The Illinois Appellate Court decided that school districts are subject to cities’ zoning powers. The case arose when neighbors to a high school didn’t like the bleachers being built in the football stadium. The city issued a stop-order against the board prohibiting the continuation of the work on the bleachers. The neighbors sued the district seeking to privately enforce the city’s zoning ordinances. The court considered the board’s arguments supporting its position that the city may not restrict a school district’s land use. The court disagreed in an opinion that reads like a reply brief. The court relied on a provision in the School Code expressly allowing boards to seek zoning changes, variations, or special new uses for properties held or controlled by the school district. The court reasoned that this provision demonstrates that the legislature intended to subject the local school board to the municipality’s zoning regulations.

Photographs are not “private information” nor do they contain “biometric identifiers.

A police department denied a FOIA request for an officer’s basic headshot photographs. The department claimed the photographs were “private information” under FOIA because they contained “biometric identifiers.”

The PAC disagreed and ordered the photographs to be disclosed. FOIA does define “private information” to include “biometric identifiers.” But, the term “biometric identifiers” does not include the term “photographs.” Photographs are public records under FOIA and must be released when requested.

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

“Try, discuss, and explain…” is the theme of this PAC opinion.

TRY: When a public body responds to a FOIA request, its search for the requested records must be reasonably “tailored to the nature of a particular request” and “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” And, the public body should be able to show that it searched all records management systems that are likely to turn up the requested information.

DISCUSS: if a public body wishes to treat a request as unduly burdensome, then it shall extend an opportunity to the requestor to discuss reducing the request. If that does not work, then timely asserting an undue burden during the timeframes outlined in the statute is required.

EXPLAIN: If the search returns no responsive records for the request, the public body should explain why no records were found. The explanation should demonstrate that there were no alternative methods to find the requested records or why that it was not practical to search other sources for the requested information.

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

A public body must disclose public records in its possession that pertain to public business. While requested records in this opinion were in the possession of a Student Government Association (SGA), the SGA was managed and controlled by a Student Activities Center, which was ultimately controlled by the public University. The PAC found the University’s ultimate control over the SGA made SGA’s records subject to disclosure under FOIA.

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

A public agency improperly redacted (blocked out) financial terms from contracts that it provided in response to a FOIA request. Any records that document public money being paid to entities under contracts to perform a governmental function must be disclosed under FOIA.

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