December 16, 2025 at 7:00 PM - Regular Meeting

1. Call to Order

2. Establish a Quorum

3. Pledge of Allegiance

4. Mission Statement
The mission of Norridge School District 80 is Inspiring Educational Excellence in a Nurturing Environment.

5. Celebrate the Success
   NSD 80 Preschool Program
   MTSS Momentum Award - Leigh School
   Extraordinary Educator Award

6. Action Item

6.A. Consider motion to approve the agenda as presented/modified

7. Recognition of Visitors

8. Correspondence

9. Public Participation (must sign in)

10. FOIA Request

Contracts, retainer agreements, fee agreements, or engagement letters between the district and the law firm of Robbins Schwartz and/or Franczek and/or any law firm from January 1, 2020 to present;
Invoices, bills, proformas, or payment records from Robbins Schwartz and/or Franczek and/or any law firm to the district or behalf of the district from January 1, 2020 to present;
Correspondence between the district and Robbins Schwartz and/or Franczek and/or any law firm regarding any matter not protected by attorney client privilege including but not limited to litigation, pre-litigation advice, or claim management from January 1, 2020 to present;
Contracts, retainer agreements, fee agreements, or engagement letters between the district and any law firm from January 1, 2020 to present;
Civil litigation case files, complaints, answers, motions, and pleadings in which the district was a party from January 1, 2020 to present;
Litigation guidelines and protocols from January 1, 2020 to present;
As a member of the media, I am involved in gathering and reporting news to the public. Access to public records is essential for me to fulfill my professional responsibilities, which include holding public institutions accountable and providing transparency to the public. Given my role in disseminating information, I believe I am eligible for a fee waiver as a media professional.
Please Note: The requestor is a member of The Coalition Opposing Governmental Secrecy, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Missouri Corporation which assists news media companies, publications, and public advocacy groups investigate state and federal governmental agencies and leverages Freedom of Information and Sunshine Laws to pull back the curtain on government actions and help inform the American electorate. For more information, please visit https://stopsecrecy.org/about/
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Max Binnington,

10.B. We received a request from Max Binnington on November 19, 2025: 
To whom it may concern,
I am a news reporter from Stop Secrecy , a media organization committed to providing comprehensive and accurate news coverage on local governmental affairs. I am requesting the following records under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140, preferably in electronic format:
Any contracts and/or RFPs related to risk-management and/or liability insurance.
As a member of the media, I am involved in gathering and reporting news to the public. Access to public records is essential for me to fulfill my professional responsibilities, which include holding public institutions accountable and providing transparency to the public. Given my role in disseminating information, I believe I am eligible for a fee waiver as a media professional.
Please Note: The requestor is a member of The Coalition Opposing Governmental Secrecy, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Missouri Corporation which assists news media companies, publications, and public advocacy groups investigate state and federal governmental agencies and leverages Freedom of Information and Sunshine Laws to pull back the curtain on government actions and help inform the American electorate. For more information, please visit https://stopsecrecy.org/about/
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Max Binnington

10.C. We received a request from Max Binnington on November 19, 2025: 
To whom it may concern,
I am a news reporter from Stop Secrecy , a media organization committed to providing comprehensive and accurate news coverage on local governmental affairs. I am requesting the following records under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140, preferably in electronic format:
Training materials regarding the investigation and handling of substantiated and/or unsubstantiated abuse and/or misconduct claims in effect from January 1, 2020 to present;
Training materials, presentations, and/or other documents regarding FOIA prepared and/or presented by the law firm of Robbins Schwartz and/or Franczek and/or any law firm from January 1, 2020 to present;
Evaluation materials used by the district or its personnel to assess potential claims related to sexual misconduct claims in effect from January 1, 2020 to present;
Policies or protocols for conducting investigations into abuse and misconduct allegations in the district in effect from January 1, 2020 to present.
As a member of the media, I am involved in gathering and reporting news to the public. Access to public records is essential for me to fulfill my professional responsibilities, which include holding public institutions accountable and providing transparency to the public. Given my role in disseminating information, I believe I am eligible for a fee waiver as a media professional.
Please Note: The requestor is a member of The Coalition Opposing Governmental Secrecy, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Missouri Corporation which assists news media companies, publications, and public advocacy groups investigate state and federal governmental agencies and leverages Freedom of Information and Sunshine Laws to pull back the curtain on government actions and help inform the American electorate. For more information, please visit https://stopsecrecy.org/about/
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Max Binnington

10.D. We received a request from Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on November 21, 2025: Hello,
This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W and I prefer to be referred to as such. I am writing this letter for the purpose of filing a FOIA request with Norridge School District 80. The basis for this records request is the biography generated by the Bing/MSN internet search engine (ISE) about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W. [i]
I) Requested Records
What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing your discussions about [1] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree graduate of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who (i) has never in the past contacted employees / legal representatives of Microsoft or the Bing/MSN search engine to solicit that they write and publish a “biography” of him; (ii) has on (or around) November 16th 2025 informed employees/legal representatives of Microsoft that the Bing/MSN internet search engine (ISE) (through the artificial intelligence powered Copilot) was generating a “biography” of him without his consent; (iii) has on (or around) November 16th 2025 informed employees/legal representatives of Microsoft that the Bing/MSN ISE (through the AI powered Copilot) was generating a “biography” of him without ever having asked for his input or authorization; (iv) has on (or around) November 16th 2025 informed employees/legal representatives of Microsoft that he objects to the Bing/MSN ISE associating his name with AI prompts (such as “michael ayele bio” and “michael ayele wiretap”) because of their tendency to generate inappropriate and misleading AI content that exacerbate racism and discrimination on the internet; (v) has on (or around) November 16th 2025 informed employees/legal representatives of Microsoft that he objects to the use of his name, his image, his likeness or written content as a trigger reference point for AI hallucination; [2] the Bing/MSN ISE as an artificial-intelligence-powered platform owned and operated by Microsoft that (i) has infringed on Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W’s right to publicity by generating an unsolicited and unauthorized “biography” of him through Copilot; (ii) has not contacted Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W at any time prior to November 16th 2025 to seek consent, verification or correction of the AI-generated “biography” and other content published in his regards; (iii) has associated Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W’s name with AI prompts (such as “michael ayele bio” and “michael ayele wiretap”) that he never authored, endorsed, or sought to have created; (iv) has allowed its Copilot AI system to generate content in ways that are factually incorrect, misleading, reductive and defamatory to the name, the image, the likeness and the published works of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W; (v) has not escalated Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W’s November 16th 2025 complaint to the internal divisions responsible for AI ethics, safety, and legal compliance — including the Office of Responsible AI (ORA), Copilot Control System, Microsoft Purview Compliance etc; [3] Paolo Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Company; [4]  Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v Topps Chewing Gum, Inc; [5] Warren Spahn v. Julian Messner; [6] Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics America; [7] the terms and conditions of the contractual agreements concluded between Norridge School District 80 and Microsoft Corporation for the use of their goods and services.  
II)        Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing
The facts presented in this request for a fee waiver and expedited processing will not bolster public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of Microsoft or the Bing/MSN search engine because they have [1] previously published a “biography” of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W without his consent or authorization; [2] very inappropriately handled the concerns Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W shared with them on (or around) November 16th 2025 about the Bing/MSN search engine generating a “biography” of him without any form of outreach, consent or authorization; [3] failed to appropriately escalate his November 16th 2025 complaint to the internal divisions responsible for AI ethics, safety, and legal compliance — including Copilot Control System, Microsoft Purview Compliance, the Office of Responsible AI etc.  
Historically, American jurisprudence has recognized that individuals possess legally protected rights in how others may use their name, their image, their likeness, and their identity.  Indeed, the Georgia Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the New York Court of Appeals, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have collectively held (between 1905 and 1993) that [1] people have a fundamental right to exclude others from using their name, their image and their likeness for commercial purposes without consent (Paolo Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Company); [2] the name, the image and the likeness of a person are property rights that cannot be exploited by others without permission (Haelan Laboratories, Inc v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc); [3] it’s unlawful to use the name, the likeness and the identity of a person for trade or commercial purposes without obtaining consent (Warren Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc); [4] a person’s right of publicity can be violated even without the direct use of a person’s name, image or voice (Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc); [5] an individual’s right of publicity is violated when others appropriate the identity of the individual without consent (Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc). 
In the context of modern AI systems capable of producing “biographical” content, the principles set in the above-mentioned landmark cases are more relevant than ever before because AI hallucination is a well-documented phenomenon that routinely results in false, misleading, racially biased, and stigmatizing characterizations of people — thereby amplifying historical patterns of discrimination under the guise of algorithmic objectivity. In other words, when an AI system generates and publishes a biography about a living person without consent, input, notice, or accuracy safeguards, it is appropriating identity in violation of established law. Furthermore, that AI system which has generated and published the biography of a living person will very likely have reproduced and exacerbated racist, sexist, and defamatory stereotypes at scale.
The public has a compelling and legitimate interest in this information because:
1)  The requested records will shed light on how Microsoft’s AI-powered search systems (such as Bing and Copilot) generate content about people by writing and publishing unauthorized “biographies” about them.
2)  The requested records will shed light on how Microsoft’s AI-powered search systems (such as Bing and Copilot) generate content about people by writing and publishing unsolicited “biographies” about them.
3)  The requested records will help the public to understand if government agencies were aware of Microsoft’s AI powered search systems ability to generate “biographical” content of people without obtaining the consent of the individual in question.
4)  The requested records will help the public to understand if government agencies have previously discussed “biographical” content generated by Microsoft’s AI powered search engines without the personal authorization of the individual in question.
5)  The requested records will help the public to understand if government agencies have previously discussed “biographical” content written and published by Microsoft’s AI that have contributed and participated to the defamation of people.
6)  The requested records will help the public to understand if government agencies have previously discussed “biographical” content written and published by Microsoft’s AI powered search engines that have infringed on people’s right to publicity.
7)  The requested records will help the public to understand if government agencies have previously discussed “biographical” content written and published by Microsoft’s AI that have exacerbated racism and discrimination on the internet.
For these reasons expedited processing is justified because:
1)  Microsoft’s AI-powered search systems have in Calendar Year 2025 begun to generate content about people by publishing unauthorized “biographies” about them.
2)  Microsoft’s AI powered search systems are generating “biographical” content of people without obtaining the consent of the individual in question.
3)  Microsoft’s AI powered search systems are generating “biographical” content of people by infringing on individuals’ rights to publicity.
4)  Microsoft’s AI powered search systems are generating “biographical” content of people by exacerbating racism and discrimination on the internet.
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare all the statements I have made to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Be well. Stay well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W

10.E. We received a request from Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on December 3, 2025: Hello,
This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W and I prefer to be referred to as such. I am writing this letter for the purpose of filing a FOIA request with Norridge School District 80. The basis for this FOIA request is the February 2025 complaint filed by Ella Stapleton demanding a tuition refund from Northeastern University (Boston, Massachusetts).[i]
I)  Requested Records
What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing your discussions about [1] Ella Stapleton as a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree graduate of Northeastern University (Boston, Massachusetts) who (i) had in the 2025 – 2026 Spring Semester taken an “Organizational Behavior” class to satisfy the necessary prerequisite to earn a business minor; (ii) was at the very beginning of her “Organizational Behavior” class informed that the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for academic purposes was strictly prohibited; (iii) had in the month of February 2025 noticed that Northeastern University was enabling its faculty members to adopt a “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude with regards to the use of AI; (iv) has in the month of February 2025 filed a complaint (with her alma mater) demanding a tuition refund from Northeastern University for the many double standards she witnessed on matters related to the use of AI as well as academic integrity; [2] Northeastern University as a postsecondary academic institution (i) which had in the 2025 – 2026 academic year approved, supervised and exercised oversight over the “Organizational Behavior” class Ella Stapleton needed to graduate with a business minor; (ii) that would most likely have imposed harsh disciplinary sanctions upon undergraduate students if they had used AI for academic purposes; (iii) which was between the months of February and May 2025 reminded by Ella Stapleton that the failure to impose sanctions and disciplinary measures upon faculty members who use AI would constitute an unacceptable form of double standard that legitimizes selective policing in higher education; (iv) which has in the month of May 2025 contacted Ella Stapleton (a day after she graduated) to inform her that they would not impose any sanctions or disciplinary measures upon faculty members who had used AI; (v) which has in the month of May 2025 contacted Ella Stapleton (within 48 hours of her graduation) to inform her that they would not be issuing her a tuition refund for the double standards she had witnessed and shed light upon at her alma mater; (vi) which has in response to Ella Stapleton’s complaint retroactively changed policies on the use of AI in academic settings; (vii) which has (during the processing of Ella Stapleton complaint) exhibited cognitive dissonance between their professed commitments to equal treatment and the double standards they have codified to legitimize selective policing in higher education; [3] the term “cognitive dissonance” being defined as a “state of mental discomfort that occurs when a person holds beliefs or opinions that are inconsistent, or that conflict with an aspect of their behavior;” [4] the policy(ies) implemented by your school district with regards to the use of AI in academic settings; [5] Melissa Jennings v UNC; [6] Christine Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools; [7] Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education.
II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing
The facts presented in my records request do/will demonstrate that [1] Ella Stapleton is a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree graduate of Northeastern University (Boston, Massachusetts) who (i) had in the 2025 – 2026 Spring Semester taken an “Organizational Behavior” class to satisfy the necessary prerequisite to earn a business minor; (ii) was at the very beginning of her “Organizational Behavior” class informed that the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for academic purposes was strictly prohibited; (iii) has in the month of February 2025 noticed that Northeastern University was enabling its faculty members to adopt a “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude with regards to the use of AI; (iv) had in the month of February 2025 filed a complaint (with her alma mater) demanding a tuition refund from Northeastern University for the many double standards she witnessed on matters related to the use of AI as well as academic integrity; [2] Northeastern University is a postsecondary academic institution (i) which had in the 2025 – 2026 academic year approved, supervised and exercised oversight over the “Organizational Behavior” class Ella Stapleton needed to graduate with a business minor; (ii) that would most likely have imposed harsh disciplinary sanctions upon undergraduate students if they had used AI for academic purposes; (iii) which was between the months of February and May 2025 reminded by Ella Stapleton that the failure to impose sanctions and disciplinary measures upon faculty members who use AI would constitute an unacceptable form of double standards that legitimizes selective policing in higher education; (iv) which has in the month of May 2025 contacted Ella Stapleton (within 48 hours of her graduation) to inform her that they would not impose any sanctions or disciplinary measures upon faculty members who had used AI; (v) which has in the month of May 2025 contacted Ella Stapleton (within 48 hours of her graduation) to inform her that they would not be issuing her a tuition refund for the double standards she had witnessed and shed light upon at her alma mater; (vi) which has in response to Ella Stapleton’s complaint retroactively changed policies on the use of AI in academic settings; (vii) which has (during the processing of Ella Stapleton complaint) exhibited cognitive dissonance between their professed commitments to equal treatment and the double standards they have codified to legitimize selective policing in higher education; [3] the term “cognitive dissonance” is defined as a “state of mental discomfort that occurs when a person holds beliefs or opinions that are inconsistent, or that conflict with an aspect of their behavior;” [4]  Melissa Jennings v UNC is case law that is cited for the principle that (i) complaints filed by female undergraduate students should be taken seriously (by American colleges and universities) when they involve provocative conduct that create hostile environments; (ii) it’s unlawful to harass and provoke female undergraduate students in academic settings; [5] Christine Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools is case law that is cited for the principle that female students may obtain monetary relief if they are ever subjected to incidents of chauvinism, misogyny and sexism in academic settings; [6] Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education is case law that is cited for the principle that it’s unlawful to retaliate against people (i) who espouse anti-racist and anti-sexist convictions; (ii) participate in demonstrations opposing racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.
In my judgment, the facts presented in my request for a fee waiver and expedited processing will not bolster public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of Northeastern University because of the manner in which they have processed the complaint filed by Ella Stapleton in the month of February 2025.
At the time Ella Stapleton filed a complaint with Northeastern University (in February 2025), she had a very reasonable expectation that her alma mater would [1] issue severe disciplinary reprimands upon any undergraduate student who used AI for academic purposes; [2] have a zero-tolerance policy for double standards that enabled faculty members to use AI for academic purposes while at the same time prohibiting undergraduate students from doing the same; [3] impose meaningful sanctions upon the faculty member who used AI (while telling undergraduate students not to use AI); [4] reimburse her tuition money to avoid the appearance of selective policing in higher education; [5] recognize that faculty use of AI  – while barring undergraduate students from doing so – constitutes a form of provocation that creates a hostile academic environment; [6] process her complaint in accordance with the legal principles set in Melissa Jennings v UNC which held that (i) complaints filed by female undergraduate students should be taken seriously when they involve provocative conduct that create hostile environments; (ii) it’s unlawful to harass and provoke female undergraduate students in academic settings; [7] would not exhibit any cognitive dissonance between their professed commitments to equal treatment and double standards that legitimize selective policing.
Most frequently, during college and university graduation ceremonies, a keynote speaker is invited to inspire undergraduate students to apply the skills and knowledge they have gained “into the real world,” encouraging them to trust their intuitions, uphold their values, and demand fairness in the institutions they engage with. However, Ella Stapleton’s experience with Northeastern University makes a mockery of that traditional message. Indeed, instead of being met with the message that integrity matters and that postsecondary academic institutions are accountable for the standards they impose, Ella Stapleton was contacted within 48 hours of wearing her cap and gown (and accepting her Bachelor’s Degree) to be told that her legitimate complaint would lead to no substantive actions, no sanctions and no remedy (in the form of a refund). What makes Northeastern University’s response even more perturbing is that after enforcing a strict zero-tolerance policy for the use of AI in academic settings during the very semester she took her “Organizational Behavior” class, the university then retroactively revised its policy – only after her complaint was filed – to say that AI use is permissible so long as proper attribution is provided. For me, this abrupt policy reversal constituted a capricious retroactive decision deliberately intended not to address the issues Ella Stapleton raised in her complaint. When Northeastern University reached out to Ella Stapleton the day after her graduation to inform her that no sanctions would be imposed and that no refund would be issued, they communicated an unwillingness to confront double standards that legitimize selective policing in higher education. In my opinion, this sequence of events (as reported by the New York Times May 14th 2025 article) undermined public confidence in Northeastern University’s commitment to equal treatment because it gave the appearance that the institution prioritized administrative convenience over accountability that is neither arbitrary nor capricious. 
The public has a compelling and legitimate interest in this information because:
1)    The requested records will significantly contribute to public understanding of how a federally funded post-secondary academic institution (Northeastern University) developed, implemented, and selectively enforced its policies on AI and academic integrity.
2)  The requested records will significantly contribute to public understanding of the double standards that arise when postsecondary academic institutions prohibit students from engaging in specific conduct – such as the use of AI for academic purposes – while enabling or excusing the same conduct among faculty and administrators.
3)  The requested records will significantly contribute to public understanding of how American colleges and universities are integrating AI into academic practices without enabling discriminatory or inconsistent standards, particularly where male faculty members are permitted to use AI in circumstances where female undergraduate students would be punished for doing the same. 
4)  As previously noted, Northeastern University is a federally funded postsecondary academic institution, and the public is entitled to understand whether it maintains consistent, non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary policies when it comes to the use of AI.
5)   The requested records will significantly contribute to public understanding of the policies your school district has implemented with regards to the use of AI in academic settings.
Expedited processing is justified because:
1)    The facts surrounding Ella Stapleton’s complaint directly implicate issues of equal treatment in higher education, particularly the enforcement of academic integrity rules that appear to be applied more aggressively toward undergraduate students than faculty members. A postsecondary academic institution’s willingness (or unwillingness) to address such double standards is a matter of public concern.
2)  The handling of Ella Stapleton’s complaint raises concerns about selective policing in higher education.
3)  The handling of Ella Stapleton’s complaint raises concerns about the very strong likelihood that female undergraduate students who report misconduct or policy violations are not taken seriously by their alma mater. This is directly relevant to public confidence in institutional accountability, especially where the conduct resembles the type of provocative, hostile and unequal treatment identified in Melissa Jennings v. UNC.
4)  The decision of Northeastern University to contact Ella Stapleton the day after her graduation indicates deliberate administrative choices that sought delays rather than confronting double standards and selective policing in higher education. This has implications for campus culture, academic fairness, and the deterrence of retaliatory practices.
Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare all the statements I have made to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Be well. Stay well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W

To whom it may concern,I am a news reporter from Stop Secrecy, a media organization committed to providing comprehensive and accurate news coverage on local governmental affairs.I am making this request on behalf of ClearFront Alliance and Parents Care, working in coordination with The Coalition Opposing Governmental Secrecy (COGS) - aka Stop Secrecy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to government transparency. I am requesting the following records under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140, preferably in electronic format:
Documents identifying the individuals (administrators, Title IX coordinators, or other personnel) responsible for investigating misconduct allegations directed at students from January 1, 2020 to present;
Verified, unverified, substantiated, and/or unsubstantiated sexual abuse allegations against district employees, volunteers, or contractors from January 1, 2020 to present, including initial reports, investigative summaries, and final determinations;
Substantiated and unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations involving students or minors on district property or at district-sponsored events from January 1, 2020 to present;
Internal investigation reports related to sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, or sexual assault claims, whether reported or not from January 1, 2020 to present;
As a member of the media, I am involved in gathering and reporting news to the public. Access to public records is essential for me to fulfill my professional responsibilities, which include holding public institutions accountable and providing transparency to the public. Given my role in disseminating information, I believe I am eligible for a fee waiver as a media professional.
Please Note: The requestor is a member of The Coalition Opposing Governmental Secrecy, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Missouri Corporation which assists news media companies, publications, and public advocacy groups investigate state and federal governmental agencies and leverages Freedom of Information and Sunshine Laws to pull back the curtain on government actions and help inform the American electorate. For more information, please visit https://stopsecrecy.org/about/
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Max Binnington

10.G. We received a request from Max Binnington on December 8, 2025: 
To whom it may concern,
I am a news reporter from Judiciocracy, a media organization committed to providing comprehensive and accurate news coverage on local governmental affairs.
We are not only writing on behalf of Judiciocracy LLC but also our affiliate organization the Coalition Opposing Governmental Secrecy. We are requesting the following records under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140, preferably in electronic format:
Pre-litigation settlements related to abuse, misconduct, discrimination, or harassment claims from January 1, 2020 to present;
Settlement agreements resulting from litigation, including confidential settlements and releases of liability from January 1, 2020 to present;
Demand letters, mediation summaries, or settlement negotiations from January 1, 2020 to present;
Reports, spreadsheets, databases, or summaries showing uniform grievances and investigations conducted for the district by outside law firms, including the number of investigations, nature of allegations, and outcomes from January 1, 2020 to present;
Claim files maintained by the district for incidents, including incident reports, witness statements, and investigative notes from January 1, 2020 to present;
Documents related to Workers Compensation claims filed by district employees from January 1, 2020 to present.
As a member of the media, I am involved in gathering and reporting news to the public. Access to public records is essential for me to fulfill my professional responsibilities, which include holding public institutions accountable and providing transparency to the public. Given my role in disseminating information, I believe I am eligible for a fee waiver as a media professional.
Please Note: The requestor is a member of The Coalition Opposing Governmental Secrecy, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Missouri Corporation which assists news media companies, publications, and public advocacy groups investigate state and federal governmental agencies and leverages Freedom of Information and Sunshine Laws to pull back the curtain on government actions and help inform the American electorate. For more information, please visit https://stopsecrecy.org/about/
Please let us know if you have any questions not answered on COGS’ website, or by contacting COGS’ attorneys whose contact information can be found at FOIASolved.com (a division of LegalSolved LLC).
Attorney for
Judiciocracy LLC
Judiciocracy.com
Max Binnington

11. Presentations

11.A. Hall Pass System at Giles 

11.B. Norridge School District 80 Facility Plan and Summer 2026 Work Review

12. Administrative Reports

12.A. Superintendent - Mrs. Guzik

12.B. Special Education - Mr. Masters

12.C. Building Reports

12.C.1. Giles School - Mr. Biedke

12.C.2. Leigh School - Dr. Rabiola 

12.D. Discipline Reports

12.D.1. Giles - Mrs. Gulo

12.D.2. Leigh - Mr. Preble

13. Board Committees

13.A. Education

13.B. Board Policy Development 

13.C. Buildings and Grounds

13.D. Behavioral Intervention

13.E. Negotiations and Human Resources

13.F. Finance

13.F.1. 2025 Tax Levy for Norridge School District 80

13.G. Communications

13.H. Norridge Park District

14. Discussion Items

15. Consent Agenda

15.A. Consider approval of Board minutes

15.A.1. November 18, 2025 Board of Education Regular Meeting Minutes

15.A.2. October 21, 2025 Board of Education Closed Meeting Minutes

15.B. Consider approval of Board Policies: 7:15, 7:20, 7:40, 7:60, 7:70, 7:100, 7:140, 7:170, 7:180, 7:190, and 7:250 with district updates

15.C. Consider approval of NSD 80 Organizational Chart 

15.D. Consider approval of a donation from the Norridge Schools Foundation for student project materials 

15.E. Consider approval of non-public school placement agreement with Winston Knolls Education Group

15.F. Consider approval of payment of monthly bills (listing of bills $3000.00 and over):

16. Action Items

16.A. Consider approval of the Resolution authorizing a supplemental tax levy to pay the principal of and interest on outstanding limited bonds of the District 

16.B. Consider approval of the 2025 Tax Levy Resolution and Certificate of the Tax Levy

16.C. Consider approval of the Resolution to Levy 2025 Taxes for Certain Purposes

16.D. Consider approval of the Resolution to Instruct the County Clerk How to Appropriate 2025 Tax Levy Extension Reduction

16.E. Consider acceptance of the FY25 District Audit and Annual Finance Report 

16.F. Consider approval of the revised bid proposal for structural work at Giles School for the summer of 2026

16.G. Consider approval of Illinois State Maintenance Grant for tuckpointing at Giles School

17. Board Comments

18. Closed Session
Consider the motion to adjourn to closed session to discuss the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1), Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(2), Student disciplinary cases 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(9), and review of closed session minutes 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(14)

19. Action Items

19.A. Consider approval of Memorandum of Agreement with the Norridge Education Association of Teachers for LNAC Tournament Supervision

20. Personnel Action Items

20.A. Employment 

20.A.1. Consider approval of Aundrea Milecki, Giles School Seventh/Eighth Grade ELA Teacher

21. Adjournment