February 17, 2026 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

5.A. District Spelling Bee and Illinois Art Award Finalists

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 Requests

10.A. We received a request from Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on January 6, 2026: 
Hello,
This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. I am writing this letter for the purpose of filing a FOIA request with Norridge School District 80. The bases for this records request are [1] the provisions of Illinois consent education codified in 105 ILCS 5/27 – 1010 [i] and [2] the Department of Education (DoED) processing of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that had been assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F.
I) Requested Records
What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing your discussions about [1] Section 27 – 1010 of the Illinois code enabling school districts to provide age and developmentally appropriate consent education in kindergarten through the 12th grade; [2] the commitment made by your school district to educate students in kindergarten through the 12th grade on what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships; [3] the instructional materials used by your school district to educate students in kindergarten through the 12th grade on what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships; [4] the Department of Education (DoED) as a federal agency of the United States government which has on (or around) February 16th 2021 processed the FOIA request they had assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F by (i) refusing to deny that Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was 18 (eighteen) years of age (in the month of January 2010) when he was for the first time of his life informed what constitutes affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relationships on the campus of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri); (ii) refusing to deny that Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was (in the month of January 2010) told of the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery before being informed what constitutes affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relationships; (iii) refusing to deny that American colleges and universities that receive Title IX funding have a legal obligation to inform their freshmen undergraduate students what constitutes affirmative and effective consent at the very beginning of their undergraduate academic career; (iv) refusing to deny that American colleges and universities that receive Title IX funding have a legal obligation to inform their freshmen undergraduate students of the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; (v) confirming to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they’ve previously held conversations with Lehigh University on Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student between August 1985 and April 1986;  (vi) informing Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that their search for responsive records located 1,456 (one thousand four hundred and fifty-six) pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University between August 1985 and April 1986; (vii) informing Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they would redact all 1,456 pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University between August 1985 and April 1986; [5] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree graduate of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who has witnessed his written publications paradoxically being subjected to frenzy before they were filtered and distorted on search engines (ISE) such as AOL, Bing/MSN, Google and Yahoo following his decision to recognize that the DoED have processed the FOIA request they had assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F by (i) refusing to deny that American colleges and universities that receive Title IX funding have a legal obligation to inform their freshmen undergraduate students what constitutes affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relationships at the very beginning of their undergraduate academic career; (ii) refusing to deny that American colleges and universities that receive Title IX funding have a legal obligation to inform their freshmen undergraduate students of the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Clery; (iii) informing him that their search for responsive records had located 1,456 pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University; (iv) informing him that they would withhold and redact all 1,456 pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University; [ii] [6] the decision of the AOL and Bing/MSN ISE to filter and distort Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W’s review of the circumstances that led to the enactment of the Jeanne Clery Act by generating unwelcome and unapproved prompts (such as “michael ayele jeanne clery,” “michael ayele fbi,” “michael ayele cia,” “michael ayele death penalty,” “michael ayele wikipedia,” ) that trigger artificial intelligence (AI) hallucination and misinformation.  
II)Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing  
The requested records do/will demonstrate that [1] Section 27 – 1010 of the Illinois code enables school districts to provide age and developmentally appropriate consent education in kindergarten through the 12th grade; [2] the Department of Education (DoED) is a federal agency of the United States government which has on (or around) February 16th 2021 processed the FOIA request they had assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F by (i) refusing to deny that Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was 18 (eighteen) years of age in the month of January 2010 when he was for the first time of his life informed what constitutes affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relationships on the campus of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri); (ii) refusing to deny that Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was (in the month of January 2010) told of the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery before being informed what constitutes affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relationships; (iii) refusing to deny that American colleges and universities that receive Title IX funding have a legal obligation to inform their freshmen undergraduate students what constitutes affirmative and effective consent at the very beginning of their undergraduate academic career; (iv) refusing to deny that American colleges and universities that receive Title IX funding have a legal obligation to inform their freshmen undergraduate students of the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; (v) confirming to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they’ve previously held conversations with Lehigh University on Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student between August 1985 and April 1986;  (vi) informing Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that their search for responsive records located 1,456 (one thousand four hundred and fifty-six) pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University between August 1985 and April 1986; (vii) informing Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they would redact all 1,456 pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University between August 1985 and April 1986; [3] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree graduate of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who has witnessed his written publications paradoxically being subjected to frenzy before they were filtered and distorted on search engines such as AOL, Bing/MSN, Google and Yahoo following his decision to recognize that the DoED have processed the FOIA request they had assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F by (i) refusing to deny that American colleges and universities that receive Title IX funding have a legal obligation to inform their freshmen undergraduate students what constitutes affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relationships at the very beginning of their undergraduate academic career; (ii) refusing to deny that American colleges and universities that receive Title IX funding have a legal obligation to inform their freshmen undergraduate students of the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Clery; (iii) informing him that their search for responsive records had located 1,456 pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University; (iv) informing him that they would redact all 1,456 pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University.
If truth be told, 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 internet search engines (ISE) such as AOL, Bing/MSN, Google and Yahoo because they have previously filtered and distorted Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W’s review of the circumstances that led to the enactment of the Jeanne Clery Act by generating unwelcome and unapproved prompts (such as “michael ayele jeanne clery,” “michael ayele fbi,” “michael ayele cia,” “michael ayele death penalty,” “michael ayele wikipedia,”) that trigger artificial intelligence (AI) hallucination and misinformation.[iii] Additionally, 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 the DoED because of their processing of the FOIA request they had assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F.  As you are very likely aware, the case of Jeanne Clery’s rape and murder is officially closed, and the perpetrator of that rape and murder (Josoph Henry) is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.[iv] Therefore, members of the general public – including representatives of the media and myself – are entitled under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain records from closed cases. However, in my prior correspondence with the DoED, legal representatives of this federal government agency have on (or around) February 16th 2021 informed me (personally) that [1] they had located 1,456 pages of responsive records pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University (between August 1985 and April 05th 1986); [2] they would withhold all 1,456 pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University between August 1985 and April 05th 1986.  
Given that the case of Jeanne Ann Clery rape and murder is officially closed, and that the perpetrator of that rape and murder (Josoph Henry) is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole, the decision of the DOED to cite 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) and § 552(b)(7)(C) in order to justify the blanket withholding of all responsive records for the FOIA request that had been assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F was very inappropriate. On my end, I would like to stress that Exemption (b)(7)(A) applies only to open cases where disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation, but as previously noted, the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery is a closed case, and the DoED has not identified—nor could it plausibly identify—any ongoing enforcement proceeding that disclosure of these records would interfere with (decades later). Likewise, even though Exemption (b)(7)(C) protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy, it does not authorize categorical withholding, particularly where records concern historical events (such as the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery) that are being taught in American colleges and universities to freshmen undergraduate students. In brief, FOIA was enacted to permit members of the public/representatives of the media to scrutinize how federal agencies have acted after the fact, and the invocation of law-enforcement exemptions to shield an entire closed case from review violates that statutory purpose.
On a personal level, I am thoroughly convinced that the DoED invocation of Exemption (b)(7)(c) was illegitimate [for the FOIA request that had been assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F] because the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery is routinely taught to undergraduate students during their freshman year as part of a federally mandated instruction on campus safety, consent, and institutional responsibility. Given that the Jeanne Clery case is incorporated into undergraduate curricula and used by colleges and universities as a foundational example for why disclosure laws, consent education, and crime reporting requirements exist, the DoED should not be treating inquiries into the Jeanne Clery Act as too “sensitive” to permit meaningful public access to government records. As previously mentioned, the Jeanne Clery case is the focal point that serves to inform undergraduate students what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships. Therefore, the DoED has a duty to be (without prejudice) forthcoming to inquiries that seek to shed light on the circumstances that led to the enactment of the Jeanne Clery Act, whether such inquiry is made by a current domestic undergraduate student or a former international student similarly situated to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W [who incidentally was in the month of January 2010, at the age of 18 informed about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery before being told what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships].
The public has a compelling and legitimate interest in this information because:
1)Section 27 – 1010 of the Illinois code enables school districts to provide age and developmentally appropriate consent education in kindergarten through the 12th grade. In kindergarten through the 5th grade, instruction and materials include age and developmentally appropriate instruction on consent and how to give and receive consent, including a discussion that includes, but is not limited to setting appropriate physical boundaries with others, the right to refuse to engage in behaviors or activities that are uncomfortable or unsafe. In the 6th through 12th grade, instruction and materials include age and developmentally appropriate instruction on consent and how to give and receive consent, including a discussion that includes, but is not limited to that consent (i) is a freely given agreement to sexual activity; (ii) to one particular sexual activity does not constitute consent to other types of sexual activities.   
2)The Department of Education (DoED) has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F refused to deny that American colleges and universities (in receipt of Title IX funding) have a legal obligation to inform their undergraduate students (at the very beginning of their undergraduate academic career) about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery.
3) The DoED has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F refused to deny that American colleges and universities (in receipt of Title IX funding) have a legal obligation to inform their undergraduate students (at the very beginning of their undergraduate academic career) what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships.
4) The DoED has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F explicitly informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they’ve held conversations with Lehigh University about Jeanne Ann Clery’s time as an undergraduate student (at that university) between August 1985 and April 05th 1986.
5) The DoED has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F explicitly informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that their search for responsive records located 1,456 (one thousand four hundred and fifty-six) pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Ann Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University between August 1985 and April 05th 1986.
6)    The DoED has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F explicitly informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they were going to redact all 1,456 pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Ann Clery’s time as an undergraduate student at Lehigh University between August 1985 and April 05th 1986.
7)    There are many local law enforcement (LLE) agencies that have concluded memorandum of understandings (MOU) with American colleges and universities citing the Jeanne Clery Act.
8)    There are many LLE agencies that have concluded memorandum of agreements (MOA) with American colleges and universities citing the Jeanne Clery Act.
Expedited processing of this records request is justified because:
1)    The Jeanne Clery case has become the focal point that serves to inform undergraduate students what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships.
2)    The Jeanne Clery case raises questions about American colleges and universities obligations pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.
3)    The Jeanne Clery case raises questions about whether Lehigh University was informing its undergraduate students what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” beginning Calendar Year 1973 following the enactment of the Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.
4)    The Jeanne Clery case raises questions about whether Lehigh University had informed Josoph Henry what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships at the time he was an undergraduate student at that university.
5)    The Jeanne Clery case raises questions about whether American colleges and universities were informing their undergraduate students what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” beginning Calendar Year 1973 following the enactment of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.
6)    The Jeanne Clery case raises questions about the legal obligations of American colleges and universities to unequivocally and unconditionally condemn violence committed against women irrespective of the woman racial background, sexual orientation, national origin, religious affiliation and/or disability status.
7)    The Jeanne Clery case raises questions about the circumstances that led to the enactment of the Jeanne Clery Act.
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.

10.B. We received a request from Brendan Hammond on January 15, 2026: 
Pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140 et seq., I hereby request electronic copies of:
All communications from the time period of January 1, 2017 to present—including any public records requests, and any responses or records produced in response thereto between Norridge SD 80 and (i) the law firm Bruster PLLC or anyone acting on Bruster PLLC’s behalf; (ii) the law firm the Bruno Firm or anyone acting on the Bruno Firm’s behalf; (iii) the law firm Nix Patterson, LLP or anyone acting on Nix Patterson, LLP’s behalf; or (iv) Ethan Fieldman or anyone acting on Mr. Fieldman’s behalf.
This is not a commercial request. Accordingly, please respond within 5 business days, or notify me if the District needs to extend the response deadline by up to 5 additional days, pursuant to 5 ILCS 140/3.
This request includes a pre-authorization to incur costs of up to $500. Please let me know your preferred method of payment, if payment is necessary. If your fees will exceed $500, please inform me first.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
 

10.C. We received a request from Leonard Brahin on February 3, 2026: 
Pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140 et seq., I hereby request electronic copies of: 2)Any records from the time period of July 21, 2015 to present concerning the price(s) at which one or more copies of “MTH16 CC SE 1YR SUB + DCW 1YR LIC GR.5” ISBN 9780328847563, were offered or sold to Norridge School District 80 or to any other school district in Illinois.  
This is not a commercial request. Accordingly, please respond within 5 business days, or notify me if the District needs to extend the response deadline by up to 5 additional days, pursuant to 5 ILCS 140/3.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

10.D. We received a request from CT Mills on February 3, 2026:
Dear FOIA Officer,
Pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq., I am requesting copies of any existing records that describe purchasing or contracting approval authority within your School District.
Specifically, please provide records, policies, schedules, or tables that identify:
Dollar thresholds requiring approval by school administrators (e.g., principals)
Dollar thresholds requiring approval by central office staff or department leadership
Dollar thresholds requiring approval by the superintendent or designee
Dollar thresholds requiring approval by the board of education
If approval thresholds differ by category (for example, instructional materials, instructional technology, software, professional services, or consulting), please include records reflecting those distinctions.
Please note: I am not requesting the creation of any new records. This request is limited to existing records only. If no such records exist, please confirm that in writing.
If any of the requested records are already publicly available, a link or citation to their location would be sufficient.
This request is being made for non-commercial purposes.

10.F. We received a request from Michael Henry on February 10,2026:
See attached court filing Cook County Court Hearing Friday Feb 13, 2026  10 AM we are seeking to Void the  Levy as being Illegal for failure to vet the Board ,  and If you claim it is not your duty to do background checks please provide the specific  information the District used to verify and determine its school Board Members are not sex offenders, reside in the District, registered to vote they are a US Citizen and over the age of 18.
Background Checks (Employees/Staff/School Board Members): Illinois law requires school districts, not county clerks, to conduct all checks on potential employees and student teachers, and Board Members, for Employees/Staff of schools  this includes fingerprint-based checks through the Illinois State Police and FBI, as well as sex offender registry checks.  
Qualifications: Eligibility to serve on a school board is generally determined by residency, age, and voter registration, rather than a pre-candidacy criminal background investigation.
School Districts must verify and keep Documentation on each School Board Member
Please provide documents and procedures how the District verifies and determines its school Board Members are not sex offenders, reside in the District, registered to vote
They are a US Citizen and over the age of 18.
I specifically want the Documents that the District used to establish that the person who was elected to be a school Board Member Meets the Legal Requirements and what the District used to  establish the person who was sworn into Office as a School Board member net the following Legal Requirements.
Please Provide Documentation on each of the Following for each School Board Member From January 1, 2010 Thru Present.
Background: Must not be a prohibited child sex offender. [1, 2]
Residency: Must reside in the district for at least one year.
Age and Citizenship: Must be 18+ and a US citizen.
Registration: Must be a registered voter.
Ineligibility: Convicted felons, child sex offenders, and those holding incompatible offices (such as school trustees or certain state/federal employment) are ineligible

10.G. We received a request from Oshea Smith on February 11, 2026: 
Dear Records Officer,
I hope you are doing well. Thank you for your time and for the work you do.
Pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140), I respectfully request copies of the most recent contracts, agreements, amendments, and renewals by Norridge School District 80 from January 1, 2020 through January 29, 2026 in connection with the following vendors:
-Mastery Prep
-Albert.io
-IXL
-Edgenuity
-Khan Academy
-Jumpstart
-Texas College Bridge
-Kaplan
-Princeton Review
-Uworld
-Cambridge Educational Services
-Schmoop
-Texas College Bridge
-Progress Learning
-HMH (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)
If any part of this request is withheld, please provide the specific statutory exemption and release all non-exempt portions.
This commercial request seeks existing records—like purchase orders or similar data (date, amount, vendor, etc.)—to analyze public-sector purchasing trends. The requester is open to alternative formats and agency suggestions.
Thank you again for your time and assistance, and please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
Reference #: FR:4742
Oshea Smith

10.H. We received a request from Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on February 13, 2026: 
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 non-commercial records request is the very gross mishandling of the sexual misconduct complaints filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen when they were both undergraduate students of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) in Calendar Year 2021.[i]
I) Requested Records
What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing your discussions about [1] the Department of Education (DoED) as a federal agency of the United States government which had in the month of June 2002 published on its official website a portable document file (PDF) explaining that (i) the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) enables the disclosure of students’ academic and disciplinary records in various circumstances; (ii) the Jeanne Clery Act of 1990 enabled “postsecondary institutions” to be forthcoming with “the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by the institution against the alleged perpetrator of the crime, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding” particularly to an alleged victim of any crime of violence (as defined in U.S Code Title 18, § 16); (iii) the 1998 Higher Education Amendments enabled “postsecondary institutions” to be forthcoming with “the final results of any disciplinary proceeding for a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense to anyone, including members of the general public, if the institution determines that the student committed a violation of its rules or policies with respect to the crime;” [ii] [2] Danielle Villareal as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) who (i) was named on the Dean’s List of Hillsdale College in the first two semesters of her freshman year; (ii) was on (or around) August 29th 2021 raped on campus when she was a full-time sophomore student; (iii) was retaliated upon following her decision to file a complaint against the sexual abuse she suffered on (or around) August 29th 2021; (iv) has made the decision to transfer to Vanderbilt University after Hillsdale College violated the provisions of FERPA by refusing to provide to her “the final results of the disciplinary proceeding” the individual who raped her was not held to account for; (v) has begun to experience depression, post-traumatic stress as well as sleep disorders following the sexual assault she was the victim of on (or around) August 29th 2021; (vi) has experienced difficulty functioning at the optimal levels she used to prior to being raped on (or around) August 29th 2021; (vii) may never again function at the optimal levels she used to as a direct consequence of the rape she was subjected on (or around) August 29th 2021; [3] Grace Chen as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College who (i) was on (or around) November 22nd 2021 raped on the campus of Hillsdale College when she was a freshman; (ii) was retaliated upon following her decision to file a complaint against the sexual abuse she suffered on (or around) November 22nd 2021; (iii) had on (or around) April 09th 2022 sent an email to Rebekah Dell wherein she demanded to be provided with a “formal written investigation report” for what she went through on (or around) November 22nd 2021 at Hillsdale College; (iv) has taken the decision to graduate from Hillsdale College with a Bachelor’s Degree even after Hillsdale College violated the provisions of FERPA by refusing to provide to her “the final results of the disciplinary proceeding” the individual who raped her was not held to account for; [4] the term “bystander intervention” being defined in federal regulations implementing the 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as (i) “safe and positive options that may be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;” (ii)  the ability to “understand institutional structures and cultural conditions that facilitate violence;” [5] Bob Jones University v. United States; [6] Haines v. Kerner; [7] Johnson v. City of Shelby.
II)Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing     
The public has a compelling and legitimate interest in this information because:
1.    The State of Illinois had on (or around) January 24th 2013 enacted legislation that enabled school districts to provide age and developmentally appropriate consent education in kindergarten through the 12th grade. In kindergarten through the 5th grade, instruction and materials include age and developmentally appropriate instruction on consent and how to give and receive consent, including a discussion that includes, but is not limited to setting appropriate physical boundaries with others, the right to refuse to engage in behaviors or activities that are uncomfortable or unsafe. In the 6th through 12th grade, instruction and materials include age and developmentally appropriate instruction on consent and how to give and receive consent, including a discussion that includes, but is not limited to that consent (i) is a freely given agreement to sexual activity; (ii) to one particular sexual activity does not constitute consent to other types of sexual activities.[iii]  
2.    The Department of Education (DoED) has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F refused to deny that American colleges and universities (in receipt of Title IX funding) have a legal obligation to inform their undergraduate students (at the very beginning of their undergraduate academic career) about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery.
3.    The DoED has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F refused to deny that American colleges and universities (in receipt of Title IX funding) have a legal obligation to inform their undergraduate students (at the very beginning of their undergraduate academic career) what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relationships.
4.    The DoED has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F explicitly informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they’ve held conversations with Lehigh University about Jeanne Ann Clery’s time as an undergraduate student (at that university) between August 1985 and April 05th 1986.
5.    The DoED has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F explicitly informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that their search for responsive records located 1,456 (one thousand four hundred and fifty-six) pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Ann Clery’s time as an undergraduate student of Lehigh University between August 1985 and April 05th 1986.
6.    The DoED has during the processing of the FOIA request that was assigned Case No.: 21 – 00103 – F explicitly informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that they were going to redact all 1,456 pages of documents pertaining to Jeanne Ann Clery’s time as an undergraduate student at Lehigh University between August 1985 and April 05th 1986.
7.    The requested records will shed light on the portable document file (PDF) published by the Department of Education (DoED) in the month of June 2002.
8.    The DoED had in the month of June 2002 explained that (i) the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) enables the disclosure of students’ academic and disciplinary records in various circumstances; (ii) the Jeanne Clery Act of 1990 enabled “postsecondary institutions” to be forthcoming with “the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by the institution against the alleged perpetrator of the crime, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding” particularly to an alleged victim of any crime of violence (as defined in U.S Code Title 18, § 16); (iii) the 1998 Higher Education Amendments enabled “postsecondary institutions” to be forthcoming with “the final results of any disciplinary proceeding for a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense to anyone, including members of the general public, if the institution determines that the student committed a violation of its rules or policies with respect to the crime.”
9.    The Supreme Court held in Bob Jones University v. United States that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may deny tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) to private colleges/universities with racially discriminatory admissions policies.
10.  The Supreme Court holding in Bob Jones University v. United States made it abundantly clear that 501 (c)(3) status is a privilege granted by the federal government (and that this privilege could be revoked if private colleges/universities such as Bob Jones University implement policies and procedures that perpetuated a systemic form of racism and sexism). 
11.  The requested records will help the public better evaluate if Hillsdale College has implemented policies and procedures similar to Bob Jones University at the time they were sanctioned by the IRS as well as the judicial branch of the United States government.
12.  The requested records will help the public better evaluate if Hillsdale College, a 501(c)(3) postsecondary academic institution, knowingly disregarded statutory disclosure duties established under FERPA while continuing to claim federal tax benefits in violation of the Supreme Court holding in Bob Jones University v. United States.
13.  The requested records will help the public better evaluate whether Hillsdale College’s conduct is part of a broader pattern among private postsecondary academic institution that use FERPA as a pretext to conceal the outcomes of sexual violence cases – thereby thwarting congressional intent and compromising public safety: a source of very grave concern that had previously been raised by the National Council on Disability (NCD) on page 23 of their January 30th 2018 report.[iv]
14.  The requested records will help the public better evaluate the federal government’s commitment to transparency and gender-based-violence prevention – core principles enshrined in FERPA, the Jeanne Clery Act and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
15.  The requested records will shed light on the amendments that were made to VAWA in 2013. As you maybe aware, the term “bystander intervention” was defined in federal regulations implementing the 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as (i) “safe and positive options that may be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;” (ii) the ability to “understand institutional structures and cultural conditions that facilitate violence.”
16.  The requested records will help the public ascertain if there were conversations within your school district about the term “bystander intervention” being defined in federal regulations implementing the 2013 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as (i) “safe and positive options that may be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;” (ii)  the ability to “understand institutional structures and cultural conditions that facilitate violence.”
 
Expedited processing is warranted because:
1.    The requested records concern an urgent matter affecting public confidence in the federal government’s enforcement of laws designed to protect students from sexual violence.
2.    The requested records will help the public evaluate whether the federal government has permitted a 501(c)(3) institution to maintain tax-exempt privileges while openly violating FERPA - a situation that undermines public confidence in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
3.    Delay in the disclosure of responsive records would only serve to perpetuate the appearance of selective policing.
4.    Delay in the disclosure of responsive records would only serve to further damage the credibility of the government’s commitment to student safety and public accountability.
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 Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) as well as the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan because of their very gross mishandling of the sexual misconduct complaints filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen.
Unfortunately, I regret to inform you that the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan has made numerous procedural errors when processing the sexual misconduct complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen. Indeed, one of the most glaring procedural errors of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan was its failure to take into account the 501(c)(3) status of Hillsdale College.
The 501(c)(3) status of Hillsdale College should have been very pertinent to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan during the processing of the complaint that had been assigned Case No. 1 – 23 – cv – 1129 because Hillsdale College has previously submitted applications to the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to be recognized by the federal government as a private postsecondary academic institution. When Hillsdale College submitted those applications, and the IRS later approved them, Hillsdale College obtained a federal benefit in the form of “tax-exempt status.” This benefit that Hillsdale College enjoys has in turn created an obligation upon the college to comply with federal laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Previously, in 1983, in the matter of Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, the United States Supreme Court had recognized that tax exemption is a “form of public financial assistance.” That same year, in 1983, in the matter of Bob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court had also recognized that an educational institution which violates “established public policy” forfeits the privilege of tax exemption. FERPA forms part of that public policy framework: it reflects Congress’s judgment that transparency and student safety are indispensable to legitimate educational operations. Therefore, because Hillsdale College 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is a federal benefit conditioned on compliance with laws reflecting public policy, its pattern of conduct justified review and revocation of its tax-exempt status. In practical terms, FERPA required (and continues to require) Hillsdale College to be forthcoming about the “investigation” that the college claims to have conducted following the rapes of Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen (in August and November 2021). When Hillsdale College refused to provide the final results of the “investigation” they supposedly conducted into the sexual abuse of Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen, Hillsdale College knowingly and willfully violated federal law. 
For me, the failure of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan to consider Hillsdale College legal obligations under FERPA was troubling because, under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, courts must interpret a complaint in light of the existing regulatory framework even when a statute is not cited by name. In Haines v. Kerner and Johnson v. City of Shelby, the Supreme Court made clear that plaintiffs need not invoke specific statutory provisions for those protections to apply. The Supreme Court had also made clear that factual allegations—not “magic words”—trigger the court’s obligation to consider relevant federal law. Here, in the complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen, these two women have asserted that they had previously filed formal sexual-misconduct complaints (with Hillsdale College) before afterwards requesting the disclosure of the disciplinary outcome which they were denied. Therefore, even without an explicit FERPA citation, the court had an obligation to consider whether Hillsdale College [a 501(c)(3) postsecondary academic institution] fulfilled its legal obligations under FERPA. When the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan failed to consider whether Hillsdale College fulfilled its legal obligations under FERPA, it made a very shocking procedural error. Regrettably, the severity of this error was compounded when the court recommended that its opinion be published, thereby transforming an already flawed ruling into persuasive precedent. As you are likely aware, a published opinion indicates that the court believes its reasoning should guide future cases. Yet the reasoning (in the case of Villareal & Chen v. Hillsdale College) rests on an incomplete legal foundation that fails to acknowledge that Hillsdale College, as a 501 (c)(3) post-secondary academic institution has legal obligations it needs to fulfill under FERPA. By omitting the statutory framework of FERPA, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan has produced an opinion that misstates the legal obligations governing colleges and universities in sexual-misconduct cases.
As a political scientist by training and education, I am thoroughly convinced that the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan to “recommend for publication” the opinion they have issued in the matter of Villareal & Chen v. Hillsdale College poses a significant danger to future litigants because it elevates an analysis that neglects controlling federal statutory obligations into a precedent that other courts may rely upon. For instance, future defendants – including colleges with 501 (c)(3) status – may cite the opinion in the matter of Villareal & Chen v. Hillsdale College to argue that courts need not consider FERPA’s disclosure requirements when evaluating institutional responses to sexual violence complaints. Likewise, future plaintiffs may find their complaints dismissed prematurely because the published opinion (in the matter of Villareal & Chen v. Hillsdale College) suggests, incorrectly, that failure to disclose disciplinary outcomes carries no federal legal significance.
On a personal level, I am very deeply concerned about the precedent set in the matter of Villareal & Chen v. Hillsdale College because the opinion suggests that 501(c)(3) postsecondary academic institutions similarly situated to Hillsdale College may violate federal laws such as FERPA without consequences. Such a suggestion is alarming because even though Hillsdale College does not accept federal appropriations or Title IX funds as a matter of institutional principle, it nonetheless relies on federal tax law for its 501(c)(3) status. That status is a federal benefit administered by the IRS, and it enables Hillsdale College to receive tax-deductible donations—an indirect form of federal support that exists entirely because of federal law. If an institution can retain that federal benefit while disregarding federal statutory obligations, then the integrity of the federal government’s oversight of tax-exempt educational institutions is fundamentally undermined. Furthermore, this would indicate to other 501(c)(3) colleges that compliance with federal public-policy requirements is optional, thereby weakening enforcement, distorting public accountability, and eroding trust in the regulatory framework that governs educational institutions receiving federal tax privileges.

As previously mentioned, FERPA was enacted into law on (or around) August 21st 1974 and took effect on (or around) November 19th 1974. Since it was enacted into law on (or around) November 19th 1974, FERPA was amended on numerous occasions to strengthen transparency obligations. For instance, the 1990 Campus Security Act and the 1998 Higher Education Amendments Act have amended FERPA to decree that “postsecondary institutions” should be forthcoming with [1] “the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by the institution against the alleged perpetrator of the crime, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding” particularly to an alleged victim of any crime of violence (as defined in U.S Code Title 18, § 16); [2] “the final results of any disciplinary proceeding for a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense to anyone, including members of the general public, if the institution determines that the student committed a violation of its rules or policies with respect to the crime.”  In other words, these provisions were enacted to guarantee that postsecondary academic institutions could not use FERPA to conceal the outcomes of sexual violence cases. These provisions of FERPA were also enacted to create a statutory duty for postsecondary academic institutions to be forthcoming with victims as well as members of the general public on the outcomes of sexual violence cases.

The core issues presented in this records request are as follows. 1) Have you had conversations about the Department of Education (DoED) as a federal agency of the United States government which had in the month of June 2002 published on its official website a portable document file (PDF) explaining that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) enables the disclosure of students academic and disciplinary records in various circumstances? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 2) Have you had conversations about the DoED as a federal agency of the United States government which had had in the month of June 2002 published on its official website a PDF explaining that the Jeanne Clery Act of 1990 enabled “postsecondary institutions” to be forthcoming with “the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by the institution against the alleged perpetrator of the crime, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding” particularly to an alleged victim of any crime of violence (as defined in U.S Code Title 18, § 16)? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 3) Have you had conversations about the DoED as a federal agency of the United States government which had in had in the month of June 2002 published on its official website a PDF explaining that the 1998 Higher Education Amendments enabled “postsecondary institutions” to be forthcoming with “the final results of any disciplinary proceeding for a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense to anyone, including members of the general public, if the institution determines that the student committed a violation of its rules or policies with respect to the crime?” If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 4) Have you had conversations about Danielle Villareal as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) who was named on the Dean’s List of Hillsdale College in the first two semesters of her freshman year? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 5) Have you had conversations about Danielle Villareal as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) who was on (or around) August 29th 2021 raped on campus when she was a full-time sophomore student? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 6) Have you had conversations about Danielle Villareal as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) who was retaliated upon following her decision to file a complaint against the sexual abuse she suffered on (or around) August 29th 2021? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 7) Have you had conversations about Danielle Villareal as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) who has made the decision to transfer to Vanderbilt University after Hillsdale College violated the provisions of FERPA by refusing to provide to her “the final results of the disciplinary proceeding” the individual who raped her was not held to account for? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 8) Have you had conversations about Danielle Villareal as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) who has begun to experience depression, post-traumatic stress as well as sleep disorders following the sexual assault she was the victim of on (or around) August 29th 2021? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 9) Have you had conversations about Danielle Villareal as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) who has experienced difficulty functioning at the optimal levels she used to prior to being raped on (or around) August 29th 2021? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 10) Have you had conversations about Danielle Villareal as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan) who may never again function at the optimal levels she used to as a direct consequence of the rape she was subjected on (or around) August 29th 2021? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 11) Have you had conversations about Grace Chen as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College who was on (or around) November 22nd 2021 raped on the campus of Hillsdale College when she was a freshman? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 12) Have you had conversations about Grace Chen as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College who was retaliated upon following her decision to file a complaint against the sexual abuse she suffered on (or around) November 22nd 2021? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 13) Have you had conversations about Grace Chen as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College who had on (or around) April 09th 2022 sent an email to Rebekah Dell wherein she demanded to be provided with a “formal written investigation report” for what she went through on (or around) November 22nd 2021 at Hillsdale College? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 14) Have you had conversations about Grace Chen as a former undergraduate student of Hillsdale College who has taken the decision to graduate from Hillsdale College with a Bachelor’s Degree even after Hillsdale College violated the provisions of FERPA by refusing to provide to her “the final results of the disciplinary proceeding” the individual who raped her was not held to account for? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 15) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree graduate of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who is thoroughly convinced that the United States of District Court for the Western District of Michigan made numerous procedural errors during the processing of the October 25th 2023 complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 16) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree graduate of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who is thoroughly convinced that the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan made a procedural error (during the processing of the October 25th 2023 complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen) when failing to take into account the legal precedent established in Bob Jones University v. United States? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 17) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree graduate of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who is thoroughly convinced that the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan made a procedural error (during the processing of the October 25th 2023 complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen) when failing to take into account the legal precedent established in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington during the processing of the October 25th 2023 complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 18) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who is thoroughly convinced that the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan made a procedural error (during the processing of the October 25th 2023 complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen) when failing to take into account how FERPA enables the disclosure of students’ academic and disciplinary records in various circumstances? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 19) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who is thoroughly convinced that the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan made a procedural error (during the processing of the October 25th 2023 complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen) when failing to take into account that the Jeanne Clery Act enables postsecondary institutions to be forthcoming with the final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by the institution against the alleged perpetrator of the crime, regardless of the outcome of the proceeding? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 20) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who is thoroughly convinced that the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan made a procedural error (during the processing of the October 25th 2023 complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen) when failing to take into account that the 1998 Higher Education Amendments enabled postsecondary institutions to be forthcoming with the final results of any disciplinary proceeding for a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense to anyone, including members of the general public? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 21) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who is thoroughly convinced that the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan made a procedural error (during the processing of the October 25th 2023 complaint filed by Danielle Villareal and Grace Chen) when failing to take into account the 2013 amendments to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 22) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree graduate of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who was in Calendar Year 2013 living in the U.S.A on an F-1 visa when the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) were amended to include a definition for “bystander intervention?” If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 23) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree graduate of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who was in Calendar Year 2013 living in the U.S.A on an F-1 visa when the term “bystander intervention” was defined in federal regulation as “(i) “safe and positive options that may be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;” (ii)  the ability to “understand institutional structures and cultural conditions that facilitate violence?” If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 24) Have you had conversations about Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black B.A Degree graduate of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri) who was 21 (twenty-one) years of age on (or around) March 07th 2013 when the U.S government began requiring American colleges and universities to include in their primary prevention and awareness programs “safe and positive options for bystander intervention that may be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking?” If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 25) Have you had conversations about the term “bystander intervention” was defined in federal regulation as “(i) “safe and positive options that may be carried out by an individual to prevent harm or intervene when there is a risk of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking;” (ii) the ability to “understand institutional structures and cultural conditions that facilitate violence?” If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 26) Have you had conversations about Bob Jones University as a post-secondary academic institution which did not admit Black students until 1971? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 27) Have you had conversations about Bob Jones University as a post-secondary academic institution which had its tax exempt status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 1976 because of its racially discriminatory admissions policies? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 28) Have you had conversations about Bob Jones University as a post-secondary academic institution which had in 1983 opted to maintain its interracial dating policy and pay a million dollars in back taxes? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 29) Have you had conversations about Bob Jones University as a post-secondary academic institution which has in 2008 expressed sorrow for having allowed “racially hurtful institutional policies to remain in place?” [v]  If yes, will you promptly disclose those records?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W
 

11. Presentation

11.A. iReady Middle of the Year Math and Reading Data for Giles School

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.G. Communications

13.H. Norridge Park District

14. Discussion Items

15. Consent Agenda

15.A. Consider approval of Board minutes

15.A.1. January 20, 2026 Board of Education Regular Meeting Minutes

15.B. Consider approval to change the March 17, 2026 Board of Education Meeting to March 18, 2026

15.C. Consider approval to change the June 23, 2026 Board of Education Meeting to June 16, 2026

15.D. Consider approval of the Registration Plan for the 2026-2027 school year 

15.E. Consider approval of NSD 80 Summer School and Extended School Year (ESY) Programs for June 2026

15.F. Consider approval of the Curriculum and Tuition Fees for the 2026-2027 school year

15.G. Consider approval of the Preschool Calendar for 2026-2027

15.H. Consider approval of My School Bucks (Heartland) for school fees starting with the 2026-2027 school year

15.I. Consider approval of the Job Description for the District Bookkeeper 

15.J. Consider approval of the Job Description for the Administrative Assistant to the Board of Education and Superintendent 

15.K. Consider approval of Board Policies: PRESS Update 120 on second read 

15.L. Consider approval of the request from the Chief School Business Official (CSBO) to begin working on the FY27 School District Budget 

15.M. Consider approval of request to pay all district bills and payroll expenses during the month of June, July and August

15.N. Consider approval of non-public school revised placement agreement with Metro Prep 

15.O. Consider approval of $2,555.00 donation from PTA for the sound system at Leigh School 

15.P. Consider motion to destroy closed session recordings for the following dates: 7/16/2024, 8/20/2024, 9/16/2024, 9/19/2024, 10/15/2024, 11/13/2024, 11/19/2024, 12/17/2024, 1/21/2025, 2/18/2025, 3/18/2025, 4/15/2025, 5/20/2025

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

16. Board Comments

17. Closed Session
Consider 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), student disciplinary cases (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(9) and review of closed session minutes (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(14).

18. Personnel Action Items

18.A. Resignations

18.A.1. Consider acceptance of the resignation of Tracy Tysiak as Girls Soccer Coach 

19. Adjournment