Court Opinion

ID: 9861284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:51:58.022451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:56.388511
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring: I concur in the judgment of the court reversing the judgment of the circuit court of Will County. In doing so, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the school board was bound to comply with its own drug/alcohol abuse policy. There is nothing ambiguous about that policy, which provides that a first-time offender, even one accused of selling or distributing drugs, has the option of electing a treatment program in lieu of suspension. Parents were required to read and agree to the policy. I agree with the majority that while the school board was under no obligation to enact such a policy, once enacted, the school board was bound to five by it. See Lewis v. Hayes, 152 Ill. App. 3d 1020, 505 N.E.2d 408 (1987); Fernandes v. Nolen, 228 Ill. App. 3d 424, 592 N.E.2d 1151 (1992). I believe the school board’s failure to follow its own rules when disciplining this student, is dispositive of this appeal. I part company with the majority when it holds that this student was otherwise denied due process in the expulsion process. Kevin Camlin was aware that the proposed expulsion arose out of an incident involving marijuana at a school function on December 6, 2001. He was also aware that Mike Barton and Miguel Savalez were the other two individuals involved in this incident. Camlin’s parents were given a letter informing them of the charges and a hearing scheduled for January 24, 2002. The hearing was continued to January 31, 2002, in order to satisfy the Camlins’ request for additional time to locate legal counsel. The Camlins were advised to bring Kevin to the hearing. At the hearing, the Camlins appeared without legal counsel and without Kevin. Again, it strikes me that the Camlins may have been lulled into this conduct by virtue of the language of the school drug policy indicating that their son, as a first-time offender, would have the option of electing a drug treatment program. Therefore, my concurrence with the majority. However, but for the school drug policy issue, I do not believe that Kevin Camlin was denied due process. Minimum due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Comm’n, 139 Ill. 2d 24, 563 N.E.2d 465 (1990). It is not a denial of due process where a party fails to avail himself to that opportunity. People v. DeLuca, 302 Ill. App. 3d 454, 706 N.E.2d 927 (1998), citing Campbell v. Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board, 215 Ill. App. 3d 868, 576 N.E.2d 90 (1991). He was given the opportunity to appear, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present his own evidence. He failed to do so. While I cannot figure out exactly what the majority requires of a school district in an expulsion case, I believe the facts show that Kevin Camlin was aware of the nature of the charges against him, that being a drug-related incident involving himself, Mike Barton and Miguel Savalez on December 6, 2001. The expulsion hearing was even continued to allow the Camlins to obtain counsel. At the hearing, they not only failed to bring legal counsel, they failed to bring their son, Kevin Camlin. They did not cross-examine witnesses or present any evidence. The majority concludes that one can refuse to participate in a hearing and then complain that the hearing violated his due process rights. I respectfully disagree.