The public body violated Section 2(a) of OMA at its September 26, 2016 meeting by improperly relying upon Section 2(c)(1) to engage in a closed session discussion of an across-the-board pay raise for non-union employees. Section 2(c)(1) permits public bodies to close a portion of a meeting to discuss “the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body,” but it does not permit a public body to discuss in closed session budgetary matters concerning broad categories of employees. The PAC ordered the public body to make publicly available the portion of the closed session verbatim recording of its September 26, 2016 meeting related to an across-the-board pay raise for non-union employees.

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

For the second time two calendar years, the PAC has told public bodies that the amount of compensation paid by the public body is subject to disclosure unless it is otherwise exempted.

An individual submitted a FOIA request to the Housing Authority of the City of Freeport for the names and titles of staff members receiving bonuses, as well as the amount of the bonuses. The Authority denied the request in its entirety, asserting that the requested records were exempted under: FOIA Section 7(1)(b) as a “unique identifier” that could be considered personal financial information; FOIA Section 7(1)(c) as personal information that could constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”; and the Personnel Record Review Act (820 ILCS 40/). Unpersuaded by these attempts at claiming exemptions, the PAC held that the requested records were subject to disclosure under FOIA Section 2.5 because employee compensation relates to the use of public funds. The PAC ordered the Authority to immediately provide the FOIA requester with records sufficient to show the bonuses paid.

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

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.