So, that is why this has gotten way worse than it was before CO. So, that's what we're struggling with. uh to be quite honest and you know I wish we had some solutions. This is a societal issue and we're dealing with it in the schools and it is causing a lot of discipline issues. So what what do you mean causing discipline? Like what do the numbers show? What statistics show that it's that these cell phone not having a policy to put your cell phone away is causing more issues? No, I'm just saying the amount of referrals that we're getting, you know, regarding the posts that are out there, they they're have increased this year. Can you bring the numbers? You know, in my opinion, one time is too much. Where some kid that took a whole collage of pictures, inappropriate pictures, deplorable pictures, racist pictures, and put them out to the public.
That in and of itself is enough. So, they shouldn't have a cell phone at home either because they can take those same pictures at home. They can go We can't We cannot control what goes on in a person. Go back go back and read read the whole policy in the context and let's talk about come back next week. Come back next week but I would take this one off next week. Absolutely. Okay. And the last one I just wanted to reference was 7 uh 315 restricting of publications on high schools. There was two questions. Um this is regarding high school publications. Um, would the board like to provide student journalists more flexibility um in using their voice? We are recommending a yes. Um, and right now we have uh our high school does uh put out one um publication that is done um with our high school and I wrote down the title of it on my other piece of paper.
um Heather Galpa they do that with their uh language arts and they I think you've even seen that. So they they do do a publication. So we were looking to say yes on that one. And does the board want the student media advisor to provide student journalist with written justification prior to limiting materials and we said yes. And the reason why we're saying this is we are looking to give students more voice. Um, we believe that that would uh align to that.
If you have any questions on that. All right, those were the uh the policies that, you know, needed to be looked at, I think, a little bit more carefully as we were reviewing these. I will pull this uh 719 for this time and bring that up for discussion uh for our next board meeting. And that is all I have. Okay. Uh any old business? Okay, let's move on to new business. So, one of the new business items we'd like to discuss tonight, Eric, is about this temporary restraining order in Sangon County. And I thought maybe if you could just give us some background who sued kind of just kind of explain to us what happened there. Sure. Okay. Yeah, you're on. It's totally user error. Okay. So the background of the case is that um uh plaintiffs, individual families um sued about 150 school districts throughout the state of Illinois uh and Isby and the department of public health and they were seeking an injunction against three executive orders that the governor had issued.
Executive order 18 which required school districts to u require masks for students and teachers. Executive Order 22, which required vaccines or weekly negative tests. Executive Order 24, which prohibited admittance to school buildings uh for specified periods of time for close contacts of of confirmed or probable COVID 19 cases. Um, and essentially the getting down to the nitty-gritty, which I'm happy to go through for you, um, the plaintiffs argued that wearing a mask and getting a vaccine and being um prohibited from school if you're a close contact essentially amounted to a quarantine or or a modified quarantine as that term is used under the Department of Public Health rules. And um the uh section two of the Department of Public Health Act in statute says that if someone is going to be subject to quarantine or modified quarantine, uh they get due process before they're put into a quarantine.
And what due process means is a person can object. And and by the way, these rules have been in place precoid Right. Um the definition of quarantine or modified quarantine and the department of public health act has been in place for a long time. And so the plans are sort of saying subject to that act if I object to being quarantined, if I object to wearing a mask or I object to being vaccinated, get a getting a shot, um I get due process. What does that mean? Well, I get the right to object and then the state as the entity that's enforcing the quarantine on me has to go to court to convince a court of competent jurisdiction that I should in fact be quarantined. And so the argument they were making that that the plaintiffs made successfully in front of this judge is that when the governor made these uh executive orders, he did so in a way that avoided the rules that were already in place with respect to quarantine, modified quarantine.
um and that these folks were deprived or they weren't deprived due to process but they were deprived the opportunity to have due process by virtue of the fact that these executive orders were thrust upon them. And so the court said the governor can't make public health decisions during a time of emergency independently without coordinating with department of public health in some way to modify the rules that were in place with respect to quarantine or modified quarantine. um and that is with respect to its rule on vaccines that ISBY doesn't have the authority in any way, shape or form to um pass a rule mandating vaccines that was isb's rule of vaccines that if anyone has the authority to pass a rule with respect to vaccines, it's department of public health. So, um, in essence, it comes down to really a rather boring issue about whether the state properly, um, use the rule making process to change the rules as it as it relates to quarantines.
and and the judge says, "No, there is a proper way if if the state wanted to go through the changes the way that quarantines were done, modified quarantines were done, there was a proper way through the rule making process that that could have been done. Um, and rules are are passed subject to public comment and the legislator's ultimate approval of those rules. that was done here because the governor himself put these executive orders in place and essentially had the agencies implement emergency rules that were not subject to public. So does this ruling apply to all districts? No, it does not at this time apply to all districts. What it applies to is ISBY and Department of Public Health's um they are now prohibited from enforcing those rules with respect to the districts that are named defendants and the name defendants also cannot u uh mandate masks or vaccines right now.
Okay. Um the current state of affairs is that the state has requested um a state or a hold right a hold of the judge's ruling so that the appellet court can consider the issue appellet court can then make the decision um I don't know whether the uh the judge is going to issue that stay if the judge does not issue the stay and her ruling stays in place until until such time as the appellet court considers the issue takes oral argument or just decides on the briefs um the um the state and the indiv school defendants. Certain of the individual school defendants have already filed their appeals um to the cir to the appellet court on a temporary restraining order. Things move very fast. Um that's why their their appeals are already in. The plaintiff's side families now have an opportunity to respond and uh and the the court has five days from the filing of the plaintiff's briefs to make a decision.
So we've calculated that we expect that by probably next Wednesday at the latest we'll have an appellet court decision. That appellet court decision will be significant. If the appellet court adopts the rationale and the decisions that was made by the circuit court and publishes an opinion um that published opinion, it can be considered binding on the whole state of Illinois, right? Not just with respect to the individual presence. So, um you guys were not in defendant, but if the appellet court even though it's in the fourth circuit, it's down there. The law in Illinois is that um appellet court decisions are binding on the rest of the state unless there's some decision in your court of appeals district that conflicts. Um so as there is not one that decision would be binding on on your board on your district. If they regardless really of what they do if they uphold the circ decision then you will uh no longer my my interpretation is you will no longer be permitted to um continue to implement your return to school plans as you implemented them at the beginning of the year.
with respect to um masks and tests. However, um there is the opport there is the chance the federal court will will reverse. Uh and if that's the case, then we go back to where we were on Thursday with masks, vaccines, etc. I expect that the litigation will continue to get played out probably going to Supreme Court in one way shape or form, but we'll get more definition. You know, it'll probably be a day or two after we can meet next week with the appellet court on a fast track to make a decision on this. And if it does hold in favor of the district court, does it is it the same time frame for the appellet court to the Supreme Court if the state decide to take it to the Supreme Court? Is it a fast track? Right. Right. Right. My understanding is it's not um that the the the TTRO a TTRO is a fasttrack adjudication to the C to the appellet court, but I believe it is not as fast as a Supreme Court.
Okay, good report. Thanks. Are you thinking by next Wednesday at the latest is what you guys are assuming that you we'll have some sort of a ruling on whether we're going back to last Thursday or we're moving forward and then every district will be in the state of Illinois will be haveing to address that. Correct. Yes. That's our prediction. One of the question if the appellet court uphold the district court decision and you know I was just looking at a I was looking at a survey was kind of split on how certain employees sees it you know the last bit just like the whole country so what what the word I'm looking for what options does, you know, do a parent or employee have to say, I don't feel comfortable coming back with the options of the families, you know, for their kids or whatever and employees for that nature.
What options do those who decide I want to continue wearing a mask, but we know that the mask that I'm wearing protects you to to the most higher degree as opposed to protecting myself. At least that's what the pundit says. So what what options do we I don't know if we talked about that parents say you know what I I don't want to send my kids to school or employees or teachers say I don't want to come to school in this environment. So is it like either you do it or you don't come to work or see your kids? I think I think that's right. I think either you do it or you don't really because at that point the state a state court will have said to us we don't have the authority but the school board does not have the authority. The school district administration does not have the authority to mandate that you and your classmate wear a mask.
Right. and and but we also had we don't have the authority to tell somebody they can't wear a mask. That's correct. Right. So making it optional based on a parent and child's decision is is appropriate. Absolutely. But I'm saying that it could be a handful. Again, again, I I'm not trying to predict or put a hypothetical situation or question towards you here, but I I'm for sure there's going to be people out there that says, "I don't feel comfortable coming sending my child to school or coming to work here." And what options, if any, do those people have? Do they have to, you know, the superintendent is going to say, "You know what? As an employee, you got X amount. you're going to abandon your job if you're not going to be here by, you know, three days or whatever. I don't know. Have we talked about that?
I I don't know. Are we ready for that? No, that that's why I posed the question yesterday of what is the staff. Did we get a read on, you know, Acme in CME because we have a a contract with them, right? So, and again that was the reason why I asked what is their leadership telling you where are we at because we are and the seven of us have to make sure that the environment we provide is safe whether you believe one way or another we have to provide that safe environment for our employees and the kids and everybody as you can see in that survey was totally split like you're right like the country but the question is once it comes down next Wednesday we then we don't have a choice And then after that we have to come up with how do we you're right how do we approach what if the the the number would be 16% of the employees whatever they are said we're not coming in at that point we don't have an option right I mean we're our school district will have to accommodate or adjust itself to figure that out and I don't think anybody has the answer to that but I but once that ruling comes out I think that's going to really set the tone of but which way everybody goes We ought to have some type of plan something.
I just don't know if you can plan for that because you don't know could the number be 6% or could it be 46%. You don't you don't know cuz if it's if it's a higher number. Yeah, I agree. There there's no options. I agree. I mean every school district in this country is on life support with mental status of their absolutely of the kids and the teachers. What do we do if if a high number says we're not coming back? Right. We don't know that. I guess the biggest thing is finding out exactly that ruling because once we change now, say we change then in uh nine days, let's just call it that, they change and they say they go back to last Thursday, then we change again. Right? So I guess that's a question for us is do we want to do that or do we wait to hear that court and then call a meeting and it'll be after our monthly meeting we call an emergency meeting and we do what we have to do.
Has it come? I I I think you're right, uh, Bill. Um, I think the question is is that Dr. Cara said that if we get to that point, the board needs to pass a resolution. And my question for maybe Eric is what goes in that resolution? What would how what would that resolution look like if the appellet court upholds the the uh TTRO and then kind of applies it statewide where we can no longer as a board enforce mass mandate? Then what are we really as a board what are we resolving? I'm not sure there's going to be much resolve at that point to be honest with you because the board is essentially saying we're right above the law and we're we're going to you know we're going to implement our own quarantine pattern. We're implement our own quarantine rules which will get thrown out of court as soon as we do that.
Well, you would you would subject yourself to litigation and yeah and you know would not pay out in your favor, right? you know, it would be a bverse to with the ballot parties. Yeah. So, resolution would not be a prudent way to go pending what's coming up with the ballot. It seems to me that only decision would be if we wanted to do anything now, which probably we don't because we don't want to flip-flop, but then after next week, we won't have a choice. We'll have to do whatever the decision is. And then after that, if there's people the same way where people were said were for said you have to get a vaccination or you don't have this job and they had to make a decision. I guess it's going to be the same way reverse for other people that they'll just have to make a decision and then we'll have to deal with that.
But I don't think there's anything we could plan for or do before that because we just don't know how it's all going to play out. No. Correct. But I think again if you have 25% of the teachers say I don't feel comfortable coming back especially if you have another spike comes you know nobody knows right but we won't we won't be able to do anything anyway. We will not but I'm just saying that's not you know that's out of the board's hand at this point but I'm just saying how would our superintendent handle a whole slew of teach students not coming a whole slew of teachers or staff not coming? I would I would assume the same way last year when we you know when the out when an outbreak happened you know I think it was somewhere between January and March where we had huge issues and it was before we had vaccinations you know I mean it was it was tough it was trying to figure out what building and what classroom and what we're going to do I just don't think we can answer those questions because we don't know we don't you know but I think we can plan best we could I still think though whenever the ruling comes down we probably should have whether we have a meeting we should just to at least announce and let everybody know what what's happening and what's going on.
I mean, I think we should be doing that. So, I you know what I mean? It's not that we don't want uh Dr. Cog used to do that, but I I think for us being the board, if it comes out Tuesday, not that we can announce, but if we have to have a special meeting, we just come back here for for a short time and we announce it and let everybody know what that is. But that would give Dr. Chicago n and her team a little bit of time to figure out you know you know statement and put it out and we should do that. I mean this is I guess it's just my opinion. Yeah, I agree. I mean I think if everybody can keep their calendar open for next Wednesday night. Yeah, if we have to have a and if it's not Wednesday and it comes out late Wednesday, we do it Thursday.