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 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.

The Office of the Governor violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On September 14, 2017, an individual submitted a request for a log of FOIA requests received by the Governor since July 1, 2017. The requestor received no response and subsequently requested the PAC review the Governor’s failure to respond. The PAC found that the Governor violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing to provide the requested records or to respond in writing to the FOIA request. The PAC ordered the Governor’s Office to immediately provide all records in response to the FOIA requestor, 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.

The school district had the right to not only discipline student C.E. for racist and derogatory content directed toward specific students that he posted on an Instagram account, but also to discipline other students who commented on and/or “liked” certain posts.

In November 2016, Plaintiff C.E. created an Instagram account and granted access to a group of Albany High School (AHS) students. In March 2017, AHS students and school personnel discovered the account and its contents. The account contained 30-40 posts, many of which targeted AHS students and school personnel with racist and derogatory content, including a picture of an African-American AHS student and an African-American AHS basketball coach with nooses drawn around their necks. The district expelled C.E. and suspended students who had commented on or “liked” C.E.’s posts, as well as one student who had access to the account but never commented on or otherwise responded to it online.

The Court first considered whether the speech at issue was school speech, and found that it was because a “nexus” to the school existed (account followers were mostly school students, the posts featured 10 different students and school personnel, and the posts depicted school activities and were clearly taken on campus). In addition, even though C.E. intended that the Instagram account remain private, it was reasonably foreseeable that the speech would reach the school and create a risk of substantial disruption.

Next, the Court found that because the speech substantially disrupted school and invaded the rights of others, the district appropriately disciplined C.E. and those who commented on or “liked” his posts that targeted specific students. “There is no doubt that these plaintiffs meaningfully contributed to the disruptions at AHS by embracing C.E.’s posts in this fashion” the Court stated.

Notably, the Court did not uphold the discipline of four other students, who had neither approved of nor adopted any content targeting specific individuals within the school. The Court reasoned that “endorsement of speech that is offensive or noxious at a general level differs from endorsement or encouragement of speech that specifically targets individual students.”

This case is not binding in Illinois, however it reflects the increasing trend of courts to recognize the right of school districts to discipline students for certain misconduct that occurs off-campus via social media.

A Board of Trustees of a village (Board) violated OMA by improperly using Section 2(c)(4) to enter closed session to discuss the conduct of one of its Board members.

Here, the Board member whose conduct was at issue had made racist comments during a May 2017 Board meeting. In response, the agenda for the Board’s August 8, 2017 meeting identified a resolution concerning the Board member’s comments as an item for discussion, however the Board entered closed session for the discussion and cited Section 2(c)(4) of OMA to do so. Section 2(c)(4) allows a public body to enter closed session to discuss “evidence or testimony presented in open hearing, or in a closed hearing where specifically authorized by law, to a quasi-adjudicative body.” Under OMA, a “quasi-adjudicative body” is “an administrative body charged by law or ordinance with the responsibility to conduct hearings, receive evidence or testimony and make determinations based thereon, but does not include local electoral boards when such bodies are considering petition challenges.”

Upon reviewing the closed session verbatim recording of the August meeting, the PAC found that the Board did not consider evidence or testimony – they just discussed a resolution regarding the Board member’s comments. Even if the Board had considered evidence or testimony, they would have done so as a legislative body, so Section 2(c)(4) could not apply.

Because the Board improperly entered closed session to discuss the conduct of one of its members, the PAC ordered the Board to publicly disclose the portion of the closed session verbatim recording containing this discussion.

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