The City of Carlinville (City) violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On March 18, 2017, an individual submitted a request for copies of various purchase card statements and cell phone statements since October 1, 2016, as well as copies of proof that elected officials completed FOIA and OMA training. Receiving no response, on March 28, 2017, the requestor requested the PAC review the City’s failure to respond. The PAC found that the City 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 City 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 Office of the Governor (Governor’s Office) violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On March 10, 2017, an individual submitted a request via email for documents concerning “emails that Deputy Governor Leslie Munger sent or received since she became Deputy Governor; and Munger’s daily schedule for the next six months.” Ten days later, the requestor sent a follow-up email stating she had not received a response to her FOIA. Continuing to receive no response, the requestor sent six emails between April 18, 2017 and May 4, 2017 inquiring about her FOIA request. On May 5, 2017, the requestor still had not received a response from the Governor’s Office and requested the PAC review the matter. The PAC forwarded the Request for Review to the Governor’s Office twice but, as of the date of this binding opinion, had not received a response.

The PAC found that the Governor’s Office violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing to appropriately respond to a 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. 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.

The City of Benton (City) violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On February 17, 2017, an individual submitted a request for “agendas and meeting minutes for Benton Airport for calendar years 2013, 2014 & 2015.” Within five days, an Airport Board Member responded to request a five day extension to substantively respond, stating the Airport Board had not appointed a FOIA director yet. On March 11, 2017, the requestor had yet to receive a response and requested the PAC review the City’s failure to respond. Next, the City told the PAC that “the Benton Municipal Airport” is a separate entity from the City and therefore the City was not responsible for responding to FOIA requests directed to the Airport.

The PAC found that the City violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing to provide the requested records or to respond in writing to the FOIA request. The PAC reasoned that though the Airport Board Member sent the requestor a letter on February 17, 2017, FOIA does not allow a public body to extend the timeline for response for the reason stated in the letter (that the Airport did not have a FOIA director). Moreover, the PAC was not persuaded that the City and Airport are separate entities, and instead found that the Airport is “City-owned property.” Therefore, the City is the public body ultimately responding to the FOIA request. The PAC ordered the City 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.

A public body violated FOIA by improperly denying a request under Section 7(1)(f). The requestor submitted a FOIA request to the Village of Oak Park (Village) asking for “the traffic counts from the roadway monitoring operations conducted on 10/25/16, 10/26/16 for the following roads: Washington Blvd, Madison Street and Jackson Blvd” and “the traffic counts from the roadway monitoring operations conducted on 11/11/16 for Madison Street.” The Village denied the request under Section 7(1)(f), claiming that “the traffic counts are in draft form and have not been publicly released.”

Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA exempts from disclosure “[p]reliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated, except that a specific record or relevant portion of a record shall not be exempt when the record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body.” Factual information is not exempt from disclosure unless the information is inextricably intertwined with a deliberative process in a way that its disclosure would reveal the deliberative process.

The PAC found that although the traffic counts being requested were part of a preliminary traffic study, they are purely factual and the public body did not sustain its burden of demonstrating that the traffic counts were inextricably intertwined with a deliberative process or that their disclosure would reveal any aspect of any deliberative process, thereby violating the requirements of FOIA. The public body was directed to take immediate and appropriate action to disclose to the requestor a copy of those portions of the traffic study containing the traffic counts that were requested.

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

Cassandra Black, IASB Law Clerk

A public body violated FOIA by improperly denying a request. A requestor submitted a request to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) asking for records “sufficient to show the job titles, locations, and numbers of employees in each category which the Department of Corrections considers essential and who would be required to report to work in the event of interruption in state employee pay and the closing of some offices and services.” IDOC denied the request, claiming that “to the extent documents exist, [the documents] are exempt” under Section 7(1)(m) and 7(1)(f), but did not provide a detailed factual explanation supporting its assertion of either exemption.

Under Section 7(1)(m), records are exempt from disclosure when they contain communications of attorneys and provide “[c]ommunications between a public body and an attorney . . . representing the public body that would not be subject to discovery in litigation, and materials prepared or compiled by or for a public body in anticipation of a criminal, civil or administrative proceeding upon the request of an attorney advising the public[.]”

Records are exempt under Section 7(1)(f) when they are “[p]reliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated, except that a specific record or relevant portion of a record shall not be exempt when the record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body.”

The PAC found IDOC’s response was improper, as the validity of the asserted exemptions could not be determined without confirmation that responsive records exist. Additionally, IDOC did not sustain its burden of demonstrating that the records qualified for exemptions under 7(1)(m) or 7(1)(m). The PAC ordered the public body to immediately disclose the records in response to the FOIA requestor.

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

Cassandra Black, IASB Law Clerk