An individual submitted a FOIA request to the Illinois State Police (ISP) for records pertaining to the death of his daughter, including all crime scene and autopsy photographs. ISP responded by providing certain information but withholding the crime scene and autopsy photographs as personal information which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Section 7(1)(c). The PAC found that 7(1)(c) did not apply here because an individual’s personal privacy interest ceases to exist upon death. Further, the PAC held that a decedent’s surviving family members possess a separate personal privacy interest in their close relative’s death-scene images, that such individuals may consent to the disclosure of information in which he or she has a personal privacy interest, and that ISP did not articulate a legal rationale justifying withholding the photographs from the decedent’s father, who was also executor of her estate.

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

An individual submitted a FOIA request to the Chicago Police Department (CPD) for various First Amendment-related worksheets and for communications issued by the Crime Prevention Information Center generated from August 2014 through October 2014. CPD did not respond to the FOIA request within 5 business days, extend its time for a response under Section 3(e), or deny the request in writing. CPD then repeatedly failed to respond to subsequent requests by the Public Access Bureau that it respond to the FOIA request. The PAC ordered CPD to immediately provide all records responsive to the FOIA requester, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7 of FOIA. 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.

Originally issued Dec. 15, 2015, the court issued a corrected opinion. During a public meeting, the board voted to terminate employment of its superintendent. The superintendent and the board reached agreement as to terms of separation, and he signed a 19-page “separation agreement and release.” The board appropriately considered the superintendent's dismissal and signed the agreement during closed session one month prior to its vote in open session as permitted by section 2(c)(1) of Open Meetings Act.

The Alliance filed an Amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of the Springfield School District 186 Board of Education.

A request for certified payroll records was made of a public body. The public body did not respond in the required 5 day timeframe and it asserted that the records request was unduly burdensome. The PAC has found that a public body must respond within the required 5 days and, if the public body asserts the request as unduly burdensome, it must provide the requestor an opportunity to narrow the FOIA request.

If a public body wants to assert that a records request is unduly burdensome, it should contact its board attorney for assistance to respond within the required timeframes and narrow the request to something manageable.

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

The public body received a FOIA request for lists of outside counsel, including the agencies represented and a description of their work. The lists provided by the public body are not exempt by section 7(1)(m) of FOIA. The lists contain only general information about the legal services provided for the public body. The lists do not contain litigation plans, mental impressions, legal advice, or legal theories. Additionally, rates paid to outside counsel are subject to disclosure because the records pertain to the use of public funds by the State.

Compiling information already in the public body’s possession into a different format in order to respond to a FOIA request does not constitute the creation of a new record.

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

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk