Recent Court Decisions

The PAC found that the City of Elgin (“City”) violated FOIA when it improperly denied a FOIA request for a private developer’s redevelopment cost budget for a building project in the City. The project was financed in part by tax increment financing monies from the City. The City denied the request under Section 7(1)(g) of FOIA, which exempts from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person or business where the trade secrets or commercial or financial information are furnished under a claim that they are proprietary, privileged or confidential, and that disclosure. . . would cause competitive harm to the person of business.” 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(g). The City asserted that the developer had given the budget to the city with the implied promise it would be kept confidential, and it generally argued that disclosure of the information would result in competitive harm to the developer and the project because other developers could use the financial information to structure their own developments.

The PAC was unpersuaded by the City’s arguments, finding that it had failed to meet the plain language of the exemption under 7(1)(g). First, the City could not invoke the exemption because there has been no express claim made by the developer that the information was “proprietary, privileged, or confidential.” Second, even if such an express claim of confidentiality had been made, the City failed to provide specific facts or evidence to demonstrate how disclosure of the budget would result in competitive harm, such as identifying the competition the developer or project was facing or describing how certain line items in the budget could be used to a competitor’s advantage in a way that would harm the developer or project. Additionally, the fact that developers could be dissuaded from doing business with the City for fear their trade secrets could be disclosed was not relevant to the 7(1)(g) analysis. The PAC ordered the City to provide a copy of the budget document to the FOIA requester.

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

The PAC found that the City of Joliet (“City”) violated FOIA when it improperly redacted a water customer’s bill in response to a FOIA request dated October 17, 2017. The FOIA requester, Troy Community Consolidated School District #30C, submitted a FOIA request for a copy of a water bill associated with a particular address. (The District was seeking the information to help it discern who was living at an in-district address). The City provided the water bill with certain redactions. It argued that the water customer’s name was exempt from disclosure under Section 7(1)(b) because the name constituted “private information” Section 7(1)(b). Section 2(c-5) of FOIA, in relevant part, defines “private information” as “unique identifiers, including a person's social security number, driver's license number, employee identification number, biometric identifiers, personal financial information, passwords or other access codes, medical records, home or personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses….home address and personal license plates…” The City specifically claimed that in the context of the water bill, the customer name constituted personal financial information and should be exempt.

The PAC found that the City could not properly assert the private information exemption because an individual’s name is not a unique identifier under Section 2(c-5). The PAC explained that a name is “basic information” and many people can have the same name; it is therefore not “unique.” Additionally, the PAC noted that even if the customer name did constitute personal financial information, bills for water services are public records subject to inspection because they are “records relating to the obligation, receipt, and use of public funds” under Section 2.5 of FOIA, and that section requires disclosure. The PAC ordered the Village to provide a copy of the water bill with the customer’s name unredacted to the FOIA requester.

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

The PAC found that the City of East St. Louis (“City”) violated Section 3(b) of FOIA when it failed to respond to a FOIA request seeking information about the meeting schedule of a City employee. The City Clerk told the PAC that it had not responded to the request, but had already provided the responsive records to the requester in response to a prior FOIA request from the same requester. The Clerk said that she would forward the request to City’s attorney for a response, but a response was never provided. The PAC subsequently ordered the Village to provide the responsive records to the requester, subject to permissible redactions under Section 7. The fact that the City may have provided the responsive records in response to an earlier request from the requestor did not excuse the City from responding to the newer request.

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

The PAC found that the Village of Hudson (Village) violated FOIA when it improperly redacted portions of its mayor’s resignation e-mail in responding to a FOIA request submitted on October 4, 2017. The Village attempted to argue that the redacted material was exempt under Section 7(1)(f), which, in relevant part, exempts from disclosure records “in which opinions are express, or policies or actions are formulate.” The Village claimed the redacted text was a record in which an opinion was expressed that was not the final policy of the Village. The Village also claimed that the portions of the e-mail were exempt under Section 7(1)(n) because the material related to the Village’s adjudication of an employee grievance or disciplinary case.

After reviewing an unredacted copy of the resignation letter, the PAC found that the Village’s assertions were without merit. Regarding Section 7(1)(f), the PAC noted that while the redacted text may have reflected the mayor’s opinion about the circumstances leading to his resignation, the opinion expressed was not part of the “give-and-take of the deliberative process;” rather, the mayor’s decision was a single communication, and his decision to resign had already been made. The PAC also found that Section 7(1)(n) did not apply because the Village failed to identify a grievance, complaint, or disciplinary action that was adjudicated, nor was the e-mail generated during a formal proceeding that could be considered an “adjudication.” The PAC ordered the Village to provide an unredacted copy of the former mayor’s email to the FOIA requester.

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

McClean County (County) violated FOIA by denying a request made on September 6, 2017, for copies of recent FOIA requests submitted to the County and its responses to those requests. The County denied the FOIA request on the basis that it “did not meet the purpose and intent of [FOIA].” It believed that the requester was improperly trying to obtain information about private individuals rather than information concerning government. The County, however, did not assert any specific statutory exemptions under FOIA in its denial. The PAC found that the County’s denial of the request was improper because under Section 3(c) of FOIA, public bodies may not “require the requester to specify the purpose for a request, except to determine whether the records are requested for a commercial purpose or whether to grant a request for a fee waiver.” FOIA does not allow a public body to deny a FOIA request based on what it believes to be the underlying motive of the request. The PAC ordered the County to provide records responsive to the FOIA request, subject only to redactions permitted under Section 7 of FOIA.

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