think may please the court found so justices my name is john riots and i represent we can one girl's school community unit school district number two hundred this case  employment contract of the superintendent of the school district pursuant to section seven one be to the school district refused and rejected that requests because under libor v board of trustees there is a per se exemption for the specific items listed under seven of the four act and that includes a personnel file the school district what successful at the trial court the second district of illinois court reversed holding that a review of the contract must occur to determine if there was the basis for which the school district refused to disclose the contract under seven one be a four and libor and most cases following libor there are two types of exemptions one is a general exemption if indeed any requested document is an invasion of privacy in which case not only disapproved district but a reviewing court may do and in camera inspection inspection and i do not believe that whatever dr caddo money did in his own right it is a waiver because the freedom of information act and the disclosure requirement falls on the district not an individual and under numerous cases at least federal cases determining the powers and duties of school districts the only body that can bind a school district is its board of education not its superintendent and not any other employee so what court i believe dealt with that and gave the framework for which the per se analysis should be followed and that is no you can't say i am going to pile every document and into someone's personnel file and therefore it's per se exempt what the court much do in a review is to determine if the request the document is the type of document that would so your honor i'm not going to answer that question directly immediately to say that under the per se approach the general assembly in the legislature has determine that if a document is properly in a personnel file that's the end of the inquiry and it is presumed to be an invasion of privacy question that's raised is pro yes and that is completely different from saying you make an analysis of the document itself to determine if there is anything in there that is an invasion of someone's privacy if that is the standard then there is no per se exemption for any document in a personnel file and you read it right out of the statute that exemption because then you are doing the balancing test and the generally exemption under seven one and not the per se exemption and liebert specifically said was that one should make a determination that the that and employees contract it is not part of his personnel file strains credulity that is the basis of the personnel file you cannot have an evaluation as you had in the coldly case unless you have a contract upon which that evaluation is base it sets up those standards so the base us the first document other than an application in anyone's personnel file is a contract if indeed there is a written contract so counsel yes what's yours language that you've already used in this argument and that goes to reading something out of the statute three a of the foyer mandates disclosure of all public record for yes and then if you go to to see eight i believe it defines there's seven and eight define what public records are in and includes country right yes so now you are asking us to say that if the contractors in the person exempt wouldn't that be reading to see seven herbs to see seven and eight out of this answer well your honor if you have to disclose public records public records or contracts now you're saying there's a person exemption if that contract is in the personnel file how is that not reading to see eight out of the staff it it's my position that because all the libor and the pay per se exemption language that it takes precedence over the other parts of the statute and indeed if well let me let me go because more of your argument of and that is that the heart of any personnel file is  for correct right if if they assume means that when the statutes are written there's that understanding that the heart of any personnel file is the contract how can that take precedent over a statute that says you have to you have to release public records which include contractors wouldn't it be presume when everybody know that that contract half has to be in that first and all file would be per se exam when would the contract under to  have to be released it's always going to be in the personnel personnel file which is personally exam it would never be released that your honor well then it is right you know yes yes it is because that it's not only the statute it's the leiber supreme court interpretation that states once you have a per se exemption you make no other inquiry other than did the district  stab or did the public body establish that the document fits into the per se exemption category and we did that that the lever of course specifically addressed reading if you know no not to my knowledge but how to how do we how do you want us to get to do that since it seems pretty clear from what four records how do we do how do you want us to do no further inquiry is needed and that it is a specific statute subsection interpreted by lieber and most other illinois appellate courts so what i'm saying is following libor which is a supreme court precedent that that exemption takes precedent over the other parts of the statute if we disagree with your position we never get to the yes following the appellate court because the appellate court used a balancing act or a balancing method to determine whether or not as justice friedman asked earlier what part of the contract is and i always my only point is if we if we say that the contract has to be turned over over the under the act it doesn't matter whether carolina wavier that's correct ok elbow i'm sorry yes that's yes let me talk about waiver for just a little should know that you made an argument that probably applies you would say applies to what i'm going to talk about but i am concerned about the fact that this contract that we see created in the school district and he was denied access to the same materials that were made available to other citizens obviously other than your argument there is the school district didn't make this waiver so there can't be a waiver would you have any any other further argument just in case you run successful with that or well the school this break was not aware of the release by dr cataloging the school district then when i say school district i mean the board of education and dr caroline they put certain conditions upon the release of that agreement and indeed with the daily herald when he thought that the agreement that he had made with the daily herald might be breached by the daily herald he called the newspaper to make sure that the newspaper follow what he believed was his agreement with them so if you look at eighty request under forty if the request is granted disclosures a reporter from the tribune was allowed to see to read the contract but not take a copy of it so again there was not compliance w so what i'm saying is that the really wasn't a waiver under for you because the full require months of before your request were not followed one doctor kept on he rightly or wrongly thought he had an agreement with the daily herald to limit the use of that which is has nothing to do with four year because there's unlimited use and two with the tribune there reported are only read the document and was not allowed to copy it which under four he had that right so what i'm saying is that these as to the waiver argument that there was and a waiver under foyer there may have been some  other way were but there were strings attached conditions attached that do not follow for you so you are asking us not to look at the document itself is that right  what you're talking about is basically arguments to change the statute to take to make it a balancing test for a personnel file document again that's what the supreme court says in libor you can't just isn't that contrary to what the intent is on on us and a player could put all kinds of things in a personnel file and hide behind that no because the inquiry that the court can make it is is the document requested the type of document that would normally be in a personnel file so inquiry but again you know that school district should be allowed to have the protection of the exemption court dealing with this after the supreme court in libor has said that those specific exemptions of seven one b are per se and all of the inquiries  questions that have come up regarding balancing whether or not you read it out of the statute whether or not it's a public duty or not a relevant because it is a specific exemption se exemption in which the inquiry goes to whether or not the document requested is one that would properly be in a personnel file and the trial court determined that an employment contract is the type of document that would be in a personnel file or you don't have any per se exemption under it personnel file at all and you use the general exemption and what i'm saying is yes so plumb a contract for teachers public superintendents know i know i'm i'm sorry if a teacher's contract is in a personnel file which is where it is that contract is also may please the court your honors council my name is sean collins and i'm here to speak for mark stern the plaintiff happily i'd like to pick up right where my opponent left off pl there are at least five places in the law maybe six which deal directly with the requirement that this document is such as as as several of your honor's have referred to already this kind of document is a paradigm document it's quintessentially the kind of document that the people of the state have a right to see section two as ron i referred to section two subsections subsection seven eight make that clear as they define public record to include among other things all information in any any contract all information in any contract dealing with the receipt or expenditure of public funds that s eight the names salaries titles and dates of employment of all employees and officers of public bodies sections a sub q which is just referred to here as final contracts all final contracts shall be available for inspection and copying furthermore the lead in the lead in to the personnel file exemption which i'd like to come back to more in just a minute the lead in to that before we even get to personnel file there's a warning if i may call it a warning from the legislature and it says that the disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy it's almost as if the legislature saw this case coming we're a death sentence fits in is right before it's and it's in section seven one b and it precedings the very personnel file exemption that is being invoked by the district here and i think that single sentence in the importance of that sentence is what makes the districts argument one that respectfully should be rejected on its merits that precisely your honor it is in the personnel file but as the record court said in the appellate court said below and i believe they got it exactly right that the presence of the stock human in a personnel file doesn't end the question and one of the main reasons why is because the kind of document that this is the leader court was not addressing a document where illinois law said not just the freedom of information act but the open meetings act and the only constitution said this kind of document the people are supposed to have access to that's the kind of document respectfully that we're talking about here but furthermore this sentence this sentence says when read in conjunction when we look at this exemption in the language of it as a whole and we don't just focus narrowly and respectfully i believe improperly on the two words personnel file and we step back and we say how did the ledger what language that the legislature choose with language that the legislature choose to limit the reach of even the personal file exception and in context what that sentence i just read meant is that while the information under certain circumstances found in a personnel file may be exempt because of privacy considerations not so with the information in the personnel file and i'm quoting now bears on the public duties of public employees and officials that kind of document shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy that's precisely the document that we're talking about here and maybe the most succinct way that we know that we're not talking here about a document that has anything to do with  privacy is he's never said so the district has never said so but discussion here about about about waiver and the acts that i believe clearly constitute a waiver also i think say something more important even than wait for even before you get to the waiver argument and that is back dr tatar ronnie in another employee of the school district said and admitted when they turned this document over not only to two newspapers but another employee of the district  individual school board members as that was very admission but this document is not something that the public ought not to see this document is not something that involves the personal privacy of dr catalyzing the school three hundred eighty thousand dollars the record before you also says that that made him the highest paid superintendent of public schools in this state now it is the position of the school district evidently that mark stern and his fellow taxpayers have to pay their taxes to pay that salary but when it comes to trying to find out what back to catherine he was supposed to do to earn all of that money they don't get to know that that is a government kept secret legitimately so according to the district else i'm guessing i'm seeking from you the relief that you want this court ask this court order that the document be turned over for two reasons the law requires it i think very clearly i think the discussion that's been had already this morning demonstrates that it is not if it  violence to this important law to take a document like this where in several places it says people like mr stern are supposed to get it put it in a personnel file and place it off limits for that reason it should be produced also i believe he several people to whom this this document has been given also say and admit that the district  nothing this morning to suggest that beyond that i believe the conduct of dr cataloging himself i mean if anyone should have said to a newspaper i'm not going to show you this contract because of something  they've indicated that they presume that it is public or just to take a look at it and see whether there's anything in there that would should be redacted you know if you had you have a real problem with that or sensible general rule that it would have general up like ability to these kinds of contracts but i'm suggesting the judge is based on these facts all right because what is before the court is not only the general nature of this kind of contract in the foil law says what it under the specific facts i don't believe it's necessary to go back to the trial court but i do believe that what the appellate court has announced it's a very sensible across the board rule because obviously other contracts not no not dr caplan he's now but others could potentially yes because of the people who are involved here i mean the argument of the district as i understand it is that only the school board can authorize disclosure of a document under four years old that's not the way they've behaved i don't believe that's the law of the state i don't believe that's that's the law of agency here what we have here look if we if we examined briefly the chronology we see what's going on here in april of zero six the contract was denied to mr stern the next month dr cattle on a furnished it sent a copy of it to the daily herald in july mr stern asked for it again in the form of an appeal it was  tonight to him then in october the chicago tribune asked for it and was allowed to examine it the same day that it made the request now these people acting on behalf of the district responding to these fo requests use language in one instance in the instance where it was faxed to the daily herald suburban chicago newspaper it was faxed on school district letterhead  his office and i would suggest as for that's very clearly the act of the district furthermore when the document was provided to the chicago tribune in october of two thousand and six that was provided pursuant to an e mail excuse me when that when the document was made available for inspection it was that bad information was conveyed to the tribune by the by the records manager who was the individual to whom the foia request was made and her response used the language per your request so we have a district employees responding explicitly to for a request saying words like per your request using district resources i don't see and these are the people who customarily deal instances she is the individual in the record to whom these requests are made she is identified by by the district to the public as someone to whom foia requests should be made so she's receiving most of these requests and she's also responding to some of these requests when we step back here then we look at what's what's we look at the language of the act we look at the language of the constitution and the open meetings act we have a document which i believe very clearly and without question is something mr stern and member members of the public should see the clincher respectfully i believe is when we look at section one of for you and section one has a  couple of titles to it one of them is legislative intent and as your honour's are familiar and even if i may of says in part it is declared to be the public policy of the state of illinois but all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of of those who represent them as public officials and public employees and it goes on to say such access to these records and now i'm quoting is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties their duties are discussing public issues fully and freely making informed political judgments and monitoring government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public business i would respectfully suggest to your honor's that there is no way that we can square with the language that i just read the notion that the freedom of information act may be invoked to keep from mr stern and his fellow citizens a document that describes the duties of the senior executive officer of the district to which they send their children every day if indeed as this act says they have the duties of discussing publications making informed political judgments and monitoring government they should have at least the right to see those thirty pieces of paper finally i would say that to your your honor certainly don't need a royal like me to tell you about the political environment in which this case presents itself i think what we have here is a citizen of illinois who takes the obligations of citizenship seriously he wants to know what's going on he thought there was a law here that would help him but we have here is a contract that was funniest to the chicago tribune when it asked the same day that they asked mr stern to ask for this document to exercise his duties  citizenship more than three years ago he's hoping you'll help and appreciate your time this  may request here i think is only affirming that decision he can ask for a change in it which he initially started to do so if there isn't a decision by this court it's to a from the appellate court decision to still allows for water be in camera in inspection of the contract to determine if there is any personal items that should not be given out and when asked and w contract is not part of the record it has never been examined by the trial court or the appellate court and it's the school district's reliance on a per se exemption which means that there at least under our interpretation and the way that we interpret leiber that there is no requirement to do so and i would like to read from weaver  because when we talk about the political climate here we have a statute a statute that provides rights not at common law so you have to read the statute and it's clear and unambiguous language and what we have here is an attempt an argument to completely knock out a specific exemption and the lead record in the view took a different view holding that even if information falls within a specific exemption the court still make an independent determination as to whether disclosure would amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy we agree with the court in he leave the appellate court that it meaning this approach cannot be squared with the clear and unambiguous language of the statute that's what the school board is requesting here that under seven one b two the clear and unambiguous language of the statute be followed and  one last comment i did find section q and that relates to documents or materials relating to collective negotiating matters between public bodies and their employees or representatives and then says that the final collective bargaining agreement may be released and i was talking about an individual teachers contract that is signed that would be in a personnel file and if  that the inquiry that would be made by the trial court case number one zero seven one three nine to be taken under advice