Rob Sherman Advocacy 
Rob Sherman Advocacy My daughter, Dawn, celebrates her thirteenth birthday this month. I attempted to sign her up for swim class at the Buffalo Grove Park District. The Park District refused to enroll her because it has a mandatory policy which requires program participants to sign a waiver that absolves the Park District of any and all claims that may arise as a result of participating in any Park District program.
This situation is very reminiscent of a situation, nine years ago, when my son, Rick, was refused admission to the Buffalo Grove Police Department's publicly funded youth education program for refusing to sign a statement certifying that he believes that there is a god floating around in the sky. The police were operating an Explorer Post, which is franchised by the nation's most bigoted youth organization, the notorious Boy Scouts of America. I sued and won, then, and I'll sue and win this time, too.
While it may be reasonable to agree, in advance, to not sue the Park District with regards to matters that are beyond the reasonable control of the Park District, it is a clear violation of a citizen's Constitutional rights to be refused service by the government on the grounds that a citizen chooses to retain his Constitutional right to seek remedy and justice in court to resolve any legitimate dispute that may arise between the parties. (See Illinois Constitution at Article I, the Bill of Rights, Section 12, Right to Remedy and Justice .)
It shouldn't be the legal responsibility of the Park District to ensure that each program participant does not have a medical condition that could place the participant in jeopardy if the participant engages in the kinds of activity that occur in such a program. Similarly, it shouldn't be the job of the parent of each program participant to redo the Park District's management job of inspecting its buildings, ensuring that its equipment is properly maintained, checking the background and qualifications of its staff, and actively supervising the program's participants because the Park District refuses to accept legal responsibility for having done so.
Does the Park District really want me to redo all of the things that should be their legal responsibility? If they aren't willing to accept legal responsibility for having properly done their job of program management, then in order to protect my daughter, I'll have to presume that they haven't done their job at all and, instead, do it myself. Do they really want me performing tests on their equipment and doing background checks on their employees because they refuse to accept legal responsibility for having done so themselves?
I've spoken by phone about this issue with Dmitri Feofanov, one of the attorneys on my legal team. On July 6th, I met with and spoke to Richard Grossman, another one of my attorneys, about going to court to void the Park District's policy. I've also asked Ed Yohnka at the ACLU of Illinois to look into the merits of my assertions. In addition, if you recall, one of the planks of my campaign for State Representative, earlier this year, was to sponsor legislation to ban these types of waivers.
Three things are certain: First, there has already been at least one court decision that says something to the effect that waivers are invalid in certain circumstances, possibly with regards to either willful and wanton negligence, or criminal conduct against a program participant, or both. I'm still acquiring the details on that, but if it is the case that the courts have already ruled that claims regarding certain types of perils cannot be waived, then surely the Park District has no legal right to demand that I waive any and all claims, including those particular types of claims.
Second: The Buffalo Grove Park District re-affirmed its mandatory waiver policy at its June 26th Board Meeting. I asked the Park District Board to review the Constitutionality of its policy. They referred the matter to their attorney, Steve Bloomberg. Steve and I spoke several times and exchanged letters and e-mail as we explored the subject. Steve then presented his analysis to the Board in a secret Executive Session during the June 26th meeting. (Executive Sessions are permitted by law for the purpose of discussing pending and potential litigation, personnel matters and land acquisitions. It is proper for those matters to be discussed in secret because they can involve legal strategy, including whether the cost of litigation outweighs the potential benefits of prevailing in court; the likelihood of winning in court; land value estimates; and private matters regarding personnel, such as an employee's medical records.) The Board then came out of Executive Session and voted to sustain their waiver policy. While I strongly disagree with the Board's decision, both the Board and Mr. Bloomberg were very pleasant to deal with. They couldn't have been nicer, but we agreed to disagree on legal policy.
Third: A lawsuit on this matter is a certainty. Here's why: There are hundreds of thousands of American soldiers risking their lives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan for the purpose of trying to ensure that residents, there, have the opportunity to live under the kind of democratic principles that we are supposed to have in America. The question is: Just what are those democratic principles? Right now, in Iraq, if you don't like what the government does, your options seem to be suicide bombers, assassinations and anarchy. Under a system of democratic principles, if you don't like what the government does, you take them to court! The Buffalo Grove Park District wants to change all that. They want to protect themselves from any liability, whatsoever, by establishing a system where the government has unlimited rights in dealing with you, but where you have no claim to any rights in dealing with the government. Wasn't that Saddam's policy, too? That kind of policy may be very convenient for Saddam and for the Park District, but what are our soldiers fighting and dying for? So that residents of other countries will be guaranteed legal rights in dealing with their government, but when our soldiers come back home, they will have no rights in dealing with their own American government? Why should our soldiers die helping foreigners get the right to live under democratic principles when the government, here, has cancelled those same rights for American citizens?
I'll have updates on other Rob Sherman Advocacy issues as soon as I have time to type them up.