I've spent the past 2 weeks speaking at school boards all over. Also carefully listening to the discussions had between board members and their district lawyers. From everything I have heard, it 100% sounds like the State of Illinois has sent their own lawyers to represent it's interests AGAINST the local school boards. There's the repeating of the typical talking points about losing funding, tort immunity, liability, etc. But A&M's lawyer had a new one, skipping all the way to the entire district would be dissolved and there would be no school system there. This was made to sound like a not too distant future possibility, while simultaneously stating mandated vaccines were way down the line. An audience member was quick to point out that Chicago schools are already starting to "require" vaccinations.
Upon entering the public meeting at A&M, I was greeted by a checkpoint table at the front door with sign in sheets, masks, and who knows what else. I was told to sign in. Then I was told a mask would be required. For a public meeting? Please show me what law in the Open Meetings Act of Illinois would allow for such a thing. I insisted this cannot be required for a public meeting. I was then instructed that if I were to refuse to wear a mask, they wanted me to sit a segregated area away from everyone else. Another OMA violation. If a school wants to have guards at the door determining who is allowed into a meeting, under what conditions, and where they are allowed to sit, please have that individual complete the OMA training first. This was a good indicator of how the meeting was going to go.
I've continued to see just 1 of 2 different law firms represented in all of the school board meetings I've attended. While most of the meetings included a plan speech, this meeting turned a little different. After the public comment section, the board president handed over the microphone to the district attorney to speak. But after that, there were many hands in the air for questions. While the public comment section was over, the president decided to allow it. I will give HUGE credit to this board president, because he didnt have to do that, but knows that the people want to speak and its sometimes just best to allow it as long as it remains civil, and it did.
The following 15+ minutes continued with Q&A back and forth with the lawyer and public. This proved to be the best incite I've observed. It forced the scripted story to be abandoned and required the lawyer to start having to answer real questions, which I'm certain caught her off guard at times. There were multiple circles, indirect answers, backpedals, and contradictions. There were 3 main things that stood out to me during these interactions.
1- It was argued that the school had authority to require it because it was just like the dress code. I hate to point out, but there's nothing in the dress code that would allow a school to require a mask. Best stick with the executive order talking points.
2- The blame was put on the legislatures for not doing something about the governor. This was the big reveal to me. The district lawyers specialty is in liability, risks, etc. They have no experience or knowledge in how statutory construction of laws pertaining to regulating government works. The concept of Dillons Rule is lost upon them. Because the legislature DID actually do something. THEY NEVER GRANTED THE AUTHORITY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OR ISBE TO REQUIRE MASKS. What the district lawyer is suggesting is that the legislatures need to go back and start making a list of things that the government CANT do, instead of the listed of approved authorities (laws). The list of things a government cant do would be an infinite list and completely miss the point. I keep wondering why in a year and half I've been able to grasp this concept, yet people in positions for much longer cant figure this out.
3-My final observation is that at no point in time have I seen or heard a district lawyer for a school state that they would pursue legal action against the state, ISBE, or governor on their behalf. The entire conversation seems to be convincing the school against doing it, forget the kids or parents interests, and lets protect our pile of cash. The schools are using the wrong lawyers to fight this. They need to pursue lawyers outside of this realm with more experience in related matters. OR, they need to remind their lawyers that they work for that board, and they are about to earn their keep, by sending them to a court to ask a judge to make a declaratory judgement on what the law says.
Comments