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 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 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.