married father of two a professional educator teacher and coach and boy by ottawa high school district on august of ninety one eighty nine up to and through january two thousand fifteen this is when he was unlawfully stripped of his teaching tenure rights and employment by the school district based on comments that he made in a union meeting we anticipated and that is that the districts will be able to fire away employment of tenured teachers at will there are still very much clear and distinct limitations within the law that must on unequivocally be followed before a tenured teacher can against the manifest weight of the evidence the court has not proved the most contested statements were made so therefore no cause was first missile the two comments at issue related to under age females and then another comment related to a threat of a slap they just simply were not proved the board also failed to prove cause to terminate mr burgess in connection with comments made at the december two thousand and fourteen ambush so called investigatory meeting seventy two the supreme court instructs that quote only a clear and material breach of the warning notice that was causing related to plaintiffs has deficiencies would support dismissal therefore this standard should be specifically mr burgess had all excellent reviews he was consistently awarded the very highest marks that teachers can achieve under the law and applying the standard of review described the school board dismissal based on the proven conduct of mr burgess this whole case stems from comments that were made in connection with two different union meetings one was in september of two thousand and fourteen and the other was in november of two thousand and fourteen the board's findings from these meetings though exist they are they can be made against the manifest but wait they can't be met against the manifest weight of the evidence because there is absolutely no right to apply its and the school districts to allow them to use their space to hold their meetings because it's a convenience factor in your can be after school and so because of that you have the facility to go ahead and use but there is absolutely no  ability when those arrangements are made for the individual school district to say ok well now we're part of this meeting now we may interfere in it now we may come and make some decisions about what you're doing the decision about the facts and so the supreme court case based decided that yes you do have it you have the right of the school board to go ahead and i'm in the back and when you do that and if you are meant to modify them yes to do that on the notion that you believe it's was very unusual to see such a long list it really was basically it appeared as though they didn't agree with any of the facts pretty much that the hearing officer who sat for three days and heard the case one more notice and you know it just happens quickly he didn't have representation he asked for a lawyer and those types of things those things happened and once he was investigated at that point another reason for the termination district would routinely require yes there are different rules that would apply to protected union activity there are certain protections under the illinois education labor relations act that individuals who are members have the you also have the right not only to be a part of the union and the out the city have the right to refrain from being engaged or involved with the union so it just out the cans on the particular circumstance and if i understood that your proof you were saying that this is a case of first impression in illinois but that there are other cases that relate to this to know your honor the bank's case was the very first case of its kind to address these issues and once the supreme court finally came down with its decision and made the decision that the deference should be given  not necessarily to what the hearing officers decision should be but instead the deference should be given to what the school board ultimately decides so that was the case of first impression oh no i was asking about the other the other issues that raise the issue of whether or not the school boards rules in the union and i thought that in your brief you said that there was no illinois are ones that the let me just start again the those particular protections that are available will be available to this particular teacher while he's speaking well he's talking while he's conducting in doing any type of union activity the reason why it's before you as opposed to be at yellow or beat would be not this particular matter is abilities as far as the opportunity to be heard fully in all of those things that are guaranteed statutorily so that's why it's before us here but the meeting was in the school this wasn't a school board that provides the foundation for the subsequent alleged violations that found a set well i mean there were notice to remedy to not do these things remedy very seriously and tell this two thousand and fifteen incident where he was in a private meeting in a private setting where you know they were really having a contested heated debate about whether or not they wanted you'll see cases where people are on the internet and i think it's a one of those cases where they're they're they're going back and forth and they're saying what they think about the union at some point be that they disappoint can't come in because it's a protected activity so i don't necessarily think it has to not they feel like they aren't getting what they need from their employer what the problems are with their employer you know should be should we make some changes should we request this housing handled things that's a typical nature of a union  ability to answer orders that are remedial there is an entire procedure both regulatory under its rules and statutorily as to how these matters are seeders discovery there's witnesses all that trial process as yours is protected here the findings of the board of education which of us members when the evidence were that his activities were not protected that he was arresting other employees in that he got into an argument with another employee and made fun of his appearance the first instance occurred in the same room before anybody laugh the second instance occurred while the gentleman was walking out of the room and the meeting was very clearly over and there was nothing left to be done but you know they they told you what happened at the meeting came from people who work invited to the meeting who were employees who were in mr correct and mr durrant filed a written complaint same these things happen to me i think that there are inappropriate unprofessional in  asked that that this or do something about it which is what caused the investigation so the war was a millionaire trying to figure out what was going not you meaning me in the numbers the employees were the ones who brought complaints to light any investigation that because they were employees whereas they could be at the church because they're members of the same congregation or whatever but to answer the nuances question you have to look at whether as a reason to do rhythm and after that correct your honor and i think it's not so hard and fast but it depends on what it's about agreements that are you will see from time to time that require things to come out after a period of time the collective bargaining agreement in this case didn't require that and you could be go she'd have it to sunset after a certain time but that didn't happen here so no place s it's there was no place restrictions on whatsoever it was it had to be there had to be an access to the school that was what was placed on and how do we define that nexus but you know your honor there's i think the easiest way to look at it is that there's a lot of there's not as money as you get or dismissal cases but there are a lot of student discipline cases and they look at what what is a nexus to the school so students who do things off campus from time to time they are subject to  with a group of students who went to the forest reserve to abusing harass one another they said that the judge got them down towns that there were certainly not just the school environment there as well because not only are we seeing generally that if you are to model for students and frankly the ethics that are in the the administrative code require you to have a professional environment with with other employees so there was no dispute here that mr burgess understood and knew that he was supposed to act appropriately and professionally towards others and testifying in the record that he understood that from the very beginning of his employment there is sufficient evidence in the record they don't last that there is no evidence in the record to support the factual findings they just say you should have on our favorite senators it was your all over under age females supreme court in september and it involves the sufficiency of evidence review of a criminal conviction which is similar to the manifest weight and in that case there was only one witness to the allegation who was so intoxicated that she couldn't recall being stabbed or biting someone in the supreme court's held that h is day that he heard it and others said no your honor no one else testified that they heard mr marks and testified that he heard the debate going back and forth between the two but he had stopped out in the hallway and didn't hear the coup de gras statement so marathon runner there was a direction provided at the beginning of the investigatory meeting that you're going to be asked questions in your to answer them truthfully right so and interactions that that took place so he clearly knew what happened but he decided to say i don't recall and that's before we get to the disputed statements which were determined by the board of education to have been made which he very plainly tonight but you even have him when his own lawyer asked him why why didn't you tell them about these other things that took place between you and the other teachers which he had stated you know basically you know that was some of the reason why some of this when i was there for all and he said it out well it was a union meeting and i was trying to be very cautious about what i told him but he didn't recall what happened his answer should have been i didn't sound as i just didn't remember but that's not what he said he said i didn't on purpose i have one question yes one man  comment after the review of the entire record of more than a thousand pages on mr burgess consistently is and i had a comment from the very beginning starting from the ambush to present date it was mr door who testified that he was called in to speak to superintendent winchester about an allegation that involves him and his involvement his own involvement with a under age female in the neighboring county and the superintendent mr happened inside the meeting you know here's the thing tempers are flaring up people then there's plenty of testimony where individuals say you know during his head during the at every meeting sometimes we cross the line of being unprofessional sometimes you get heated it was a very heated and tense situation superintendent winchester although he wasn't there he was almost there in the sense that his wife is a member of the union and she was present and was speaking against blocking the vote of no confidence and also superintendent winchester also testified that he himself had been in contact with the three major the person who was the front runner he meaning the superintendent he was the front runner of the investigation into this matter and when he had the investigation which i had been calling the ambush because it was  had the opportunity per board policy to step out and allow another person to run it but he chose to do it himself and mr burgess was in that room being questioned by both the  spoke with as well as the superintendent about his own activities and then union meeting where mr burgess was the one who specifically running the vote of no confidence to go through so it was just one of those situations that this week you meet in the sense that the superintendent could have stepped down but he chose not to so i just wanted to say that but that is well and when it comes to the off duty kind it seems to be a song some questions around that i just want to clarify that there was no criminal charges whatsoever we really are talking about a situation if you know you go with what the hearing officer decided as it relates to the comment about you know the under age females if you can you consider that that was not part of the record you really are down to whether or not someone should be terminated for sang in the context like you upside the head is out as well because like i said that's something that he did not say but the question really is is he going to be fired and should he remained fired just because he said to someone sit down little man and what is move your hair from over your ears maybe you can hear me previous counsel who started this who has since retired and i was not you know with him pretty as to why he made the decision to go one way or the other but when you talk about teacher dismissal like i said there are statutory and ask for the hearing officer in to begin that process so the process isn't michiru by the school board by the part of the law so once we had that and like i said i can't speak for the council but i never did ask him that question but i would assume