Recent Court Decisions

The Office of the Governor (Governor’s Office) violated FOIA by improperly denying a request as unduly burdensome. On July 12, 2018, the Requestor submitted a FOIA request seeking any emails sent by or to certain identified individuals pertaining to nominations for appointment to any of 14 Illinois public bodies. The Requestor also asked for documents prepared by or in the possession of the identified individuals pertaining to such nominations, but limited the scope of the request to January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. On July 19, 2018, the Governor’s Office responded that the FOIA request was unduly burdensome pursuant to Section 3(g) of FOIA because it was “overbroad and vague” because documents could be “directly or indirectly related to a nomination for a board appointment without mentioning the board or potential appointee by name.” The Governor’s Office gave the Requestor an opportunity to narrow his request. On July 20, 2018, the Requestor narrowed his request and stated he was willing to work out a reasonable timeline for production of the request. The Governor’s Office still denied the FOIA request as unduly burdensome, stating its preliminary search yielded more than 44,000 potentially responsive emails and that a manual review of the emails would be necessary to respond to the FOIA request.

Upon review, the PAC first analyzed and rejected the Governor’s Office’s contention that the Requestor’s initial FOIA request was “overbroad and vague.” The PAC found that “a requestor needs only to identify the records being requested by describing their contents” and that FOIA did not require the Requestor to furnish the Governor’s Office with search terms to locate the requested records. Because the FOIA request specifically identified both the individuals who sent/received the emails and the subject matter of them, it reasonably identified the public records sought and was not impermissibly vague or overbroad.

Next, the PAC reviewed the Governor’s Office’s preliminary email search, and found it was not limited in any way to the board appointments. The Governor’s Office explained that it could not further limit its preliminary email search because adding other terms would exclude many relevant emails. However, it turns out that the Governor’s Office did try a more limited search which yielded only 1,783 emails. The Governor’s Office explained that it did not tell the Requestor about the more limited search results because even sifting through those results would be unduly burdensome. The PAC held that the Governor’s Office had not demonstrated how reviewing 1,783 potentially responsive emails would be unduly burdensome, let alone how any potential burden would outweigh the significant public interest in the records. The PAC ordered the Governor’s Office to provide the Requestor with copies of the responsive emails, subject to appropriate redactions under Section 7 of FOIA.

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

The Cook County Assessor’s Office (Assessor’s Office) violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On June 22, 2018, the Requestor submitted a FOIA request for certain information regarding 2017 property tax exemptions for a specific property. Receiving no response by July 11, 2018, the Requestor contacted the PAC. The PAC sent two letters to the Assessor’s Office but received no response. Then, On August 2, 2018, the Assessor’s Office’s FOIA Officer spoke to a PAC attorney and assured the PAC it would respond. As of October 18, 2018, the Assessor’s Office had not responded to the PAC.

The PAC held that the Assessor’s Office violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing, within five business days after receiving the June 22, 2018 FOIA request, to provide the requested records, extend the time for its response pursuant to Section 3(e) of FOIA, or deny the request in whole or in part. The PAC ordered the Assessor’s Office to provide the Requestor with all responsive records, subject to appropriate exemptions under Section 7 of FOIA.

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

A public university (University) violated Section 2(a) of OMA by improperly discussing its budget, layoffs, and related matters in closed session during its June 28, 2018 meeting. The Request for Review alleged that the closed session discussion did not discuss specific employees – which is permitted by Section 2(c)(1) of OMA – but instead improperly discussed layoffs in general and/or whole classes of employees.

Reviewing the verbatim recording of the closed session, the PAC discovered that the University briefly discussed one particular employee but spent the “overwhelming majority” of the closed session discussing budgetary matters and considerations applicable to categories of employees, not the merits or conduct of individual employees. Not only does OMA prohibit such general discussions during closed session, but the PAC pointed to one of its 2015 opinions where it found that “a discussion of eliminating a position itself which does not consider the performance of the employee or whether a particular employee should occupy the position, is not within the scope of the section 2(c)(1) exception.” PAC 15-7. Accordingly, the PAC held that the University violated Section 2(a) of OMA by discussing in closed session matters outside the scope of the Section 2(c)(1) exception. The PAC ordered the University to make public a copy of the both the closed session minutes for and verbatim recording of the closed session portion of the June meeting.

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

A public school district (District) violated FOIA by improperly using Section 7(1)(c) to redact portions of a settlement agreement with a former employee. On April 13, 2018, the Requestor submitted a FOIA request to the District seeking copies of records pertaining to a settlement agreement between the District and a former school principal. Three days later, the District provided the Requestor with a redacted copy of the settlement agreement but did not specify the exemption in Section 7 of FOIA that it claimed to authorize the redactions. The Requestor emailed the District to ask why the redacted information was not disclosed, and the District responded that the information was not disclosed because it would have constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA Section 7(1)(c). The Requestor sought review by the PAC, alleging the District failed to timely assert the exemption it used and that the District did not assert a genuine basis for the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy exemption.

After reviewing an unredacted copy of the settlement agreement, the PAC determined that the redacted portions – which very generally addressed the nature of the former school principal’s potential claims against the District – were so general that they were not highly personal, and so their disclosure would not be objectionable to a reasonable person. Further, the PAC found that the nature of the claims bear on the public duties of a public employee, which it had previously held “shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy.” PAC 15-004. For these reasons, the PAC held that the redacted information was not exempt from disclosure under the plain language of Section 7(1)(c) and ordered the District to provide the Requestor an unredacted copy of the settlement agreement.

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

A village police department (Department) violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On May 17, 2018, the Requestor submitted a FOIA request to the Department seeking electronic copies of reports generated concerning three named individuals and one specific address. On May 30, 2018, the Requestor submitted a Request for Review PAC alleging the Department had not responded to her FOIA request, even though she had sent them two follow-up emails and made three follow-up phone calls. The PAC’s own correspondence to the Department went unanswered, so an Assistant Attorney General (AAG) with the PAC telephoned the Department. A Department employee answered the phone and stated the police chief had been out of the office for weeks and the secretary was also out. The AAG left a message but no one from the Department returned the AAG’s call. As of the opinion’s date, the Department had not responded to the PAC.

The PAC held that the Department’s failure to respond to the Requestor violated Section 3(d) of FOIA and it ordered the Department to immediately provide the Requestor with all responsive records, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7.

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