Recent Court Decisions

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.

In July 2014 Rosemary Vega (Vega) was removed from a public meeting of the Chicago Board of Education (Board) for “disruptive behavior,” and she was subsequently prohibited from attending any Board meetings until March 2017. Vega sued the Board, alleging her removal and prohibition from attending meetings violated her First Amendment Free Speech rights.

Reviewing the facts, the Court discovered that over a fourth month period, Vega had demonstrated “a persistent and escalating willingness to cause disturbances during Board meetings.” In March 2014, Vega exceeded her allotted two-minute speaking time and had to be ushered from the podium. In May 2014, Vega stated she would “get kicked out of the Board meeting every month for two minutes for the next how many years you got of life.” In July 2014, Vega violated the Board’s Public Participation Guidelines by rushing up the dais, yelling at a Board member, shaking her fist, and interrupting another speaker. Vega’s actions were perceived as threatening by security officers and she refused to leave when asked to.

The Court found that the Board’s enforcement of its Guidelines did not violate the First Amendment because they were content-neutral, and were not speaker- or content-based. The Court also found that the Board’s 2.5 year ban on Vega attending Board meetings was proper because it was narrowly tailored – it “did not burden more of Vega’s speech than necessary to maintain order during Board meetings or to ensure that members of the public who wished to address the Board in accordance with the Guidelines had that opportunity.” Finally, the Court found that even when Vega was prohibited from attending Board meetings, she had ample alternative channels of communication left, including meeting individually with Board members during their office hours and the ability to submit written testimony to the Board.