring.
www.iasbo.org
| 9
S OFFICIA ES L N
INOIS ILL A IATION OC of SS
S
OL BU HO SI SC
Bring a Recognized Facilities Credential Into Your District Illinois ASBO offers two facilities certifications that are among the fastest growing and most esteemed of their kind. Earning a certification demonstrates skills and knowledge that extend far beyond the boiler room.
PLAN TO PARTICIPATE IN UPCOMING COHORTS! Certified Plant Supervisor (CPS) — May 11-13, 2015
Applications due March 20 Certified Plant Maintenance Manager (CPMM) — October 19-22, 2015
Registration opens June 1
Get started now! Contact Erin Wickens at ewickens@iasbo.org for more information or visit: www.iasbo.tools/fmcertification
Perspective / SAAC Chair
From–the–field Staying Above Reproach With the Annual Conference right around the corner, it is important to remember some of the Association’s basic goals and beliefs. Service Associates are expected to, “conduct themselves within the highest standards of professional and personal ethics.” That comes into focus in many ways during the Conference. This year the Service Associate Advisory Committee would like to call special attention to the guidelines for presenters. It is paramount that presenters focus on the professional development of the Association members attending their session, rather than on utilizing presentations to further their own companies' agendas.
Michael A. McTaggart President Quest Food Management Services, Inc.
Simply Saying
It is paramount that presenters focus on the professional development of the Association members attending their session. We are implementing some additional steps to make sure that these principles are followed: The role of the moderator: Moderators are now tasked with making sure that presenters do not try to “sell” their product or service. The moderator will also have the right and the responsibility to stop any presenter or attendee from attacking a competitor in any fashion. The updated guidelines also require moderators to ask any member of the audience that is “combative” with any presenter to leave. The guidelines state that, “attendees at presentations who represent a product or service associated with the topic of the presentation are expressly prohibited from entering into competitive or confrontational questioning of presenters.”
Promotional items: As presentations are meant to be purely informational, promotional items should not be handed out during the presentation. A more appropriate place to hand out those pens would be at your exhibit booth. We want to make it easy for the moderators and stick to the basic guidelines that have been set and agreed to. Be sure to focus presentations on what they are meant for, professional development. Service Associates are experts in their fields and have a great deal to offer to the general conversation on how things can be done better. The Conference would not be the same without our input. Let’s plan to make it a great Conference and stay above reproach!
www.iasbo.org
| 11
Contributors
Hank Boer, Ph.D.
Richard J. Dombrowski, Ed.D.
Kenneth M. Florey
Professor Aurora University
Retired School Business Official
Partner Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd.
A retired Illinois public school district administrator, Hank is a full-time professor at Aurora University instructing on School Finance in the Master of Arts in Educational Leadership Program. He serves as an interim superintendent and has published articles on Illinois public school district finance. hboer@mchsi.com
Retired from Channahon SD 17 after 37 years. Rich was a financial consultant for Des Plaines SD and interim superintendent at Union SD 81. He served as adjunct professor of school finance at Aurora Univ. and Univ. of St. Francis. He now serves as treasurer and financial consultant. richdombrow@aol.com
Represents municipalities, school districts, community colleges, contractors and design professionals regarding land use, municipal law, construction, tax, finance and litigation. Author and presenter on school district legal issues.
Dean W. Krone
Anna K. Lovern
Shawn M. McLain
Partner Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP
Dir./Policy Services & PRESS Plus Coord.
Attorney Guin Mundorf, LLC
Divides his time between corporate work and litigation on issues including zoning and planning, annexation and disconnection, eminent domain, finance, personnel, code enforcement and taxation.
Has devoted her professional career to developing and maintaining school board policy manuals for individual school districts. Anna has been a policy editor and an assistant policy director. She now serves as Policy Director and Coordinator of IASB’s District Secretaries’ Program. alovern@iasb.com
dkrone@hlerk.com
Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB)
kflorey@robbins-schwartz.com
Practicing within a full service education law firm, Shawn exclusively represents Illinois public school districts in a variety of education, labor and employment law matters.
smclain@gmmschoollaw.com
Barney R. Mundorf
Melinda Selbee
M. Neal Smith, Jr.
Attorney Guin Mundorf, LLC
General Counsel & PRESS Editor
Associate Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd.
Counsels Illinois school districts on a wide variety of labor, employment and personnel issues including traditional union matters, such as mid-term bargaining obligations, unfair labor practice claims, collective bargaining issues, unit clarification petitions and union representation campaigns. bmundorf@gmmschoollaw.com
Has devoted her legal career to state school board association work. She began in 1980 with the Indiana School Boards Association. Since 1990 she has served as the General Counsel for the Illinois Association of School Boards. Melinda is also a long-time officer for the Illinois Council of School Attorneys. mselbee@iasb.com
Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB)
Concentrates his practice in the areas of board governance, land use issues, tax, finance and litigation. Neal advises municipal and school district electoral boards and candidates running for public office on issues concerning ballot access and campaign finance. nsmith@robbins-schwartz.com
Would you like to be an UPDATE Contributor? If you have an issue you feel needs to be brought to the forefront, present your ideas to Angie Byers at abyers@iasbo.org. Robert E. Swain
Paul D. Timm, PSP
Partner Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP
President RETA Security, Inc.
Concentrates his practice in litigation and is a frequent speaker on managing electronic records. Built his first computer earlier this year.
Is a board-certified Physical Security Professional (PSP) and the author of School Security: How to Build and Strengthen a School Safety Program. A member of ASIS International, Paul serves as Vice Chairman of the School Safety & Security Council and is on the Risk Management PDC. paul@retasecurity.com
rswain@hlerk.com
The issue themes that we will be soliciting articles for next year include: • • • •
Facilities Budgeting Leadership Innovation
We look forward to seeing new faces on this page as we continue to make the UPDATE an indispensable resource for school business management.
www.iasbo.org
| 13
On Public Display Advertising in Schools
In a world where advertising is seemingly everywhere, perhaps it is not surprising that school districts have begun to identify and sell advertising space and opportunities in order to increase revenues. Tight budgets and stubbornly low property tax revenues have prompted many school districts to consider tapping new or previously underutilized revenue sources. As commercial advertising on school property becomes more common, it is important to consider the legal implications before opening your school to the advertising world.
For a Public Purpose The Illinois Constitution provides that public property, funds and credit shall only be used for public purposes. Does private advertising allowed by a school district on public property constitute a public purpose? According to the Illinois Supreme Court, what constitutes public purpose “is flexible and capable of expansion to meet the changing conditions of a complex society” and “the consensus of modern legislative and judicial thinking is to broaden the scope of activities which may be classified as involving a public purpose.”1 In Illinois, when a public school is compensated to allow a private entity to advertise on its property a public purpose is being served because the funds that the school district receives from the advertiser can then be utilized to support the school district’s students and educational programs.
14 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
The fact that there is also an obvious benefit to the advertiser does not take away the public benefit.2 For some opponents of school advertising, the case of O’Fallon Development Company v. City of O’Fallon,3 stands for the proposition that all commercial advertising on public property is unconstitutional because it does not serve a public purpose. This is too broad of a reading and the opposite conclusion that should be taken away from the case. In O’Fallon, the use of a public water tower to advertise a private shopping center amounted to an unconstitutional private use of public property because the municipality received no compensation for allowing the advertisement. Except for the rare school district that wants to give away advertising space for free, the O’Fallon case is no barrier to advertising.
Article
By Kenneth M. Florey Partner Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd.
M. Neal Smith, Jr. Attorney Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd.
A Public Forum? If a school district does allow advertising, it must be careful in setting time, space and content limits lest it face claims of unconstitutional free speech violations. In a free speech legal analysis, courts classify public property into three categories: the traditional public forum, the designated public forum and the non-public forum. A traditional public forum (e.g. parks, sidewalks) is a place where speech may be regulated only if narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. School property does not usually fall in this category. Rather, school property is usually classified as either a designated public forum, which is a place that has been opened up to expressive activity or a non-public forum. Since schools have quite a bit more room to regulate in a non-public forum, litigation over commercial advertising on school property and in school publications tends to focus on the line between what is a designated public forum and what is a non-public forum. For example, in Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, Inc. v. Clark County School District,4 the court upheld the school district’s refusal to publish an advertisement from Planned Parenthood in school newspapers and athletic programs. The court recognized that school-sponsored publications are nonpublic forums and stated that unless the school clearly intends to open a forum for indiscriminate use, restrictions reasonably related to the school’s mission that are imposed on the content of school-sponsored publications do not violate the First Amendment.
The school district’s refusal to publish the advertisement was reasonable and not based on the specific viewpoint of the advertisement because the refusal was based upon the school district’s desire to remain neutral on the sensitive and controversial topic of family planning and to avoid being forced to permit advertising on both sides of the issue. Similar reasoning was involved in DiLoreto v. Downey School District,5 where the court upheld the school district’s refusal to post a religious advertisement containing the text of the Ten Commandments on the fence of a high school baseball field.
Once a school decides to advertise, developing effective administrative procedures to review advertisements is critical to make sure that potentially rejected advertisements are based on appropriate constitutional standards and not due to specific advertisement viewpoints. With proper planning your district can make sure the extra revenue generated by advertising does not disappear in First Amendment litigation.
FOOTNOTES 1.
In re Marriage of Lappe, 176 Ill. 2d 414 (1997).
2.
Friends of the Parks v. Chicago Park District, 203 Ill. 2d 312 (2003).
3.
43 Ill. App. 3d 347 (5th Dist. 1976).
4.
941 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1991).
5.
196 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 1999).
www.iasbo.org
| 15
Securing Social Five Ways to Mitigate Cyber Risk Students are the primary drivers and victims affected by cyber issues, with a tidal wave of inappropriate comments, photographs and correspondence in a growing sea of social media sites and applications. At the same time, an ever-widening technology gap often causes administrators, staff members and parents to feel left behind. Social media risk is nothing new. In fact, Facebook is already more than a decade old! Unfortunately, there is still no magic wand solution to these problems. Once upon a time, schools attempted to prohibit students from carrying cellular phones. Bans failed. Technology personnel installed Internet filtering systems. They were circumvented. Now, your best defense is acquiring a basic understanding of social media, learning how to use it safely and positively influencing those that use these services. 16 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Article
By Paul D. Timm, PSP President RETA Security
The following techniques are a great start as you work to mitigate social media risk in your district: Take a proactive approach by designating an official school Twitter account and Facebook “page.” Take steps to ensure that access to the account is restricted to a few, trusted individuals within your school. Make sure someone diligently monitors issues online and responds to them appropriately. Refrain from status updates that detail upcoming dates and specific locations. Given the right opportunity, that information can be exploited. Change passwords every three to six months. Get students involved to help determine the best course of action. Since social media risks already play a significant role in school security, student inclusion in prevention efforts is vital. Students can also play a primary role in mitigation efforts by rapidly identifying and addressing bullying, abuse or security breaches. Take advantage of optional Facebook security settings. Facebook allows you to significantly reduce your risk by taking advantage of optional security settings, such as “Code Generator.” Enabling settings like this two-step verification process for devices you do not routinely use or restricting the ability of others to tag you in photos/statuses, represent proactive safety steps.
What is at stake?
From the prevention of cyberbullying and efforts to protecting persons from predators to the appropriate sharing of information and emergency notification, schools must learn how to wield this double-edged sword effectively. Knowledge is the key to preventing and addressing social media issues. This often means more than a basic knowledge of the social media platforms that are involved. Now is not the time to hide from the unknown and risk being left behind. Now is the time to be proactive and learn so that we can help others.
Secure browsing to protect information shared online. The “HTTPS” protocol encrypts and protects information that is communicated over the Internet. It translates information into a complex, almost indecipherable language while it is being delivered. Activate secure browsing for all Web sites. Facebook, for instance, now has this as a standard enabled security feature. In general, the responsibility to enable secure browsing falls on the user because some sites will not have HTTPS as the default protocol. Quick Tip: When you encounter a Web site that only has “HTTP,” simply add an “S” to the end to make it more secure.
Beware of new and dangerous applications/sites. Just when you thought you had it all figured out, there are always new social sites emerging! Some new trending sites include: Ask.fm — An app for social Q&A that lets you ask questions of your friends through various social media sites. Kik — A smartphone messenger app with a built-in browser. Yik Yak — An app that gives an anonymous live feed of what people are saying around you.
Can Twitter be Tamed?
Twitter cannot be censored, contained or effectively controlled. Stakes are raised exponentially for someone who misuses Twitter. From tweeting an inappropriate photo or video to misrepresenting an organization on an important social issue, risks abound because of the potential for the post to go viral. Countless examples of indiscretion involving public figures serve to remind us of how fast things can get out of control. These indiscretions can reflect on those who are linked to a tweet in some way, as well. The potential dangers of Twitter compound when ignorance accompanies misuse.
www.iasbo.org
| 17
By Michael Chamness
Business Partners / Vision 20/20
Director of Communications/Public Relations IL Association of School Administrators (IASA)
From Vision to Action! Two years in the making, Vision 20/20 has been unveiled publicly and the stage has been set for the most important phase of the initiative: going from vision to action!
Vision 20/20 has also been endorsed by the Illinois PTA, the Ounce of Prevention Fund and the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability (CTBA).
“We have always been good about knowing what we were opposed to in public education, but now we have a plan that clearly outlines what we are for, what we think will provide the very best educational opportunities for the more than two million schoolchildren in Illinois,” said Dr. Brent Clark, Executive Director of IASA.
The fact that Vision 20/20 is gaining momentum was not lost on Dr. Creg Williams, President of the SCSDD. “Vision 20/20 is gaining power. The power comes from the partnerships we have built. This is the first time that all of these education groups have come together behind one plan,” said Williams.
“Our motto is ‘Fulfilling the Promise of Public Education’ and to do that we now have to spread the word and turn this vision into a movement.” A coalition of six statewide education organizations have joined forces behind Vision 20/20, including: Illinois Association of School Administrators (IASA), Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB), Illinois Principals Association (IPA), Illinois Association of School Business Officials (Illinois ASBO), Superintendents’ Commission for the Study of Demographics and Diversity (SCSDD) and Illinois Association of Regional Superintendents of Schools (IARSS).
Ralph Martire, Executive Director of the CTBA and an expert on funding in Illinois, has endorsed Vision 20/20. “For decades, Illinois has failed to provide a meaningful educational opportunity to all children in the state – a failure that not only hurts kids, but also harms the economy.” He continues, “While other factors have played roles, there’s no question that the core driver of this failure has been the lack of political will to reform the state’s school funding system, which is both inadequate and inequitable. This proposal, which suggests a rational, evidence-based approach to funding our schools fairly and adequately, has the potential to overcome the political gridlock that has prevented meaningful reform to date.”
The Vision 20/20 plan includes four main pillars: • Highly Effective Educators • 21st Century Learning
• Shared Accountability • Equitable & Adequate Funding
Each comes with several policy recommendations that are researchbased and were developed over the course of almost two years by a group of nearly 70 superintendents, administrators, principals, school board members and others in the field of education.
18 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Fulfilling the Promise of Public Education illinoisvision2020.org
Perspective / On the Profession
School business 101 What systems or procedures do you have in place to handle FOIA requests? FOIA requests are gathered by our FOIA officers and then sent to the district's central “ The FOIA office, my assistant superintendent for student services. She takes a good look at the request to see if it requires any legal action. If legal action is required, we send it to the lawyers. Once we have all the information that is necessary, we answer the FOIA request. When we answer the FOIA request in a letter, we also make a PDF copy and post it on our Web site, including who made the FOIA request, a link to the PDF and the amount of hours that it took to complete the PDF.” Nate Cunningham Superintendent, Crete-Monee CSD 201-U
are a small elementary district in Northern Cook County. Our superintendent is currently “ We the FOIA officer and he receives all FOIA’s that come into the district. He reads the FOIA then makes a determination as to whether or not he is experienced enough and has the knowledge to answer the FOIA request directly. If he does not, he will send it out to the appropriate individual within the district to assist him in answering the request. One of the challenges that districts face is determining whether or not the FOIA is a commercial request. If it is not, then it has to be responded to in a five business day period. If it is, you have up to 21 business days to respond. If you are unsure you should always check with your attorney to make sure you’re fulfilling the deadline requirement.” Thomas R. Beerheide Chief School Business Official, Sunset Ridge SD 29
flow through the superintendent to me. I immediately respond, notifying the “ Requests requester of our receipt of the request and an anticipated time frame for response, typically five to seven days. I may also use this opportunity to identify challenges or additional information that is needed. At times, there may be reasons to request an extension or deny the request. In these instances, a notice is sent specifying the reason and identifying the section of the code that supports our position. Our attorneys are contacted as needed for compliance with laws that govern privacy, confidentiality or the position of a burdensome request. We always share the FOIA requests with our school board to keep them abreast of the inquiries being received. All correspondences between my office and the requester are included in the monthly board report.” Nicole B. Terrell-Smith Dir./Business Services, Hazel Crest SD 152.5 www.iasbo.org
| 19
Collective Bargaining
f s
r o
d n e r T p
5 1
0 2
To
]
[
Collective bargaining remains challenging for Illinois districts due to the State’s continuing financial crisis, declining or static local funding revenue, uncertainty with pension reform and implementation of the Affordable Care Act and various educational reform initiatives such as PERA evaluations and reduction in force procedures. By understanding the current trends and strategies, you will be better equipped next time you sit at the negotiation table.
20 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Article
Trending Now: PERA Evaluation Plan Implementation Illinois school districts ranked in the lowest 10% of performing schools must commence using teacher evaluation plans that comply with the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) no later than September 1, 2015. For the other 90% of school districts, the deadline to implement PERA evaluations is September 1, 2016. Unions often propose language to include PERA evaluation plans and procedures in collective bargaining agreements, which you can and should reject. PERA evaluations are developed through a joint committee with membership that includes an equal number of administrators and teachers. A final PERA evaluation plan will include three main parts: 1) Evaluation Procedures; 2) Professional Practice and 3) Student Growth.
Bargaining Strategies:
•You are not required to include PERA committee language in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and should not agree to do so.
•You are not required to include PERA evaluation plans
or procedures in the collective bargaining agreement and should not agree to do so. If you include evaluation procedures in the CBA, the union can file a grievance and challenge a teacher’s poor evaluation for even minor procedural irregularities.
•While teacher evaluation procedures are a mandatory
subject of bargaining with the union, the final PERA evaluation procedures must comply with the Illinois State Board of Education rules (Title 23 Illinois Administrative Code Part 50). Reject any union proposal that modifies the evaluation procedures in Part 50. Rather, simply agree to follow the state regulations, nothing more and nothing less. You have the right to make the final decision on evaluation procedures if the Joint PERA committee cannot reach agreement on procedural issues.
•You are not required to negotiate or reach agreement
through the Joint PERA committee on the Professional Practice component of the evaluation plan. Districts must consult the union (through the Joint PERA committee) and
By Barney R. Mundorf Attorney Guin Mundorf, LLC
get input and comments on the Professional Practice rubric. However, they have the right to make the final decision on the substantive criteria, weight and areas evaluated under Professional Practice.
•Unions will often propose that the Professional Practice
criteria be weighted equally. Reject such proposals and decide the weight that will be assigned to each of the evaluative criteria. If the Joint PERA committee cannot reach agreement on the Professional Practice criteria or weight assigned to each criterion, you have the right to make the final decision.
•The only component of the PERA evaluation plan that
requires the Joint PERA committee to reach agreement on is “student growth.” If the Joint PERA committee fails to reach agreement within 180 calendar days from the date of its first formal meeting, the district and union will default to the Illinois State Board of Education procedures for the use of student growth as a significant factor in measuring a teacher’s performance.
Trending Now: Soft Salary Freeze or Equivalent Not surprisingly, salaries continue to remain the most difficult issue to negotiate. The vast majority of districts are negotiating something less than a soft freeze (step only) or up to a maximum of a soft freeze. There are very few districts negotiating salaries that exceed the cost of a soft freeze. Another trend, in order to avoid committing funds in future years, is to negotiate a one-time off the salary schedule bonus payment, which range from $400 to $800. Some districts, due to serious budget shortfalls and a significant decline in fund balances based on previous deficit spending, are negotiating hard freezes (no step or lane movement).
Bargaining Strategies:
•The board of education must plan early and decide how much money, if any, is available to negotiate the labor contract. The board must know its end point in order to establish its starting point. (cont. next page)
www.iasbo.org
| 21
Soft Salary Freeze Bargaining Strategies cont.
•Well before negotiations start, share financial information
with the union and public early and often. Prepare charts to graph the ending fund balances in the major operating funds (Education, Transportation, Operation and Maintenance and Working Cash) to demonstrate the declining revenue, declining fund balances and overall downward financial trend.
•Never adjust the salaries of administrators or other nonunion employees until it has finalized negotiations with the labor unions.
•Salary should never be negotiated in isolation and must
be negotiated as a “package” proposal that includes other financial issues, such as health insurance. A package proposal means the union must accept all proposals or reject all proposals in the package; it cannot cherry pick one proposal and reject another.
•While the district is obligated to bargain in good faith, it
is not legally obligated to make concessions at the bargaining table. Bargaining in good faith means you can say “no” to any union proposal, including union proposals for wage increases.
Trending Now: Affordable Care Act (ACA) Confusion The ACA, commonly known as Obamacare, continues to create great confusion among employers and employees. Contrary to union assertions, the ACA does not legally obligate school districts to pay health insurance premiums on behalf of employees. However, school districts who qualify as large employers (50 or more full time equivalent employees) may be subject to penalties if they do not offer affordable health insurance to their full time employees (those who work 30 or more hours per week).
22 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Bargaining Strategies:
•If your district does not currently pay for the health
insurance premiums for union members, they should calculate whether it will be cheaper to pay the health insurance premium or the ACA penalty. For example, if single insurance premiums cost $4,800 per year, you will be better off paying the $3,000 ACA penalty instead of providing board paid insurance to employees.
•For educational support personnel, consider negotiating
language to give the district the authority to modify and reduce employees’ work hours. Under the ACA, only full time employees, defined as those who work 30 or more hours per week, will create a potential penalty. You can avoid the ACA penalties in their entirety if you set employees’ work hours at less than 30 per week.
•The ACA does not obligate a district to pay family insurance premiums for its employees and there are no ACA penalties if you fail to do so. You should reject any union proposal for board paid family insurance premiums under the ACA.
Trending Now: Reduction in Force (RIF) Procedures Not surprisingly, unions continue to propose language to modify and alter the statutory RIF procedures.
Bargaining Strategies:
•Reject any union proposal that deviates from the statutory RIF procedures.
•Unions will attempt to negotiate language to give
recall rights to teachers RIF’d from Group 1 or expand recall rights for teachers RIF’d from Group 2. Reject these proposals.
•By statute, a teacher that receives a “Needs Improvement” rating on either of their last two performance evaluations must be placed in RIF Group 2. Unions will propose language to move a teacher from RIF Group 2 to Group 3 if the teacher’s most recent evaluation is “proficient.” Reject this proposal.
Article / Collective Bargaining Trends
RIF Procedures Bargaining Strategies cont.
•Teachers RIF’d from Groups 3 and 4 have recall rights for
one year and unions will often propose language to expand the recall rights to two years. Reject this proposal.
•Maintain a firm position and only agree to RIF procedures that comply with the statute.
Trending Now: Potential Pension Contribution Increases On November 21, 2014, a Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge held the State’s pension reform law (SB 1) unconstitutional and the case is now headed to the Illinois Supreme Court. In the event the Illinois Supreme Court strikes down the pension law, school districts must prepare now for potential increases in pension contributions from employers and employees, as that is one of the only sure ways the state legislature can generate more funds to address its $100 billion or more unfunded pension liability.
Bargaining Strategies:
•Negotiate a “cap” on board paid contributions to TRS
on behalf of teachers. Currently, teachers are required to contribute 9.4% of their wages to TRS, but many districts have negotiated contract language that obligates the board to make the teachers’ TRS contributions. Therefore, avoid any language that obligates the board to pay the teachers’ “full” TRS contributions. Instead, negotiate language that states the board will pay up to a maximum of 9.4% of the teachers required TRS contributions. If the TRS rate increases above 9.4%, the teacher is obligated to pay the increase.
•In addition to the teachers’ required TRS contributions,
districts are currently required to contribute .58% of teachers’ salaries to TRS. It is possible that the state may shift its TRS contribution obligations to local school districts,
resulting in a significant increase in TRS contributions. Consider negotiating language that decreases the board’s TRS contribution on behalf of teachers in an amount equal to any TRS rate increase imposed on the school district. For example, “The board’s TRS contributions paid on behalf of teachers shall be up to but not exceed 9.4%. However, if the board’s required TRS contribution rate increases, then the board’s TRS contributions paid on behalf of teachers shall decrease in the same amount. For example, if the board’s TRS rate increases 1%, then the board’s TRS contribution for teachers shall be reduced from 9.4% to 8.4%.”
Trending Now: Short-Term Labor Contracts It is not uncommon for school districts to negotiate one-year labor contracts due to funding uncertainty. Understandably, boards are not willing to commit funds to salary two and three years out because the current year’s General State Aid funds are not even certain. Unions, likewise, are not willing to accept a wage freeze or low salary increase two and three years out and would rather wait and see if funding improves and then negotiate salary.
Bargaining Strategies:
•To avoid returning to the table every year, consider
negotiating a “re-opener” clause. For example, the board and union enter into a three-year contract and negotiate salary in the first year and include a re-open provision to negotiate salary only in year two and three.
•However, be aware that unions often oppose re-opener
provisions because the union cannot strike during the term of the three-year contract. If the parties cannot reach agreement when negotiating salary under a re-opener provision, the board can impose its last, best final offer on the union after bargaining in good faith and declaring/ giving notice of impasse.
www.iasbo.org
| 23
Below
the Surface On the heels of advancements in digital learning, student data privacy and security concerns have emerged as a hot topic in educational technology. As more teachers and schools enlist online and cloud-based educational services in the classroom, the manner in which student educational records are used is evolving.
Cover Story
Educational records (student data) are no longer archived and stored for posterity. Increasingly, they are active data used to inform instruction and adapt learning to the personalized needs of students. As this trend has organically emerged, it has left school administrators and parents with limited insight and control over how student data is shared and used. Parents and students are now seeking assurances that their personal information and data are secure and protected. A 40-year patchwork of state and federal legislation governs the disclosure and management of student educational records. None of the laws currently in effect in Illinois were conceived for the purpose of protecting student data in the digital age and their corresponding regulations provide limited guidance to district- and school-level practitioners facing modern privacy challenges. In February 2014, the U.S. Department of Education’s Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) released introductory guidance for protecting student privacy when using online educational services. While far from definitive, they provide a reference point for decision making as best practices emerge.
On the Surface:
Current Student Privacy Laws FERPA: Rights to Review and Release Originally written in 1974, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was designed to guarantee parents the right to review and inspect their child’s education records. Under the authority of the U.S. Department of Education and with limited exceptions, FERPA also protects privacy by requiring explicit consent to release information to third parties. A key provision of FERPA for digital privacy is the “school official” exception, which allows schools to share student records with third party contractors (i.e., service providers) that are under the “direct control” of the district and have a “legitimate educational interest” in the student records. The “school official” exception has been the basis by which state
By Anton Inglese Chief Information Officer & Treasurer Batavia USD 101
and local authorities have shared personally identifiable student data with third parties that operate longitudinal data systems and cloud services without explicit parental consent. (See Illinois Association of School Boards PRESS Policy 7:340 for a traditional implementation of FERPA.)
COPPA: Protecting Children Under 13 The federal Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) was enacted in 1998 and is enforced and regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The purpose of COPPA is to protect the privacy and safety of children under 13 years of age by requiring “verifiable consent” from a parent or guardian prior to collecting personally identifiable information. In addition, Web site operators must include a privacy policy and follow certain restrictions when marketing to children. Many Web sites, including Facebook, disallow children under the age of 13 from using their services entirely to avoid the costs and complexity related to compliance with COPPA.
PPRA: A Standard for Parental Consent The little-known and oft-forgotten, federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) was intended to ensure that instructional materials are available to parents for inspection; and that schools obtain written parental consent before students participate in any survey, analysis or evaluation in which information concerning religion, income, politics, mental or psychological problems, sexual behavior and attitudes are collected. While limited in scope, PPRA sets a standard for parental consent in research that includes direct data collection from students in the form of surveys or evaluations. (See Illinois Association of School Boards PRESS policy 7:15 for more information.)
ISSRA: A Safeguard for Student Records Originally passed in 1975, the Illinois School Student Records Act (ISSRA) has been updated to align with FERPA. The two acts are effectively similar and neither directly address digital student data privacy and security. It is interesting to note that, under ISSRA, failure to properly safeguard student records may be considered criminal and willful failure or negligent violations range from a petty offense to a Class A misdemeanor.
www.iasbo.org
| 25
Diving Deeper:
Eight Essential Questions
Is parental consent required to share student data?
What are the security obligations of service providers?
It depends on how the data is shared. Under FERPA, schools may release “directory information” without parental consent unless an individual has opted-out. Schools and districts often use the “school official” exception when sharing Personally Identifiable Information (PII) with online educational services, but this requires that the third party or service provider:
FERPA simply requires “commercially appropriate” security measures. With a constant barrage of data breaches along with the revelations made by Edward Snowden of NSA surveillance, data security standards and practices have begun to evolve rapidly — and with an ever-quickening pace. Security measures that were once considered extraordinary and reserved for the government or the paranoid are quickly becoming standard operating procedure.
• Perform a service or function that school employees would otherwise perform.
• Be designated as a “school official” with a “legitimate educational interest” in the records.
• Be under the “direct control” of the district. • Use the records only for the authorized purposes.
While a written agreement with the service provider isn’t necessary for the “school official” exception, schools and districts should establish direct control through a signed contract or “terms of service” (TOS) agreed to prior to use.
Can teachers sign students up for an online educational service? They shouldn’t. In their guidance on COPPA, the FTC urges schools and districts to have a process to assess sites and services rather than allowing decisions to be left to individual teachers. Since such decisions are made on behalf of parents, they should be made on a school or district level, with the services used and student data shared communicated to parents in a transparent fashion. While COPPA only applies to Web sites that collect data from children under the age of 13, a process-driven, decision-making model is considered the best practice. 26 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Good security requires vigilance and constant assessment and adaptation to evolving threats and vulnerabilities. However, service providers offer little insight into their security systems and tactics. Transparency in security practices has not evolved and little, if any, evidence accompanies assurances that student data is “safe.” Instead of relying upon good faith, school districts must do their due diligence and vet service providers before sharing PII.
What is required of service providers in the event of a data breach? It depends on the contract or terms of service. Generally, organizations will do the right thing and notify the appropriate individuals but some may ignore or bury the incident to save embarrassment and liability. Data breaches happen regularly, but few service contracts contain provisions for notification and response procedures in the event of a data breach. In the information technology (IT) profession there is a maxim: there are two kinds of networks, those that have been hacked and those that don’t know it yet. To maintain “direct control” of their records, at a minimum, school districts must be notified when breaches occur.
Cover Story/ Student Data Privacy Laws
Key Student
Privacy Terms Who owns and controls student data? It is unclear who actually owns educational records — students/parents or the school. Regardless of ownership, FERPA and ISSRA do make it clear that school districts must maintain “direct control” of student records at all times. The implications of this requirement are that:
• The data must be used for
the purposes specified in the contract or terms of service.
• PII cannot be re-disclosed to other parties without specific authorization.
• Educational Records: Materials and documents, including digital data, maintained by a school or district, or by a person acting for such institution, that contain information directly related to a student.
• Metadata: Contextual or transactional data about data, e.g., student usage activity, time on task, etc. Metadata that could be used to identify a student should be treated as PII.
• Directory Information: A data set about students that may be shared publicly (individuals may opt-out). Included elements are defined by each school district and typically include name, address, telephone number, email address, photo, grade level, dates of attendance, etc.
• Personally Identifiable Information (PII): Direct and indirect personal identifiers, including name, address, date of birth, etc., that could be used by a “reasonable person in the school community” to identify a student.
• De-Identified Data: A data set, which, if used alone or in combination with other data, cannot be linked to any specific student.
• That all records in the possession of the
district and service provider must be available for inspection at the request of the parent.
Ownership of student data may be a moot point, but access and control of student records, whomever may have custody, is a clear, legal mandate.
It is essential that districts be cognizant of the new implications of the traditional liability and indemnity clause.
www.iasbo.org
| 27
May a service provider claim that student data is part of their intellectual property? Again, it depends on how the data is shared. Data that is shared under the “directory information” exception or data that is de-identified is not protected by state and federal laws, so such claims may have merit. Information that is about and derived from the education records of individual students cannot be claimed as intellectual property, especially if it is shared under FERPA’s “school official” exception, since student records must remain under the “direct control” of the school or district.
May student data be used for commercial or marketing purposes? It depends on how the data is shared. Under FERPA and ISSRA, data shared with third parties under the “school official” exception must remain in the control of the district — and used solely for the purposes agreed to and without re-disclosure. However, this does not necessarily prevent a district from agreeing to allow that student data be used for commercial use or marketing. Very few service providers understand FERPA or acknowledge their responsibility as “school officials,” so it is imperative that contracts and terms of service are carefully reviewed prior to sharing data.
Who is liable if there is a data breach? Probably the school district. The standard operating procedure for most companies is to limit liability — so they push responsibility onto schools to the greatest extent that they can. Typical contracts often limit liability to the cost of the services purchased. While this practice may have been reasonable in a traditional model where districts purchased software to run on their own servers, as more student data is stored in cloud-based services, the culpability of error is shifting. Increasingly, the value of the personally identifiable student data in the hands of service providers can now easily exceed the cost of these services — especially if the service is free or low-cost. Perhaps worse than inadequate liability, some contracts include indemnification clauses in which the school district promises to cover any and all damages related to the loss of student data regardless of fault. In the event of a data breach, costs for notification, monitoring, recovery and reparation will likely exceed the cost of the original service. Moving forward, it is essential that districts be cognizant of the new implications of traditional liability and indemnity clauses and ensure that service providers shoulder their share of the risks.
Go-To Student Privacy Resource CoSN, the Consortium for School Networking, has compiled a list of questions to ask online providers in their Protecting Privacy in Connected Learning Toolkit. While the answers may be subjective, it begins a dialogue that creates shared expectations for sound security and privacy practices.
28 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
cover Story / Student Data Privacy Laws
Resurfacing the Issue in 2015 2015 will likely be an inflection point for data privacy; after much talk and debate, we will begin to see action in statehouses and schoolhouses across the nation. Over the past year, nearly every state in the country has contemplated student data privacy legislation and already over 30 bills have been passed. In Illinois, both chambers of the General Assembly considered related bills during their last session and while consensus remains elusive, there is clear commitment that more can and must be done to protect our students. Regardless of any new laws and mandates that may be enacted, school and district leaders have a duty to be transparent about the data that is collected, how data supports education and the safeguards in place to protect that data.
Take Action Now! Ensure that your school or district does the following: • Designate a chief privacy officer to take the lead on addressing these issues.
• Require that service providers share liability for data breaches and avoid indemnity clauses.
• Develop processes that require approval for and monitor online educational services that use PII.
• Hold regular conversations with IT and service providers to review security practices.
• Be transparent with parents and students about how your district collects, shares and protects student data.
• Be sure that all contracts contain clear security/ data breach notification provisions.
www.iasbo.org
| 29
In The Municipal ZONE It is not often that a set of bleachers draws the attention of the public media, but “the bleacher case� has crystallized the debate surrounding municipal zoning. The implications present a potential game changer for public schools. Local municipalities have often tried to stretch the long arm of their laws over local school campuses. The Health/Life Safety Code already governs public schools, with standards being set by the State Board of Education and enforced by the Regional Superintendents of Schools. This has brought uniform standards throughout the state, until a recent gamechanging appellate court decision: as the law stands today, public schools are now required to comply with both the Health/Life Safety Code and with local municipal zoning. Even worse, this decision could have retroactive effect and apply to school facilities already standing.
30 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Article
By Robert E. Swain Partner Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP
Dean W. Krone PartneR Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP
The case for zoning Wilmette: With Power Comes Responsibility A decision from the Supreme Court is the leading case concerning the application of municipal zoning to other public bodies. Wilmette Park District concerned some proposed improvements at a park district site. The Supreme Court decided that a zoning hearing was the best forum for balancing the competing interests at stake and required the park district to go through zoning. However, the Supreme Court also held that the village had to exercise its power responsibly and could not use its zoning ordinance to “thwart” or “frustrate” the park district’s “statutory duties.” The Wilmette case was decided in 1986 and so the zoning issue has long been put to bed for parks and many other taxing districts. The debate has continued for schools, though, because schools are different from parks in many important ways. City of Peoria: Schools Not Always Under the Same Rules The leading case analyzing the interplay between schools and municipalities is City of Peoria, decided in 1979. Peoria, a home-rule municipality, wanted the local district to collect a city restaurant tax on concessions. The taxing ordinance required restaurants to collect the tax, keep books and remit the tax to the City. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional underpinnings of the public school system. The Illinois Constitution has guaranteed a public education to schoolchildren since the 19th century and charges the General Assembly with designing, creating and funding the school system. Peoria’s tax ordinance imposed new burdens upon the district and these burdens were an unconstitutional intrusion upon the “plenary power” of the General Assembly over the schools. The Supreme Court thus held that Peoria could not impose its tax ordinance upon the district. Importantly, the school district was not the only defendant in the Peoria case. Peoria also wanted the park district to collect this tax and the Supreme Court analyzed this part of
the case differently. There are no constitutional provisions creating parks and the General Assembly does not exercise exclusive control over parks in the same manner as schools. In fact, municipalities themselves have the power to establish and operate public parks. For these reasons, the Supreme Court reached a different result for parks: Peoria could impose its tax ordinance upon the parks, but not upon the schools. Thus, even though the Wilmette case has long told us that local taxing districts can be required to go through zoning, the Peoria case has long told us that schools are not always subject to the same rules as other taxing districts. Other Relevant Decisions: A Mixed Bag Several other court cases over the years have gone both ways. One held that schools are not required to comply with county building codes; a similar case held that a school did not need a municipal building permit. One case held that a municipality could require vehicle stickers for school busses, but only if the stickers were meant to raise revenue and not to regulate the busses themselves. Another held that school kitchens are subject to county health inspections and yet another held that schools are subject to local civil rights ordinances. The General Assembly has also weighed in. It is common knowledge that school buildings must comply with the Health/Life Safety Code. Less well known, but not controversial, is an ISBE regulation specifically stating that property owned by schools but not used for school purposes (for example, excess property) must comply with local codes instead of the Health/Life Safety Code. The School Code specifically allows municipalities to review school building plans before construction, but only if they ask the Regional Superintendent and limit the review to Health/Life Safety compliance. The General Assembly added a provision to the School Code in 2005 requiring fire officials to inspect schools.
The Bleacher Case: Resurfacing the Issue The bleacher case, Gurba, confronts the central issue head-on: is property used for public school purposes subject to local zoning? The answer from the Appellate Court is “yes,” and as of this writing that answer applies throughout the entire state. The Supreme Court has agreed to take the case and will hopefully issue a decision sometime later this year. Unless and until there is some change in the law, though, school districts must now concern themselves with matters of local zoning.
The potential new rules There are many issues in a zoning analysis. We do not yet have precedent examining these issues in a public school context, but we can extrapolate from existing zoning law to anticipate issues that may arise.
Does zoning apply retroactively to existing structures? Retroactive application is a particular concern for existing structures. The short answer is “yes,” those structures might be subject to retroactive application of zoning — but each situation must be analyzed separately.
Where does zoning apply to schools? The City of Crystal Lake is a “home rule” municipality and much of the analysis in Gurba is an analysis of home rule power. The contours of “home rule” are beyond the scope of this article, but it suffices to say that home rule municipalities — less than 200 total, out of approximately 1,300 municipalities in Illinois — exercise significantly more power than non-home-rule municipalities. Nonetheless, nothing in the Gurba decision expressly limits its holding to home rule municipalities and so the prudent approach is to assume that all municipalities have the authority to zone schools.
There are two general principles that come into play here: 1. Generally, the mere passage of time does not prevent a municipality from enforcing zoning violations. If a structure is built illegally, without complying with zoning laws, the municipality can still bring an enforcement action many years later. 2. A structure being built generally must comply with the zoning requirements in effect when it is built. If a structure is built legally, but the zoning standards change after the fact, the structure is generally grandfathered in and can remain standing (in zoning parlance, the structure is a “legal non-conforming use”). Of course, if additions are made later, the newer standards could come into play. Thus, if an old school has never been through zoning, it is possible for the municipality to apply zoning retroactively, but the inquiry is whether the school complied with zoning back when it was built. If additions or changes have been made over the years, the answer could be different for different parts of the property. If there have been changes to the zoning ordinance over the years, the answer could depend upon reconstructing the historical interplay between original construction, additions and zoning changes. For older buildings, this could be a daunting task and even that assumes that the historical records happen to be available. 32 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Geographically, municipalities exercise zoning authority within their own borders and also in unincorporated areas that are within one and a half miles of their borders. Beyond those thresholds, the county generally has zoning authority.
What recourse does a district have if it is unhappy with the result? A school board that is unhappy with a zoning decision can challenge the decision in court. There is a welldeveloped body of case law dealing with zoning disputes in the private sector: a private property owner would have to convince a court that the zoning decision was “unreasonable” or “irrational.” Recall, though, that the Supreme Court held in the Wilmette case that a park district could challenge a zoning decision that was going to “thwart” or “frustrate” the park district’s “statutory duties.” We do not yet know how courts will apply these standards to schools, or which particular standard will be used. It certainly seems likely that a school district challenging an unfavorable decision will improve its chances of success by demonstrating that it causes some particular hardship to the school, educational process or operations.
Article / Municipal Zoning
How will this affect a district's timetable?
What does the zoning ordinance require?
Applications for special use permits and zoning variations are typically referred to a zoning board of appeals, which holds a public hearing on the application, hears testimony from the owner, experts, neighbors and other members of the community, evaluates whether the criteria for the relief sought has been met and then makes a recommendation to the city council or village board. (In some municipalities, the zoning board of appeals may be given authority to make the final decision.) It usually takes at least three months to get a final decision on an application for special use permit or variation and can take significantly longer if the project is complicated or controversial.
Although zoning ordinances tend to have many similarities, each is unique. Some allow public elementary and high schools only in residential districts; others allow schools in commercial districts instead of, or in addition to, residential districts. Some include a special district for “public buildings,” with standards tailored to a large building like a school.
The zoning process is required in addition to, not instead of, Health/Life Safety approval by the regional superintendent. Most property owners would secure both zoning relief and a building permit from the same municipality, but school districts will need to deal with two separate agencies. This will require coordination and may increase the lead time required for a project.
Zoning ordinances often prescribe quantitative standards (height, size, setback, etc.) for buildings in a particular district. If a proposed structure exceeds these standards, the owner can apply for a “variation” (or “variance”) that grants an exception for the particular structure. The owner needs to demonstrate that the standard creates a “practical difficulty” or “particular hardship” due to the “unique circumstances” of the property. In addition to quantitative standards, zoning ordinances often define the “uses” of property in a particular district. If a school is a “permitted use,” then no zoning hearing is required if all other regulations (height, size, setback, etc.) are satisfied. If a school is a “special use,” then the school district will need to apply for a “special use permit” and go through a public hearing.
A Game Plan Moving Forward Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the bleacher case, we are looking forward to a definitive ruling. In the meantime, the Appellate Court decision remains binding. School districts that are planning construction for this year certainly should be discussing this issue with their architect and legal counsel.
Going forward, all school districts should make sure that they are accounting for zoning compliance.
Hopefully, a Supreme Court ruling will clarify whether school districts need to account for zoning compliance going forward. This may apply to everything from existing buildings to new construction and may impact everything from funding to long-term facilities planning to community outreach. School districts serving multiple communities may find themselves researching multiple zoning ordinances. Meeting with municipal officials might prove beneficial as well, to familiarize yourself with local requirements, identify potential problems and perhaps even lobby for changes in local ordinances. In the bleacher case, the zoning ordinance does not contain any standards designed for schools; the bleachers are being held to the same standards that apply to garden sheds and detached residential garages. Working proactively with your local municipalities to head off these problems may prove to be the best zoning strategy of all. www.iasbo.org
| 33
n tio Ac
al C
L eg n
g
&
s s
e c n a id u G
e roc
Au t h o r i z i n
Your Board Policy Life Cycle
gP in
Est e c n a a bli i l p sh m o
In f o r m a t io
To meet the dynamic and ever-changing requirements of school law, board policy should be in a revolving state of writing, reviewing and revising. Having a clear understanding of the purpose and functions of policy and setting up a review cycle are crucial to keeping your school policies in order.
Article
By Anna K. Lovern Dir./Policy Services & PRESS Plus Coord., Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB)
Melinda Selbee General Counsel & PRESS Editor Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB)
Where Policies Come From Consistent with the legislative intent expressed in the School Code, school boards govern through written policies that are implemented by the administration. The job of drafting board policies is frequently given to lawyers to ensure legal compliance. The law is never stagnant which explains why board policies frequently need review and updating. The key to understanding a policy is to understand its purpose(s) or function(s). Without understanding the policy’s purpose or function, the policy will not make sense and will be difficult to implement. Each policy has one or more of the following basic functions or purposes: 1. Ensuring Legal Compliance Legal compliance is a policy’s primary purpose whenever the policy is required by law. We have identified 56 policies that are required by law. For example, the Public Funds Investment Act requires each district to have an investment policy. Some laws, like the Identity Protection Act, describe specific components that must be covered in a policy. The recent amendment to the bullying prevention statute details twelve distinct requirements for the board policy. The law mandating a policy’s adoption is frequently identified in the policy’s text and should always be cited in the policy’s legal references. Legal compliance is the primary purpose of some policies even though the applicable state or federal law does not mandate a policy on the topic. These policies typically direct the superintendent or designee to implement a state or federal law. For example, a policy on purchases and contracts is not required, but its topic is addressed by many state statutes. Another example is the policy on the Fair Labor Standards Act; this federal law contains many requirements but doesn’t require the board to adopt a policy. An example of a very important non-required policy having legal compliance, as its purpose is the policy directing staff members to report abused or neglected children to DCFS. 2. Establishing a Board Process Policies on board meeting procedures, committees and board policy development are examples. Board process policies address how the board governs, the specifics of the board’s job and accountability measures. While board process policies may contain
legal requirements, they also contain best practices that align with the IASB Foundational Principles of Effective Governance available at: www.iasb.com/ principles.cfm. 3. Authorizing Action The primary purpose of some policies is to authorize the superintendent and staff to take action or accomplish a specific task. These policies typically concern management or operational issues; the policies do not provide details for exercising the authority. An example is the policy authorizing the superintendent or designee to confer with the board attorney. Implicit in any grant of authority is that it will be exercised under circumstances described in the policy. For example, if a policy authorizes the superintendent or designee to close the schools in the event of hazardous weather or an emergency, the board assumes that schools will be closed when those conditions occur. 4. Providing Information and Guidance Some policies are created to provide information and guidance to staff members, students, parents and community. These policies sometimes paraphrase a statute, such as, policies on transportation, food services and enrollment. A few policies have communication as their only function and do not site any legal authority, such as policies on parent organizations and booster clubs, chain of command, succession of authority and public suggestions and concerns.
www.iasbo.org
| 35
At the end of most policies are two lists that provide helpful information – legal references and cross references. The list of legal references contains citations to laws and/or important court decisions that govern or control the policy’s subject matter. The list of cross-references directs you to other policies and occasionally procedures on related topics. For example, IASB’s PRESS (Policy Reference Education Subscription Service) policy on safety crossreferences policies on criminal background investigations, the hiring process, visitors and others. All PRESS policies have footnotes accessible to PRESS subscribers. The intent of footnotes is to help your understanding of a policy. A policy’s first footnote indicates if it is a required policy and/or if it is governed by state or federal law. Other footnotes describe legal requirements, provide background or offer best practices and implementation guidance. The attorneys in the IASB office of general counsel are also available to answer your questions. How Policies Adapt: Review Cycle Although there is no legal requirement to do so, school board policies should be reviewed by the administration and the board on a regular basis to assure that they are both in compliance with state and federal statutes and regulations and are relevant to the district. A review is a reassessment of written board policy. It is a look at the whole picture: legal compliance, achieving board goals and alignment with district practices.
Questions the board must ask during a review of a policy are: • Is it still relevant? • Is it still legally compliant? • Does it reflect district practice? • Does it give adequate direction to the superintendent? • Are we getting the results we expected when we put the policy in place? (If not, do we need to revise the policy?) Policy review involves, first, a discussion of a policy topic as a whole, then an assessment of existing policy to determine compliance and relevance. District practices and procedures must be reviewed for alignment with policy. If practice and policy do not align, one or the other must be revised. Most district policy manuals are divided into sections by topic area, e.g., School District Organization, School Board, General Administration, Operational Services, Personnel, Instruction, Students and Community Relations or something similar. This structure lends itself to establishing an annual calendar. Boards that want to assure themselves that their policies are always relevant to their district often choose to use a calendar that sets months for review of specific areas of policy. These calendars align review of policy topics with mandated activities that districts must perform yearly.
You can access PRESS online at www.iasb.com/policy/login.cfm. To find out if your district is a subscriber, contact someone in your business office or anyone in the IASB Policy Services department.
36 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Article / Board Policies
Example Policy Review Calendar (Based on the IASB Policy Reference Manual) Policy Review September Section 4: Operations October Section 6: Instruction
Mandated Activities Board receives audit report. Board reviews District Report Card.
November December January Section 5: Personnel February Section 3: General School Administration
In anticipation of negotiations. Anticipated renewal of administrators’ contracts.
March April May Section 2: School Board
Elections and orientation for new board members.
June Section 1: School District Organization
Superintendent’s contract and goal setting for next year.
July Section 7: Students
Approval of student handbook.
August
Once this process is put in place, each policy will be reviewed once each year. Beyond that, individual policies must be updated on an as needed basis as changes occur in legal requirements and local conditions.
thorough review by IASB attorneys. Subscribing districts are then encouraged to review their own policies for relevance and alignment.
Another option for reviewing district policies often used by PRESS and PRESS Plus subscribers is for the board and administration to carefully review each policy that is distributed with suggested updates for alignment with district goals and current procedures and practices. Because changes often occur, there is ample opportunity to reassess board policies on a fairly regular basis. In addition, if a particular policy has not been updated by PRESS and PRESS Plus within the past five years, it undergoes a
Why it Matters Understanding your board’s policies and keeping them relevant by establishing a policy review cycle are prerequisites to having a properly governed school district. If your district is sued, the board attorney will ask for the applicable board policies and implementing procedures. You can assist your board tremendously by closely examining its policies, helping the board keep them current and seeking assistance if you have questions or concerns.
Go-to Resource: IASB Policy Services
At IASB, lawyers draft and revise sample policies and use a diverse advisory group to provide feedback. IASB policy consultants provide a wide-range of policy services from customization to a maintenance service. You are invited to contact an IASB policy consultant or an attorney in the IASB office of general counsel. Of course, your board’s attorney should be consulted for legal advice or a legal opinion.
www.iasbo.org
| 37
Open Door Policy
The Impact of Homelessness and Residency A Growing Population The increasing number of reported homeless students in Illinois appears to be attracting increased attention from public school district officials. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has referenced the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act, as well as the Illinois Education for Homeless Children Act which offers the following description of a homeless family: “If a family, out of necessity because of lack of housing, must reside in a shelter, motel, vehicle, campground, on the street or doubled up with relatives, they are presently homeless.” This definition raises an immediate residency question, which directly affects which school district homeless children should attend. According to ISBE, homeless parents are not required to submit proof of residency when they register their children for school enrollment. However, a school may require parents or guardians to submit an address or other information for contact purposes.
Whichever they choose, ISBE has determined that homeless children are entitled to “IMMEDIATE ENROLLMENT” and enrollment cannot be delayed because of lack of school records or immunization. Bottom Line Impact Numerous fiscal questions arise as to how local, state and federal resources are allotted to homeless students. To better understand the potential fiscal impact on school districts, let’s look at a theoretical comparison between school district “A” and school district “B.” It is possible that homeless children may reside in school district “A” but have chosen to attend school district “B” because of a perception that the district may be providing higher quality educational services.
A Number of Options A great deal of judgment and latitude can be applied to the issue of where homeless children can actually be enrolled to receive school services. ISBE has determined that parents have a choice as to which school district their children can attend. Parents can choose whichever school district is in the best interest of their children from a number of possible options: • Door Number One: The school of origin, which is the school attended when last permanently housed. • Door Number Two: The school in which the student was last enrolled. • Door Number Three: Any school in which non-homeless students living in the attendance area are eligible to attend. ISBE reports that districts identified 59,112 homeless students in the 2013-14 school year, up 7.7% in a year. That is more than double what it was five years earlier, when 26,688 homeless students were counted in 2008-09. 38 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
By Hank Boer, Ph.D.
Article
Professor Aurora University
Richard J. Dombrowski Retired School Business Official
Increased expenditures in school district “B” may be necessary because of increased teacher salaries and benefits, teacher aide salaries and benefits, capital outlay, classroom supplies, support services and other related educational costs. Some examples of additional costs for school district “B” may include: • Very expensive residential costs, such as costs associated with profoundly physically disabled students. • Expensive in-house programs that serve severe behaviorally disabled students.
If a significant number of homeless students attend school district “B,” this may have a negative effect upon school district “B” being able to continue providing high quality educational services. Local property tax levies are adopted to provide educational services for children living in any given school district. However, property tax payers in school district “B” may now be paying to educate homeless children that would not be enrolled had they not been homeless.
• Transportation services for regular and special education programs for homeless students residing in school district “A” but attending school in school district “B.” It may be necessary to cross several school districts to provide transportation services from the place the homeless student currently resides to the school district where the child is receiving educational services. Needless to say, the recent legislation affecting homeless students making school district boundaries more fluid has subsequently affected school district funding.
According to ISBE, school districts can best assist homeless families by: • Ensuring that school forms, brochures, Web sites, handbooks and instructional materials reflect accurate information about homelessness and residency rights and are easily accessible. • Training all staff, board members and administrators responsible for school enrollment on Illinois and federal residency and homeless laws. • Ensuring that the homeless education liaison is involved any time a child’s residency is questioned, before a residency hearing has occurred or the child is disenrolled. • Collaborating with local free and low-cost legal services programs to ensure that school district personnel are educated and that parents are provided with assistance.
Find additional guidance from ISBE at: isbe.net/homeless Source: ISBE Registration Guidance for the 2014-2015 School Year Note: This is an excerpt from the article, Homeless=Choice=Unfunded Mandates, Fall 2014 Journal of School Business Management.
www.iasbo.org
| 39
FOIA:
Staying Above Water The Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) embodies the simple idea that public entities should open up their records for public inspection and copying. However, certain types of requests (and requesters) can make life much more complex than simply finding a document and making a copy. FOIA provisions offer some relief to keep districts stay afloat in the seemingly endless sea of requests.
Unduly Burdensome Requests Under FOIA, generally, requests that call for all records within a category must be complied with unless: 1. Compliance would be unduly burdensome for the school district, 2. There is no way to narrow the request, and 3. The burden on the public body outweighs the public interest in the information. In order to use this exception, the school district must first extend to the person making the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempt to reduce the request to a manageable portion. Districts invoking this exception must do so in writing and specify the reasons why it would be unduly burdensome and to the extent to which compliance would burden the operations of the public body. For example, if compliance would require hundreds or thousands of hours of staff time, then that should be stated. Responses under this exception to compliance are treated the same as a denial and therefore, are subject to review. If the same person repeatedly requests the same records that are unchanged or identical to records already provided or properly denied, then the district may deem those requests unduly burdensome.
Article
Commercial Requesters A commercial purpose means the use of any part of a record, or information derived from public records, in any form for sale, resale or solicitation or advertisement for sales or services. An initial response to a request for records made for a commercial purpose must be made within 21 working days after receipt of the request. The response must do one of the following: • Provide the requester an estimate of the time required by the public body to provide the records and an estimate of the fees to be charged. The time to comply with a request must be within a reasonable period of time. • Deny the request pursuant to an exception. • Notify the requester that the request is unduly burdensome and extend an opportunity to reduce the request to a manageable portion. • Provide the records requested.
Recurrent Requesters A recurrent requester is a person that, in the 12 months immediately before the request, has submitted to the school district: • 50 or more requests for records during that 12-month period, or • 15 requests for records within a 30-day period, or • Seven or more requests for records within a seven-day period. Of particular importance here is that one request may identify multiple records to be inspected or copied. Therefore, an individual is not necessarily a recurrent requester if they have submitted one written request identifying 50 categories of records or documents.
By Shawn M. McLain Attorney Guin Mundorf, LLC
An initial response to a request for records made by a recurrent requester should be made within 21 business days after receipt of the request. The recurrent requester should also be notified within five business days of receipt of the request that: • They will be treated as a recurrent requester, • The reasons why the school district is treating the request as a request by a recurrent requester, and • The school district will send an initial response within 21 business days after receipt of the request and the potential responses that can be asserted as outlined in FOIA.
Voluminous Requesters Recently, the Illinois Senate and House overrode the Governor’s veto of House Bill 3796, which created a new category of FOIA request, the voluminous request. A voluminous request generally includes individual requests for more than five different categories of records or a combination of individual requests that total more than five different categories of records in a period of 20 business days. Or, the request requires the compilation of more than 500 letter or legal-sized pages of public records, except where a single requested record exceeds 500 pages. There is a complicated response procedure for voluminous requests. First, the school district will make an initial response within five business days to inform the requester that: • The public body is treating the request as a voluminous request. • The reasons why the public body is treating the request as a voluminous request. • The requester must respond to the public body within 10 business days after the public body’s response was sent and specify whether they would like to amend the request in such a way that the public body will no longer treat the request as a voluminous request.
More>>>
www.iasbo.org
| 41
Article / FOIA
• If the requester does not respond within 10 business days or if the request continues to be a voluminous request following the requester’s response, the public body will respond to the request and may assess any fees for voluminous requests. • The public body has five business days after receipt of the requester’s response or five business days from the last day for the requester to amend his or her request, whichever is sooner, to respond to the request. • The public body may request an additional 10 business days to comply with the request. • If the requester fails to accept or collect the responsive records, the public body may still charge the requester for its response and the requester’s failure to pay will be considered a debt and may be collected in accordance with applicable law.
If a request continues to be a voluminous request following the requester’s response, or the requester fails to respond, the school district must respond within the earlier of: • Five business days after it receives the requester’s response, or • Five business days after the final day for the requester to respond. The public body’s second response must provide an estimate of the fees to be charged, which they may require the person to pay in full before copying the requested documents. The response must either grant, partially grant or deny the request per one or more exemptions, notify the requester that the request is unduly burdensome per the existing procedures or extend the date for the public body to respond for not more than 10 business days.
Commercial, recurrent and voluminous requests all generally exclude requests by news media and non-profit, scientific or academic organizations, if the principal purpose is to disseminate news, opinion or academic information.
FOIA Fees: What can districts charge? School districts may generally charge the actual cost of purchasing the recording medium needed to produce a copy of a record. Note that there are separate rules regarding the reproduction costs of paper copies. Districts may also charge fees reasonably calculated to reimburse its actual costs for reproducing and certifying public records and for the use, by any person, of the equipment of the school district to copy records. For a voluminous request for electronic records, school districts may charge specified amounts per megabyte of data, as listed in FOIA. For example, a district may charge up to $20 for two megabytes or less which are not stored in a PDF.
If the request is for a commercial purpose, a school district may charge the actual cost of retrieving and transporting public records from an off-site storage facility when the public records are maintained by a third-party storage company under contract with the district. If a school district charges these fees, they must provide the requester with an accounting of the fees, costs and personnel hours. For a commercial purpose or a voluminous request, districts may charge up to $10 for each hour, after the first eight hours, spent by personnel in searching for and retrieving a requested record.
Note: This article is intended to convey general information about Illinois FOIA and should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or used as a substitute for the counsel and advice of an Illinois licensed attorney. 42 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Resources A book for all the “number twos” A leader and a follower The role of the COO is a unique and complex one that requires the skills of being a “visible and important leader and follower.” Because both the CEO and COO positions are highly visible within the organization and to the public, building effective communication and alignment at the top is key.
When authors Nathan Bennett and Stephen A. Miles started their research, they noticed there was a substantial amount of literature focusing on leadership for CEOs — but surprisingly scarce resources were available for the person “in the office next door to the corner office.” That person, namely the Chief Operating Officer (COO), plays an increasingly important role in the success of organizations worldwide. Bennett and Miles broadly define the COO as the second in command responsible for the daily operations of the business. The lessons and advice compiled in this book offer insight to leaders, like school business officials, who bring oversight to the day-to-day so that their CEOs can face the increasingly demanding, relationshipdriven and outward facing challenges of their organizations.
Bennett and Miles advise that the CEO and COO need to be “completely in step with one another.” Formal and informal communication to ensure strategic alignment must occur, if they do not, “it presents a significant risk of derailment for the number two.” Once a trusting relationship between the CEO and COO is formed, it spreads to the entire leadership team. Navigating the COO role Through interviews with COOs at highly visible organizations including Starbucks, PepsiCo and Microsoft, Riding Shotgun offers advice on everything from recruiting COOs, to transitioning into a new organizational culture, to making the most of the COO role and what it takes to move up to the CEO position.
On My List Riding Shotgun: The Role of the COO By Nathan Bennett and Stephen A. Miles
Overview: With few resources available to the “second in command,” Nathan Bennett and Stephen A. Miles set out on a mission — to unlock the keys to success for anyone in the role of Chief Operating Officer. In this important read for anyone leading the day-to-day operations of their organization, Bennett and Miles compile the practical advice and experiences of COOs, former COOs and those who hire COOs from top companies around the world.
There is no “cookie cutter” answer for any of these challenges as every organization is different. (Just look at the variety amongst school district leadership teams!) However, the insights found in this book on what has worked and not worked for others could be prove vital to your success as you navigate your unique role within your school district.
Once a trusting relationship between the CEO and COO is formed, it spreads to the entire leadership team. www.iasbo.org
| 43
Below the Surface:
School District Legal Issues Secure Social: Keep Safe From Cyber-Risk pg. 16-17 Social Networking in Schools: Benefits and Risks; Review of the Research; Policy Considerations; And Current Practices This academic article explores both sides of the social media in schools debate – along with ways social networking activities are currently being used in schools and policies districts have in place to keep safe from cyber-risk.
www.iasbo.tools/socialschools
Take a Deeper Dive: Student Data Privacy Issues pg. 24-29 Privacy and Cloud Computing in Schools Check out this summary from the Center on Law and Information Policy that includes recent media coverage, key findings about cloud services and practical recommendations.
www.iasbo.tools/cloudschools Protecting Privacy in Connected Learning Toolkit Take advantage of this in-depth, step-by-step guide that addresses FERPA and COPPA compliance issues as well as smart suggested practices that reach beyond compliance. It also includes definitions, checklists, examples and key questions to ask.
www.cosn.org/privacy Privacy Technical Assistance Center This resource from the U.S. Department of Education was designed as a “one-stop” resource for education stakeholders to learn about data privacy, confidentiality and security practices related to student data.
www.ed.gov/ptac Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions The Federal Trade Commission takes on questions about enforcement, privacy policies and notice to parents, online services directed to children, geolocation data and more.
www.iasbo.tools/coppafaqs 44 |
Update Magazine / Spring 2015
Resources
Begin Your Board Policy Life Cycle pg. 34-37 IASB Policy Services Find a variety of services that can substantially enhance your school board’s ability to function effectively. This includes policy manual customization, administrative procedure consulting and access to the Policy Reference Education Subscription Service (PRESS).
www.iasb.com/policy
Yo u r Board Pol ic y Life Cycle
Open Door Policy: Resources on Residency and Homelessness pg. 38-39 National Center for Homeless Education Utilize the U.S. Department of Education’s technical assistance and information center for the federal Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) Program to find legislative information and training resources for your staff.
www.serve.org/nche While you’re there, search for this resource: Students Living with Caregivers: Tips for Local Liaisons and School Personnel
Homeless Education: ISBE Legal Division Find registration guidance, updated funding information from the state, legislative and policy updates and a wealth of other resources and training materials.
www.isbe.net/homeless
Illinois ASBO members can find all of these resources on the peer2peer Network online community under UPDATE Resources.
www.iasbo.org
| 45
The final word Speaking out about Legal Issues Kristopher P. Monn, Ed.D. Asst. Supt./Finance Batavia USD 101 kris.monn@bps101.net
The school business official is expected to have a strong knowledge base in state and federal law. This is necessary to guide the decisions and actions of the board and administrative teams. They need to understand and enforce the applicable laws in a myriad of topics, including school finance, human resources, collective bargaining and special education. Beyond that, they need to know when to turn to their attorneys on statutory and procedural matters, or to facilitate contract negotiations between associations or outside vendors.
Appropriately managing legal issues helps keep your district out of the headlines for the wrong reasons. When districts find themselves defending the legality of a decision, the amount of administrative time and resources devoted toward the effort are often enormous, not to mention the added stress. Effectively managing legal issues assures that your board’s focus does not get diverted away from where it should be: the success of your students.
Teacher appraisal statutes will have the most immediate impact. As more districts implement the full PERA laws with fidelity, the likelihood of legal challenges to ratings, student growth measures and dismissals is high as our profession settles into the new norms. Districts should ensure that their appraisal plan meets all requirements and engages both the teaching staff and legal counsel to create a shared understanding of all components to mitigate any potential legal challenges.
Do not try to bend the rules. Never let your team or board try and talk themselves into a legally questionable decision. Our professional duty is to follow board policy and state and federal law. When presented with a situation where community sentiment and/or personal opinions may conflict with statutory requirements, do not try and bend the rules. Follow them, then work through your legislators, legal counsel and the Illinois ASBO Delegate Advisory Assembly to get the law changed. Jim Womack / NIU
A Community For Every Facet of School Business
»
S OFFICIA ES L N
INOIS ILL A IATION OC of SS
S
At each PDC Networking Meeting, 18 Professional Development Committees come to the table to discuss different facets of school finance and operations — from budgeting to facilities to leadership. Business officials and vendors alike can take part in this time of learning and networking, ultimately resulting in powerful professional development opportunities for all!
»
OL BU HO SI SC
Find your community at
www.iasbo.tools/pdcnetworking