Most of the state's public pension systems are perilously under-funded, and the Illinois Judicial Retirement System (JRS) is no exception.

Taxpayers United of America (TUA) recently analyzed JRS data and found these startling statistics:

- The average amount that judges contributed to their own pension fund is $124,387, or 4.5 percent of estimated lifetime payout.

- The average estimated lifetime payout is $2.8 million. Lifetime estimated pension payout includes 3 percent compounded cost of living adjustment and assumes life expectancy of 85.

- The average years of service is 17.8.

“Our analysis of JRS reveals more of the same taxpayer abuse that we have found across the state’s government pension system," said TUA President Jim Tobin, in a press release that provided JRS pensioner data.

"Not only do these judges benefit from the redistribution of taxpayer wealth, they also rule in their own favor to protect the Illinois pension cabal when practical, necessary reforms are challenged in the courts.”

Retired judges in the state's Fifth Judicial District on average will make at least 20 times - or 2,000 percent - more in lifetime benefits than they paid into their pension fund.

A review of 39 of these judges' benefits shows that the total of their contributions into JRS was $6,920,809 and their estimated lifetime benefit will be $150,543,282. The total paid to date to these judges is $33,096,062.

The current annual amount paid to them is $5,534,401, with an average annual benefit of $141,908.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Philip Rarick of Troy is the top recipient with an annual benefit of $203,859. He served 29.83 years on the bench, having retired from the high court at age 64 in December 2004. He contributed $179,998 into JRS, and his contribution of lifetime benefits is estimated at 4.5 percent.

He was paid $173,261 annually at the time he left office.

Rarick has so far received $1,913,508 in retirement benefits, and at the age of 85 will have received $3,984,528.

Fifth District Appellate Court Judge Gordon Maag receives an annual benefit of $111,084. He served 17.92 years on the bench, and at age 55, was not retained by voters in November 2004. He contributed $232,112 into JRS, and his contribution of lifetime benefits is estimated at 5.9 percent.

He was paid $163,070 annually at the time he left office.

Maag has so far received $947,139 in retirement benefits, and at the age of 85 will have received $3,931,995.

Recently reitred St. Clair County Associate Judge Ellen Dauber began receiving benefits at the beginning of this year. She will receive $154,037 annually. She served 25.42 years on the bench and retired at age 55. She contributed $282,290 into JRS, and her contribution of lifetime benefits is estimated at 3.8 percent.

Her annual salary when she retired was $181,212.

Dauber has so far received $12,836. At the age of 85 she will have received $7,341,213.

Former Madison County Associate Judge Duane Bailey began receiving benefits last July, after his term expired and he was not re-appointed. He receives $73,264 annually. He served 8.33 years on the bench and was 59 years old when he left. Bailey contributed $118,698 into JRS, and his contribution of lifetime benefits is estimated at 4.4 percent.

His rate of pay when he left office was $177,667.

Bailey has so far received $42,737. At the age of 85, he will have received $2,713,879.

In TUA's press release issued Monday, it also found:

· Total number of JRS pension beneficiaries is approximately 1,121.

· 751, or 67 percent, collect pensions in excess of $100,000.

· 1,011, or 90 percent of retired judges, collect pensions in excess of $50,000.

· The average JRS pension is $117,473.

· The average age of retirement is 62.

· In fiscal year 2015, taxpayer contributions to the fund were $134,039,684 or 90 percent of total contributions.

· In fiscal year 2015, judges’ contribution to their own pension fund was $15,431,105.

· The net investment return was only 5.1 percent or $36,009,150.

· As of the end of fiscal year 2015, JRS had a 35.4 percent funded ratio with a $1.5 billion unfunded liability.

Tobin stated that the JRS pension system is "ripe with conflicts of interest and corruption and it is protected at every level of a government that chooses to serve itself rather than the constituents it was intended to protect."

He said the JRS "has been stealing taxpayer wealth since 1941."

Tobin blames Democrat House Speaker Michael Madigan,

"The ever powerful boss Madigan has supported and promoted the passage of legislation to make these government pensions so very lucrative,” he said.

“It’s past time for the elite ‘ruling class’ to do what is right for taxpayers and to quit padding their bank accounts with the sweat of the working-class. It’s time for boss Madigan and these judges to make government pension reform a reality."

SPRINGFIELD - Sangamon County Associate Judge Esteban Sanchez has ruled for St. Clair County judges John Baricevic, Robert LeChien and Robert Haida, finding that the state constitution gives them the option, as sitting judges, to run for election. 

Sanchez denied Belleville City Clerk Dallas Cook's petition for review of a Jan. 20 State Board of Elections deadlock vote that in effect allowed the judges' names to be placed on the March 15 Democratic primary ballot 

"The voters of the 20th Judicial Circuit will ultimately have a choice on primary and Election Day," Sanchez wrote in an order entered Tuesday. 

"They will decide if they approve of the Judges' past judicial record and their conduct by casting their votes for or against the Judges. The voters are not being denied the opportunity to exercise their rights to vote for these Judges."

Cook, a Republican who is running for St. Clair County Circuit Clerk in November, had argued that the state constitution establishes that the only process for a judge to retain office is through a non-partisan retention vote that requires 60 percent voter approval - not simple majority partisan re-election style. 

In August, the three judges submitted letters of resignation to the Illinois Supreme Court, indicating that they intended to seek election to the seats they were vacating rather than to run for retention. In the meantime, they would remain in office while running for election as their resignations would not take effect until December, on the last day of their current terms.

After the judges filed nomination paperwork, Cook filed objections with the State Board of Elections. The consolidated cases went before a hearing examiner, hearing officer and the full board composed of four Democrats and four Republicans. At each level of decision, including full hearings before the elections board and in Sanchez's court, the outcome has favored the judges.

"[A]s unsavory as the Judges maneuvers may seem to Petitioner, the fact that the Judges delayed their effective day of their resignation allowing them to remain as a sitting judge is irrelevant because they are eligible and not prohibited from filling the vacancies they created," Sanchez wrote.

Sanchez sided with arguments made by the judges' attorney, Michael Kasper of Chicago, with respect to wording in Article VI, Section 12(d) of the state constitution which lays out a process for judges seeking successive terms by using the phrase "may file...a declaration of candidacy to succeed himself."

"This provision is plain, clear, explicit and unambiguous," he wrote.

"Because Section 12(d) is not ambiguous and the word 'may' as used in the section connotes permissiveness, the section gives a sitting judge wanting to remain in office for another term the option of seeking retention, but he may choose not to do so."

Sanchez wrote that in interpreting the constitution, a court must look at the entire document as a "whole, and every section relating to the subject must be examined."

Cook's attorney, Aaron Weishaar of St. Louis, had argued that the framers' intent, as stated through its plain meaning as well as Historical Notes, was to ensure that judges run on their records on non-partisan ballots through a retention vote.

But Sanchez found that the interpretation sought by Cook would put provisions of Article VI in conflict with the plain meaning of the state constitution. He disagreed with Cook that drafters intended to exclude sitting judges from the election process.

"Petitioner's interpretation would require Section 12(a) to include an exception for sitting judges by reading as follows: A person eligible for the office of Judge, except a sitting judge, may cause his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Judge at the primary and at the general or judicial election for submitting petitions," he wrote. 

He also found that Section 11 does not outline exclusions for sitting judges.

"To interpret these sections in the manner suggested by Petitioner would improperly impose exceptions, limitations, and conditions on the Constitution which were not intended by the drafters," he wrote. "It is therefore, improper for the Court to depart from the plain language of the Constitution by reading exceptions and limitations into Sections 11, 12(a) and 12(d)."

Sanchez also wrote that if the framers wanted retention to be the only means for a sitting judge to stay in office, they could have said so. 

"They could have used the words 'shall' or must,'" he wrote. "They did not. Instead, they chose the word 'may,' which allows the judge the option to seek retention or to seek to remain in office by other methods, namely, election or appointment, as these are the only other two constitutionally approved methods of becoming a judge."

BENTON – U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle prepared for an asbestos trial but nobody else did, so the trial didn’t happen.

Yandle called it off on Feb. 19, three days before it would have started, after plaintiff Steven Watts settled with the last of 45 companies he sued.

Yandle and Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson had denied motions from both sides to fix strategic errors.

First, Wilkerson refused to delay the trial for defendants who had ignored the proceedings in reliance on a side agreement that didn’t hold up.

Then Yandle ruled that because Watts missed a deadline for identifying witnesses, he could call no one to the stand but himself and his doctor.

Watts had hired the Napoli Bern firm of New York City in the midst of a feud that would reduce the firm to a shell.

Napoli Bern exists today only on paper, for the convenience of a New York court referee dividing its clients between former partners Paul Napoli and Marc Bern.

Damage from their split shows up throughout the record of the Watts case.

Steven Aroesty, from the Edwardsville office of Napoli Bern, filed the suit in Madison County in 2014.

The complaint stated that Watts lived in Wasilla, Ala., and that he had worked in Kansas and California, as well as on Navy ships.

It stated that exposure to asbestos caused his lung cancer.

For defendant Crane Co., Benjamin Wilson of HeplerBroom in Edwardsville removed the action to federal court.

Wilson wrote that Watts sued Crane Company for acts it undertook at the direction of a federal officer.

“Unless Crane Company products were first determined to be in conformity with all applicable Navy specifications, they could not be installed aboard Navy ships,” Wilson wrote.

Aroesty soon withdrew from the action, giving a St. Louis address.

Eric Jackstadt and Stephanie Gold, from the Edwardsville office of Napoli Bern, entered appearances.

Gold soon withdrew.

Crane Company and most other defendants settled with Watts, and Yandle signed orders dismissing them.

For the rest, she set trial for this Feb. 22.

On Jan. 20, Wilson moved to continue the trial on behalf of Georgia Pacific, Ingersoll Rand and Trane US.

Wilson wrote that those three, along with Crane Company, CBS, Certainteed, General Electric and Union Carbide, entered into an agreement with Napoli Bern in 2014.

He wrote that the agreement covered all lung cancer cases filed through 2014, and that defendants agreed to pay $650,000 and dismiss appeals of two Madison County cases at the Fifth District appellate court in Mount Vernon.

He wrote that Napoli Bern agreed to make good faith efforts to obtain each client’s acceptance of the agreement.

“Defendants and Napoli agreed to ‘stand down’ with respect to litigation activities in the potentially affected cases during the period of time given to Napoli to advise defendants which of Napoli’s clients, if any, did not accept the terms of the agreement,” Wilson wrote.

“Implementation of the agreement was delayed due principally to litigation among the partners at the Napoli law concerning management of the Napoli firm.”

Wilson wrote that his clients didn’t participate in depositions of Watts and his doctor, James Strauchen of New York State.

He wrote that his clients didn’t collect medical records or respond to discovery.

“Napoli has now changed its position and has indicated to moving defendants that the settlement of Napoli cases contemplated by the agreement will not be implemented,” he wrote.

He wrote that his clients relied on the agreement to their detriment.

Kirra Jones and Kathleen Hardee, from the Polsinelli firm in St. Louis, joined the motion on behalf of Honeywell International.

Wilson also moved to postpone a Jan. 29 settlement conference, writing that his clients would not be in position to properly evaluate Watts’s claims.

On Jan. 21, defendants Excelsior Inc. and Viking Pumps joined the motion to continue the trial.

Their lawyer, James Grabowski of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville, wrote that Watts had produced no medical records other than X-rays and a pathology report.

Wilkerson denied the motion to continue the trial on Jan. 22.

“The court’s schedule is simply not subject to a private agreement between defendants and plaintiff’s attorneys,” he wrote.

Wilkerson wrote that the parties made a decision to fail to conduct discovery at their peril.

Their contract dispute “is wholly unrelated to plaintiff’s claims against defendants and concerns matters beyond the court’s jurisdiction,” he wrote.

He wrote that all parties who had not been dismissed were expected to appear in person at the settlement conference.

On Jan. 27, defendant Borg Warner moved to remand the case to Madison County.

On Jan. 28, defendant Ingersoll Rand moved for transfer to federal court in Alaska.

Yandle denied the motions.

The settlement conference on Jan. 29 started at 8:30 a.m., and ended badly.

After it, Wilkerson ordered Watts to show why the court shouldn’t order him to pay Borg Warner and defendant Goodyear Tire and Rubber for their costs.

Wilkerson wrote that Watts represented through his attorneys that they would appear with unlimited authority.

“That did not happen,” Wilkerson wrote.

He wrote that Sean Barth represented Watts at the conference, and told the court he was in the same firm as Jackstadt.

“However, Mr. Barth had not entered an appearance in this case and had to consult with someone by phone as negotiations continued,” Wilkerson wrote.

“Indeed, Mr. Barth appeared unfamiliar with which defendants were still remaining in this case.”

Wilkerson wrote that he asked defendants if they knew Barth or had dealt with him in this case, and all defendants answered in the negative.

Jackstadt appeared at 11 a.m.

Wilkerson wrote that failure to bring necessary parties wasted precious judicial resources and the resources of any party prejudiced by the failure to follow court orders.

On Feb. 1, on behalf of Ingersoll Rand, Wilson moved to strike Watts’s pretrial disclosures or bar witnesses and exhibits he had not previously disclosed.

On Feb. 3, at a final pretrial conference, Yandle prohibited Watts from calling any witness except himself and Strauchen.

She ordered Watts to designate portions of exhibits he would offer at trial.

On Feb. 10, Ingersoll Rand, Honeywell, Excelsior and Viking Pump moved to strike Watts’s designations of deposition testimony.

Their lawyers wrote that he designated portions of depositions of defense witnesses in prior unrelated matters.

Also on Feb. 10, Jackstadt apologized to the court “for the mistakes made and the perceived lack of full preparedness” on Jan. 29.

Jackstadt wrote that he was currently the sole lawyer in the firm with an Illinois license, and that he had to cover an asbestos court motion docket at the same time.

He wrote that Barth was briefed but information given to him was incorrect. He also wrote that Goodyear and Borg Warner settled and waived their costs.

On Feb. 12, Yandle wrote that Watts sought to reserve the right to call numerous unnamed witnesses.

“Plaintiff cannot reserve to himself a right he does not have,” Yandle wrote.

“The court finds that the vague and boilerplate identification of categories of potential witnesses is insufficient and inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of Rule 26.”

“Discovery in this matter is closed and the time to depose any newly identified ‘may call’ witness has long passed.”

On Feb. 12, for Ingersoll Rand, Wilson notified Yandle that Watts intended to offer the entire transcript of Strauchen’s deposition instead of bringing him to trial.

Wilson wrote that Watts, who had obtained an order that he didn’t have to testify in person due to illness, had designated the entire transcript of his deposition.

“Plaintiff chose to file the instant lawsuit approximately 3,000 miles from his home in Alaska despite the lack of any connection whatsoever between plaintiff, his alleged claims, and the state of Illinois,” Wilson wrote.

He wrote that Watts presented no evidence that he was unable to attend his trial.

On Feb. 17, Yandle ruled that Watts must produce Strauchen live at trial.

She struck the deposition designations on Feb. 18, and ordered Watts to confer with defendants and identify excerpts.

She ruled that Watts could not testify by deposition unless he was unavailable.

That left very little for a jury to ponder, and Watts settled with all remaining defendants on Feb. 18.

SPRINGFIELD — In the midst of Illinois budget crisis, Illinois’ 1,300 cities, towns and villages are seeking greater freedom to act on their own.

But much of the “Moving Cities Forward” legislation being promoted by the Illinois Municipal League likely will face pushback in a General Assembly locked in a struggle over taxes, the lack of an overall state budget and Gov. Bruce Rauner’s calls for changes in the state’s financial and political conduct.

The league on Tuesday rolled out its initiative, including a measure to put local shares of taxes and fees into automatic,continuing appropriations and remove them from the annual budget fight.

Another thrust of the league’s effort calls for expansion of “home rule” authority. That proposal would grant municipalities of 5,000 or more the additional powers of home rule -- including some taxing powers -- that are now reserved to cities or towns of 25,000 or more.

Rep. Mike Smiddy, D-Hillsdale, is sponsoring a home rule proposal -- HJRCA 38 -- that’s included in the league's effort. He said he knows there may be resistance from some lawmakers wary of or even flat-out opposed to granting any additional taxing authority.

But cities and towns are struggling, he said, and home rule is one way to put spending decisions closest to home.

“The cities and villages in my district are feeling the crunch of the budget impasse, and this is a piece of legislation we felt we could try to move forward and alleviate some of the issues they’re having,” Smiddy said.

At minimum, expanding home rule should be discussed and debated in the General Assembly, he argued.

“You have to be realistic, I believe, and say we’re in this to help people and not to do more damage,” Smiddy said. “If this gives local governments a chance to blaze their own way, so to speak, and solve some of their own problems, then we need to take a look at it.”

Sen. Pamela Althoff, R-McHenry, is sponsoring two bills in the Municipal League’s package.

The former McHenry mayor’s legislation includes one bill, SB 3105, that would require arbitrators to consider a city’s financial condition when deciding wage and benefit rulings on contracts for police officers and firefighters.

Those decisions often end up before arbitrators because state law forbids a work stoppage in the public safety fields, whether it be initiated by either management or labor.

“Salaries and benefits are usually the most expensive line item in any budget,” Althoff said, and it only makes sense that arbitrators be required consider what a city can afford to pay when making salary and benefit decisions.

Legislation addressing the costs of arbitration, pension and workers compensation nearly always face opposition, Althoff said, but the General Assembly has to look at what the state can do to help local government address costs.

“The idea is to truly to start a dialog,” she said. “It’s a significant issue. If we can’t get all that we want, what can we get? What makes sense? Where can we go? It’s an issue that every municipality I’m aware of is struggling with.”

The question inherent in most of the Municipal League bills is how to help local governments address rising costs without pushing additional taxes onto taxpayers, “and I don’t think that’s necessarily a party issue, I think that’s more of an issue of serving our shared constituency,” Althoff said.

With Republican Gov. Rauner and legislative Democrats locked in battles over budgeting and Rauner’s “Turnaround Agenda,” analyst Jim Nowlan said he’d be surprised if any but the very least controversial of bills are shunted to the side this spring.

"I think that anything that smacks of being controversial will be put on hold," said Nowlan, a former Republican member of the House and retired senior fellow of the University of Illinois Institute for Government and Public Affairs.

Nowlan also noted several of the proposals in the league’s initiative seem to line up with the governor’s agenda, and that’s not likely to play well in the Democratically controlled Legislature, particularly the House.

"I don't think Speaker (Michael) Madigan is going to want to be giving anything out that might look like a victory for Rauner,” Nowlan said.

“It’s going to be a heavy lift, but that doesn’t change what their positions are -- that it's time to have the debate and let's get started,” said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University.

Whether or not the bills can pass this session, “I think it's a little bit of delivering another wake-up call to Illinoisans that local governments are going to have to start making some changes, too,” Yepsen said.

Civil court filings declined by approximately 25 percent in Illinois between 2010 and 2014, according to the Illinois Supreme Court's most recent annual report.

And while statistics from Madison and St. Clair counties reflect the overall statewide decline in civil lawsuit filings, they defy a statewide downward trend with respect to Law (L) Division cases, ones in which plaintiffs seek in excess of $50,000 in damages.

In Madison County, which is host to the nation's busiest asbestos docket, the number of L cases filed in 2014 was up 38 percent from the number filed in 2010.

In 2010, there were 1,292 L cases filed in Madison County; and in 2014, there were 1,787. Those totals include asbestos suits as well as a wide range of personal injury, wrongful death and other major civil cases.

In St. Clair County, the number of L cases filed was up 8 percent, from 681 filed in 2010 to 830 in 2014.

By contrast, the number of L cases statewide dropped by about 8 percent over that same period. In 2010, there were 33,614 L cases filed in Illinois; in 2014, there were 30,980.

In looking at the total number of civil filings in these divisions of circuit court - arbitration, chancery, eminent domain, law, law magistrate, miscellaneous remedy and small claims - Madison County's numbers decreased by 15 percent from 2010 to 2014. In St. Clair County, the decrease in that same period was 26 percent.

The biggest declines in civil filings from 2010 to 2014 can be seen in chancery court - where foreclosure actions are filed - as well as in arbitration and small claims.

Here is a sample of the numbers by county and division:

Madison County:

2010

Arbitration: 1,064

Chancery: 1,649

Law: 1,292

Small Claims: 5,374

2011

Arbitration: 892

Chancery: 1,194

Law: 1,451

Small Claims: 4,427

2012

Arbitration: 752

Chancery: 1,522

Law: 2,102

Small Claims: 4,622

2013

Arbitration: 673

Chancery: 994

Law: 2,206

Small Claims: 4,091

2014

Arbitration: 567

Chancery: 847

Law: 1,787

Small Claims: 4,424

St. Clair County:

2010

Arbitration: 1,862

Chancery: 1,759

Law: 681

Small Claims: 5,119

2011

Arbitration: 1,587

Chancery: 1,291

Law: 703

Small Claims: 3,871

2012

Arbitration: 1,460

Chancery: 1,405

Law: 686

Small Claims: 3,524

2013

Arbitration: 1,417

Chancery: 1,090

Law: 642

Small Claims: 3,599

2014

Arbitration: 1,422

Chancery: 875

Law: 830

Small Claims: 2,368

Figures for both counties in 2015 also show a general decline.

In Madison County last year, there were about 21 percent fewer total civil cases filed than there were in 2010. Also, there were fewer L cases filed in 2015 than there were in 2014, but only by approximately 5 percent - from 1,787 in 2014 to 1,698 in 2015.

In St. Clair County last year, there were about 26 percent fewer total civil cases filed than there were in 2010. There were fewer L cases filed in 2015 than there were in 2014 by about 12 percent - from 830 in 2014 to 733 in 2015.

The Illinois Bar Journal reports on the downward trend of civil filings in the state in its March edition.

The report, written by Matthew Hector, states that a possible reason for the decline is "that non-contract claims make up less of the total than they used to."

Hector quotes findings from the Illinois Trial Lawyers' Association (ITLA), that indicate medical malpractice lawsuits in the state are down 43 percent since 2003. In addition, ITLA says that contract cases represent 64 percent of civil case filings nationwide, Hector reports.

He also quotes Chicago attorney Joseph A. Power, Jr., a former president of ITLA, who observed that the perception that "many or most" civil suits are personal injury is "inaccurate."

In the article, Power points to a RAND Institute study that shows that 1.3 percent of all civil cases are personal injury.

While not all Law Division cases seek damages for bodily injury, they are considered major civil cases because they seek in excess of $50,000 in compensation.

Figures in Madison County show that in 2015, nearly 20 percent (1,698) of all civil cases (8,505) were L cases - ones that include personal injury, but which were predominantly asbestos cases.

In St. Clair County, approximately 8 percent of the total civil case filings in 2015 (8,807) were L cases (733).

URBANA – Legislative candidate Jim Acklin of Ogden countered a former high school student’s sexual misconduct suit against the school district he once led by blaming her.

“Plaintiff was under a duty to use care and caution for her own safety and well being” while at St. Joseph-Ogden High School, lawyers for then-superintendent Acklin and the district school board argued in 2012.

They argued that the student, then a 15 year old freshman, concealed facts from school officials and deceived them when they asked about her relationship with high school coach Jon Jamison.

They held her responsible for most or all of the negligence that harmed her.

Acklin and the district won the case in Champaign County circuit court in 2014, arguing that Jamison passionately kissed and caressed, but did not have sexual intercourse with the student.

"The dissimilarity between kissing and having some sort of oral contact with or penetration of the sex organs is self evident,” they argued.

Circuit judge Jeffrey Ford agreed that under Illinois Code, “None of the alleged acts by the plaintiff fit the definitions of sexual conduct or sexual penetration.”

The school district settled the claims for $6,500.

Meanwhile, in a case involving another student, Jamison pled guilty to a charge of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a victim between ages 13 and 18.

While the lawsuit brought by Jane Doe received widespread media attention when it was filed, the responses of Acklin's and the school board's did not. The Record reviewed the entire case file on Feb. 21 and 22.

Acklin currently seeks the Republican nomination for State Representative in the 102nd District, which includes Paris, Shelbyville, Sullivan, and Tuscola.

According to a Champaign News-Gazette article on Jamison’s arrest in February 2012, Acklin once coached Jamison on the high school cross country team. In Danville Commercial-News, an announcement of Jamison’s Dec. 2005 wedding identified Acklin as a groomsman and his son, John Acklin, as ring bearer.

Jamison’s wife divorced him after his arrest.

The civil lawsuit

In May 2012, lawyers Thomas Bruno and Dennis Mickunas of Champaign sued the district and Acklin on behalf of “Jane Doe.”

"Jamison was incompetent, unfit, and dangerous for employment," they wrote.

They also named as defendants Chad Uphoff, St. Joseph-Ogden High School principal in 2006-07, and Brian Brooks, the school’s principal in 2007-08.

The suit claimed that Uphoff and Brooks investigated allegations by another girl’s parent, but didn’t report them as required by law to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).

Attorney Mike DeBartolo of LaGrange, who has represented school districts for 16 years, said that if credible evidence of abuse, neglect or sexual assault are presented to school officials those must be reported to the DCFS.

He said that while judgment calls are made in these situations, it is better to "err on the side of caution" when allegations are made, not only to protect interests of the school, but more importantly to protect the student.

"If they truly think it didn't happen or there was an ax to grind, you better be on solid ground," DeBartolo said.

He also said that because the record shows that Acklin had a personal relationship with Jamison, he should have recused him from making any determination about the credibility of Doe's accusations.

"He should have handed it off," he said.

According to Doe's attorneys, Acklin, Uphoff and Brooks concealed the allegations from students and parents.

In the suit, they wrote that Jamison flirted with Jane Doe, sent her suggestive messages and made suggestive calls, kissed her passionately, and rubbed her thigh. He was also accused of providing Doe with alcohol and that he drank with her more than once.

Brooks confronted Jane Doe, then age 15, and she “instinctively denied that anything inappropriate was going on," the suit alleged.

On the same day, Brooks and Acklin told Jamison they would dismiss him “if anything else came up.”

The suit alleged that Jamison told Jane Doe that he met with Brooks and Acklin, and that they needed to “cool things down for a while.”

Doe's lawyers wrote that from 2006 to 2010, he hugged and kissed female students, touched them suggestively, rubbed their thighs, and asked them to dance for him.

They named Jamison as a defendant but never pursued claims against him.

The school board retained Jeffrey Taylor of Joliet, who moved to dismiss the suit.

“Defendants took all appropriate and responsible action, “ he wrote, charging that Jamison’s conduct was not reportable.

Bruno and Mickunas opposed the motion to dismiss, branding the investigations as “ham handed attempts to sweep allegations of Jamison’s wrongdoing under the rug.”

They wrote that Jane Doe was interrogated without counsel or parent.

Taylor replied that her interview was not extreme or outrageous.

"The conduct the defendants are alleged to have been aware of in this case simply did not constitute sexual exploitation," Taylor wrote.

Ford dismissed most of the suit but granted leave to amend the complaint.

A new complaint claimed severe bodily injury and emotional distress including fright, anguish, shock, guilt, nightmares, depression, loss of trust, inability to concentrate, difficulty sleeping, loss of appetite, headaches, and stomach aches.

Bruno and Mickunas wrote that Jane Doe’s suffering would continue in relationships with teachers and administrators and in intimate relationships.

They wrote that she required psychiatric and therapeutic treatment; that she was unable to continue her studies at a university; and that she denied some allegations to Uphoff but admitted that Jamison called her weekly, hugged her while they were alone at night on a bus, let her sit next to him while he drove the bus, and let her wear his sunglasses.

They further wrote that Brooks summoned her to his office, where his tone was stern and his demeanor was accusatory.

"Do you know why you are here?” Brooks was alleged to have repeatedly asked. "There are rumors that you are behaving inappropriately with coach Jamison."

They wrote that she felt intimidated and feared he would suspend or expel her.

"She just wanted Brooks’s interrogation to end," the suit stated.

Doe's lawyers wrote that she cried and he sent her back to class, where students asked her what happened.

They wrote that Brooks treated her like a perpetrator, bullied her, and “behaved in an insensitive, unkind and uncaring manner.”

Taylor answered that the state’s Tort Immunity Act immunizes government employees from liability for failure to supervise activity that amounted to “mere ordinary negligence.”

Taylor wrote that if the plaintiff was injured, her damages were a direct result of her own breach of duty to use care and caution for her own safety and well being.

He wrote that she concealed from administrators the acts she identified in her complaint and that she provided false information to individuals at the district.

He wrote that her acts and omissions were the sole cause of her injuries or that her negligence exceeded 50 percent of the total negligence in the case.

Bruno and Mickunas moved to amend the complaint again in 2013, in order to add counts and name another defendant.

Taylor opposed the motion, and he played a trump card.

"Importantly, information disclosed during this case established that plaintiff is currently 20 years of age and was over 19 years of age when her initial complaint was filed in this case, upon allegations of conduct that occurred when she was a minor," Taylor wrote.

He wrote that because she was 19 when she filed the complaint for conduct that occurred when she was a minor, a one year limit in the immunity law had run out.
Mickunas replied that the limit on a childhood sexual abuse claim was 20 years.

Ford declared a new complaint untimely, opening a door for Acklin and the district to move for summary judgment against the old complaint.

"Plaintiff never had sexual intercourse with Jon Jamison," Taylor wrote. “None of the sexual acts alleged to have taken place by plaintiff included sexual penetration.”

Mickunas replied that childhood sexual abuse was not limited to acts spelled out in the criminal code.

At a hearing on Jan. 22, 2014, Mickunas said, “We have alleged that Jamison had engaged in passionate kissing with the plaintiff, rubbed her back centrally, rubbed her thighs centrally, stuck his tongue his down her throat.”

"All these are touching a child under age 18 for the purpose of sexual gratification.”

Taylor responded, “Once the minor reaches the age of majority, they have one year to file suit against a governmental entity, no different from any other adult.”

Ford said, “If we have to start going beyond anus, breast, and sex organs, we’re going to have to find something similar...All the facts show, as the court has noted, that this does not come in within the definition of sexual conduct under the criminal code.”

He granted summary judgment to all defendants but Jamison, saying that his defense was totally different from the defense of the others.

“If I recall correctly, Mr. Jamison may be incarcerated at this time," Ford said. "This matter may drag on for a number of years.”

Jane Doe appealed Ford’s decision, and dismissed the appeal in July 2014.

The case has seen no action since, but the claims against Jamison remain.

The docket on his criminal case shows that he pleaded guilty to one of three charges and accepted four years on probation with a fine of $3,924.

Chief judge Thomas Difanis has restricted public access to the entire file. On Feb. 26, he denied a request from the Record to open the file.

Acklin's campaign has been contacted for comment, but he had not responded by press time.

Timeline

May 1996 - Jon Jamison graduates from SJO HS

2001 - Jon Jamison starts work for SJO HS as a bus driver for sporting events.

Dec. 10, 2005 - James Acklin stands up in Jamison's wedding

July 31, 2007 - Acklin becomes superintendent for SJO district. He was previously the principal at a nearby elementary school.

Feb. 6, 2008 - Acklin is "made aware" of Jamison's behavior

Jan. 31, 2012 - Champaign County Sheriff receives information from "a local attorney" that Jamison "had been having inappropriate contact with several high school students." He also bought alcohol for them.

"We believe the first (Jamison) incidents occurred during 2002 or 2003 and the latest incident occurred in the fall of 2006," the sheriff reports.

Feb. 7, 2012 - Jamison turns himself in to the sheriff. The Champaign County State's Attorney files charges against him.

May 3, 2012 - Urbana attorney Tom Bruno files 19-count civil lawsuit for Jane Doe against Jon Jamison, James Acklin, District board of education, former SJO principal Chad Uphoff, and current SJO principal Brian Brooks.

It alleges misconduct between 2007 and 2010-- including time when Acklin was superintendent.

Dec. 20, 2012 - Jamison pleads guilty and is sentenced to four years of probation. He is now registered as a sex offender.