Recent Court Decisions

The City Council of the City of Sumner (City Council) held an improper remote meeting on January 11, 2022, by not providing login instructions or a link to the meeting.    

On January 14, 2021, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the PAC because she was concerned about the accessibility of the City Council meeting that was held on January 11. The mayor of Sumner and the head of the water department said that she was unable to attend the meeting because it was on Zoom. Requestor asked the head of the water department about OMA, and he told her to contact the police chief.

Requestor said that a picture of the meeting agenda was taken the day before. No zoom link was included in the agenda. Requestor messaged the police chief for the link, which she received. When Requestor joined the meeting, the City Council had already started the meeting. Requestor was able to discuss the letter she sent but was told by the mayor that her time was up after 5 minutes. Requestor listened to the rest of the meeting.

Requestor attached a photograph of the paper agenda posted on the door of the Sumner City Hall as well as a screenshot of her text messages with the police chief. The agenda indicated that the meeting was held on Zoom, but a link was not provided. Instructions on how to access the meeting were not provided either.

Section 7(e) of OMA states that, “48 hours' notice shall be given of a meeting to be held pursuant to this Section.” The PAC held that because the meeting agenda failed to include a link or any login instructions for the Zoom meeting, the City Council did not give proper notice. The City Council told the PAC that members of the public could attend in person, however the location on the agenda only indicated that it was a Zoom meeting. The PAC also held that the City Council violated Section 7(e)(9) of OMA by not providing an audio or visual recording of the meeting. Section 7(e)(9) of OMA requires public bodies to “keep a verbatim record of all their meetings in the form of an audio or video recording.”

For these reasons, the PAC directed the City Council to include all remote access information in future meeting agendas, indicate whether in-person attendance is allowed, and make audio or video recordings of future meetings as well.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The Village of Melrose Park Police Department (Department) violated FOIA by improperly denying a FOIA request from the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation (CAASE).

On November 17, 2021, Requestor, a Senior Paralegal for CAASE, submitted a request to the Department on behalf of one of her clients who reported a sexual assault to the Department in April. Requestor sought copies of “all records created and maintained by [Department] regarding [the client’s] report and [the Department’s] investigation, including but not limited to any and all supplements and handwritten notes. (Emphasis in original.)”

The Department denied the request the following day. The Department cited sections 7(1)(d)(ii) and 7(1)(d)(vii) of FOIA in their denial letter. In the letter to Requestor’s attorney, the Department stated that the records “are related to an ongoing investigation and/or proceeding[,]” and that “the disclosure of these records may reasonably interfere with the…investigation in this matter.”

Section 7(1)(d)(ii) of FOIA says that records held by a public body are exempt if they would, “interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by law enforcement[.]” Similarly, section 7(1)(d)(vii) of FOIA states that records that “obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation by the agency that is the recipient of the request” are exempt from disclosure as well.

The PAC held that the Department failed to provide a specific reason as to why the requested records should be exempted from disclosure. The PAC stated that the Department did not demonstrate how the records related to any "active administrative enforcement proceeding[.]" The PAC said that the Department also did not establish that a criminal investigation was ongoing nor did it even demonstrate how the disclosure of the requested records would obstruct such an investigation.

The PAC noted that section 2.15(a) of FOIA requires municipalities to disclose certain arrestee information, and that the Department failed to show why disclosing this information would obstruct an investigation or potentially harm law enforcement personnel. For these reasons, the PAC held that the Department violated FOIA by refusing to disclose the requested records and ordered them to do so.  

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The Jersey Community Unit School District Board of Education (Board) did not violate OMA when it held a remote meeting on September 16, 2021.

Requestor submitted a Request for Review on September 17, 2021, to the PAC alleging that the Board did not hold a proper meeting. The Board held its meeting on Zoom and did not have any in-person attendance for the public. Requestor provided the PAC with a link to the Board’s livestream video recording of the meeting as well as a copy of the agenda. The agenda explained that, “[d]ue to the increasing [Covid-19] metrics in the community and upon the recommendation of local officials, the Board may participate by audio or video conference without the physical presence of a quorum of the members due to the determination that an in-person meeting is not practical or prudent due to the current health emergency.”
Requestor noted that the Board held in-person meetings earlier during the pandemic when Covid-19 rates were higher. Requestor suspected that the pandemic was being used as a pretext to disallow in-person attendance. The Board President responded by saying that he was advised to hold the meeting remotely because of the “disruptive” nature of the previous Board meeting. Requestor was also concerned because the audio was difficult to hear and that conducting Board meetings over Zoom was unfair to those who can’t afford internet service.

Section 7(e)(1) of OMA states that if, “the Governor or the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health has issued a disaster declaration related to public health concerns because of a disaster as defined in Section 4 of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, and all or part of the jurisdiction of the public body is covered by the disaster area,” then the physical presence of a quorum is not necessary for an open or closed meeting. The PAC held that the Board’s meeting complied with this section of OMA because the Governor’s disaster proclamation for Covid-19 was still in effect.

Section 7(e)(2) of OMA requires that “the head of the public body as defined in subsection (e) of Section 2 of [FOIA] determines that an in-person meeting or a meeting conducted under [OMA] is not practical or prudent because of a disaster[.]” The PAC also held that the Board complied with section 7(e)(2), reasoning that the Board’s remote meeting was prudent because several members of the public had refused to cooperate with the Board’s masking requirement during their August meeting.
The PAC also found the Board was also in compliance with section 7(e)(4) of OMA, which states that when “attendance at the regular meeting location is not feasible due to the disaster, including the issued disaster declaration…the public body must make alternative arrangements to allow any interested member of the public access to contemporaneously hear all discussion[.]” The Board provided access by providing the public a Zoom link to its meeting.

For these reasons, the PAC held that the Board complied with OMA when it held their meeting remotely.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) of the City of Chicago (City) violated FOIA when it redacted names of its employees from records submitted to Requestor.
 
On May 6, 2021, Requestor, a reporter with the Chicago Tribune, submitted a FOIA request to OEMC by email. The request sought copies of records related to a letter expressing concerns about “allegations of racial discrimination, sexual harassment, and a discipline heavy and hostile work environment” at the OEMC. On June 2, 2021, OEMC responded to Requestor with copies of the responsive records. However, several names were redacted from the copies, including the complainant, the name of an employee who violated OEMC’s social media policy, and the names of potential witnesses to the filed complaint, as well as the telephone numbers of the complainant and the respondent. This information was redacted pursuant to sections 7(1)(b), possibly 7(1)(c), and 7(1)(n) of FOIA. On June 28, 2021, Requestor submitted his Request for Review to the PAC contesting the redactions.
 
Section 7(1)(b) of FOIA exempts “[p]rivate information unless disclosure is required by another provision of [FOIA], a State or federal law or a court order.” Similarly, section 7(1)(c) of FOIA exempts “[p]ersonal information…which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]” Section 7(1)(n) of FOIA exempts “[r]ecords relating to a public body’s adjudication of employee grievances or disciplinary cases; however, this exemption shall not extend to the final outcome of cases in which discipline is imposed.”
 
The PAC held that names are not considered private information under section 7(1)(b). FOIA defines “private information” as “unique identifiers.” Examples of unique identifiers include social security numbers and driver’s license numbers. Names are not included in the definition, according to the PAC. The PAC also stated that “[r]ecords concerning alleged workplace misconduct and violations of policies…bear directly on the public duties of public employees.” The PAC therefore held that those redactions were not justified under section 7(1)(c) either. The PAC stated that section 7(1)(n) was also not applicable because “[t]he available information indicates that these matters were resolved by the City without advancing to a formal agency proceeding that constituted an adjudication.” For these reasons, the PAC concluded that the OEMC violated FOIA by submitting the redacted records, and directed the OEMC to disclose the names of the City employees to the Requestor.
 
This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The Board of Education of Hillsboro Community Unit School District No. 3 (Board) violated OMA when it did not provide an opportunity for public comment in open session during its meeting on June 15, 2021.
 
On June 24, 2021, Requestor, a sports writer for the State Journal-Register, emailed the Illinois Executive Ethics Commission (Commission) questioning whether the Board improperly restricted public comment during its meeting on June 15, 2021. In his email, Requestor said that the meeting had a large attendance, and that many were interested in the decision not to re-hire the boys’ basketball coach. However, after roll call was taken, Requestor noted that the Board immediately went into closed session. The superintendent told everyone in attendance that anyone who signed up to speak at the meeting would be able to do so.
 
Requestor went on to explain that the members of the public who wanted to address the Board were each called into the Board’s closed session. After the closed session ended, the Requestor stated that the Board “wrapped up all motions in a matter of minutes.” He went on to mention that no members of the public made public statements during the meeting. Requestor stated that he was trying to contact the Attorney General’s Office, and specifically wanted to know the legality of the Board’s actions. The Commission forwarded Requestor’s message to the PAC.
 
Upon review, the PAC found that the Board violated section 2.06(g) of OMA, which states that “[a]ny person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.” The PAC also noted in its opinion that “this provision requires that all public bodies…provide an opportunity for public comment.” In this context, public comment means providing a chance for members of the public to address the members of a public body in open session. The Board failed to do this during its meeting, therefore it was directed by the PAC to provide an opportunity for public comment in open session during all future meetings.