For the sixth time this calendar year, the PAC has told public bodies they must respond to FOIA requests. An individual submitted a FOIA request via email to the Housing Authority of Cook County for all correspondence between the Authority and the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation from March 1, 2015 to July 25, 2016. Eleven business days later, the Authority emailed the FOIA requestor, stating it had questions regarding the FOIA request. The Authority eventually obtained written clarification from the FOIA requester regarding the records sought, however the Authority never actually responded to the FOIA request. The Authority also failed to respond to the PAC’s inquiries. The PAC found the Authority violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing, within five business days after receiving the FOIA request, to provide the requested records, deny the request in whole or in part, or to notify the FOIA requestor in writing that it was extending the time for a issuing a response. The PAC ordered the Authority to immediately provide all records responsive to the FOIA requester, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7. Again, the bottom line here is that public bodies must respond to FOIA requests within the time permitted per statute.

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

During a public meeting, the board voted to approve two items listed on its agenda as “X. Board Approval of Lease Rates” and “XI. Board Approval of Revised Covenants.” A member of the public then asked the board to describe what it had just voted on, and the board declined to. Plaintiffs then filed suit, alleging the board violated Section 2(e) of the Open Meetings Act by failing to make a sufficient public recital of items X and XI prior to voting on them. Section 2(e) of OMA specifically requires that final action “be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted.” The appellate court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a claim for an OMA violation and that their case would not be dismissed because “although we are unsure precisely what standard of specificity is required of a public recital, we can say with confidence that the Board’s actions in this case were insufficient.” The court reasoned that while “a detailed explanation about the significance or impact of the proposed final action” is not necessary, a public body must provide enough details to inform the public of the nature of the matter being considered.

For the fifth time this calendar year, the PAC has told public bodies they must respond to FOIA requests. An individual submitted a FOIA request via email to a school district for various documents pertaining to an accounting, consulting and technology firm the school district did business with. The same day, the requestor received an automatic email response from the school district acknowledging receipt of the FOIA request and extending the timeline to respond by an additional five business days to ten total business days, as permitted by Section 3(e) of FOIA. Thirty-one days after submitting her FOIA request, the requestor had yet to receive a response from the school district. The school district also failed to respond to the PAC’s inquiries. The PAC ordered the school district to immediately provide all records responsive to the FOIA requester, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7. Again, the bottom line here is that public bodies must respond to FOIA requests within the time permitted per statute.

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

Though a public body provided copies of and properly exempted portions of some records responsive to FOIA requests from multiple requestors for information concerning a criminal complaint filed by a then-public official, the public body violated FOIA by improperly redacting and withholding other responsive records.

In redacting/withholding certain records, the public body invoked exemptions under FOIA Sections 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), and 7(1)(d)(v). Section 7(1)(b) exempts private information from disclosure, and the PAC found that the public body properly withheld the account identification number and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) for the public official’s Facebook page as private information. It found, however, that the public official’s Facebook and Skype account names could not be withheld because they are akin to or derived from his legal name.

Section 7(1)(c) exempts from disclosure personal information which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The PAC found the public body properly withheld the public official’s birth date, which it considers “highly personal by its very nature.” It also found the public body properly withheld portions of statements the public official made to police regarding the extortion crime he was a victim of, as well as the identities of suspects who were private citizens. The PAC, however, found that the public body should have disclosed the amounts of money involved in the extortion, especially because the public official had publicly acknowledged that he was extorted.

Section 7(1)(d)(v) exempts from disclosure law enforcement records that would disclose unique investigative techniques and which would result in demonstrable harm to the public body. Here, the public body withheld records pertaining to unique investigative techniques for gathering information from electronic and social media sources. The PAC found that disclosing such information would result in harm because it could enable perpetrators to evade detection. In contrast, the PAC found that the public body had improperly redacted information regarding routine investigative steps. Finally, the PAC found the public body had properly refused to disclose search warrants when the search warrants themselves expressly prohibited their disclosure.

The PAC ordered the public body to immediately disclose the non-exempt portions of additional records responsive to the requests. This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

A public body violated FOIA by improperly asserting that the requestor’s request was unduly burdensome under Section 3(g). The requestor requested all emails between a specific employee of the public body and a private planning/architecture firm during a one month period. The public body responded by asserting the request was unduly burdensome because it had discovered 50 responsive emails comprising nearly 174 pages of material, and it asked the requestor to narrow her request. When a public body asks a requestor to narrow his/her request because it believes the request is unduly burdensome, this constitutes a denial under Section 3(g) of FOIA. Using a balancing test to determine whether complying with a request is unduly burdensome, the PAC asked whether the public interest in disclosure of the requested records outweighs the burden of compliance on the public body. The PAC found the public body “did not demonstrate with specificity how the process of retrieving and reviewing these records would constitute a significant burden on its operations” such that it would outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The PAC ordered the public body to immediately disclose the requested emails, subject to appropriate redactions.

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