Recent Court Decisions

An individual challenged a ruling that his prior conviction for forgery made him ineligible to hold the office of a school board member because it is an “infamous crime.” Illinois prohibits school board members who have been convicted of infamous crimes from holding office.

Interestingly, while this case was being decided, the school board member’s forgery conviction was expunged. However, because that fact did not exist while the case was being appealed, the court held that it was not relevant to its review. This fact leaves the question open as to whether this individual will now be eligible to hold the office of school board member.

Whenever a district provides email addresses to individual board members, all emails sent to individual email addresses are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Read the entire decision here: www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2013/4thDistrict/4120662.pdf

This opinion, binding on the parties, demonstrates that the failure to respond to a FOIA request violates FOIA. The Public Access Counselor directed the City of Harvey to immediately provide the records, subject only to permissible redactions and exemptions, and to issue timely responses to future FOIA requests. The takeaway is that the PAC will rule against a public body if the public body ignores FOIA requests.

At issue in this PAC opinion, binding on the Village of Winnetka, was whether the Village had to disclose an employee’s employment application and résumé pursuant to a FOIA request. Finding yes, the PAC rejected the Village’s argument that the employee’s application and résumé qualified for the exemption for personal information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The PAC determined that the employee’s education, training, and experience were all factors that bear on his ability to perform his public duties and, even if they did not, the Village did not sustain its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the exemption was applicable. The PAC also found that the application and résumé did not qualify for the exemptions for performance evaluations or deliberative material. The exemption for private information applied to allow the Village to redact unique identifiers and private information listed in section 7(1)(b) of FOIA, e.g., social security number, telephone number, and personal e-mail. The takeaway for school districts is that the PAC will likely require the disclosure of an employee’s application and résumé (with private information redacted), unless the district can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the application and résumé contain information that is highly personal.

This PAC opinion, binding on the parties, determined that the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (Authority) improperly denied an opportunity for a FOIA requester to review lease agreements for conventions and trade shows held at McCormick Place. In addition, the Authority argued that the information is exempt as confidential proprietary information. The PAC rejected these arguments. The takeaway for school districts is that the PAC will likely require the disclosure of agreements pursuant to a FOIA request.