 "I am encouraged by the progress that has been made in the years
since the state's stronger sunshine laws went into effect," Madigan
said. "And as the demand for our assistance remains high, we
continue to expand our enforcement work and educate the public about
the rights and responsibilities of public agencies in an effort to
create a new standard for transparency in Illinois government."
In 2013, the Public Access Bureau received 3,426 formal requests
for assistance pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and Open
Meetings Act. The vast majority of the requests came from members of
the public. The requests came from every area of the state, and
involved all types of public bodies — from small villages to large
cities and state agencies.
In addition to formal requests, in 2013 the Public Access Bureau
fielded up to 50 questions every day through the Freedom of
Information Act hotline and received more than 300 general inquiries
via email. The Public Access Bureau also conducted 35 training
sessions for members of the public, government officials, members of
the media and students.
In 2013, the Public Access Bureau again increased the number of
binding opinions issued. The authority to issue binding
administrative decisions was an important component of the 2010
overhaul of the state's transparency laws and has allowed the bureau
to issue opinions that clarify the law and increase disclosure. The
Public Access Bureau has also helped thousands of members of the
public, media organizations and advocacy groups resolve disputes
over records and open meetings through informal mediation with
public bodies, which has led to increased disclosure of government
information.
2013 Public Access Bureau activities
In 2013, the Public Access Bureau received 3,426 new matters.
Last year's numbers once again show that members of the public,
rather than media representatives, are the most prolific users of
Illinois' sunshine laws.
Of the 3,426 total new matters
received by the Public Access Bureau there were:
-
3,039 requests for
review from those who were denied records under the Freedom of
Information Act:
-
387 requests for
review regarding Open Meetings Act violations:
2013 success stories of Illinois' sunshine laws
The members of the public, media and government agencies can seek
guidance from the Public Access Bureau as to whether documents
should be disclosed under Freedom of Information Act and guidelines
for conducting meetings according to the Open Meetings Act.
"Requests for Review" submitted by the public and the media
regarding a public body's FOIA denials or potential OMA violations
can lead to either informal or binding decisions to resolve
questions over public access to government documents or meetings.
Madigan highlighted some of the Public Access Bureau's binding
opinions and informal mediation results that have helped to increase
the public's access to their government:
-
Public Access
Opinion No. 13-011, issued June 11, 2013 — WMBD
Channel 31 News submitted a FOIA request to the city of Bloomington
seeking records concerning a traffic accident involving the
Bloomington assistant police chief and all records concerning an
internal investigation related to that incident. The city provided
records but redacted significant information under section 7(1)(n),
which exempts from disclosure records relating to a public body's
adjudication of employee grievances or disciplinary cases. The
binding opinion concluded that section 7(1)(n) of FOIA should be
read narrowly and does not apply in the absence of an actual
adjudication. In this instance, the city never held a formal
disciplinary hearing. The city complied with the opinion and
disclosed the records to WMBD Channel 31 News and other media
outlets that submitted similar requests.
-
Public Access Opinion No. 13-014, issued Sept. 5, 2013
— A member
of the public alleged that the board of trustees of the Broadlands-Longview
Fire Protection District violated OMA by holding a special meeting
at its attorney's law office, which was outside of the district.
This meeting was at 9 a.m. on a weekday, approximately 26 miles from
the board of trustees' regular meeting place. The binding opinion
concluded that the meeting was not "convenient to the public" as
required by Section 2.01 of OMA. In particular, the opinion reasoned
that the meeting time and location likely discouraged members of the
public from attending, when more publicly accessible alternative
locations were available.
[to top of second column] |
-
Public Access Opinion No. 13-016, issued Sept. 24, 2013
— A
reporter for the Kane County Chronicle submitted a Request for
Review alleging that the Board of Education of Geneva Community Unit
School District No. 304 violated OMA by voting to recommend the
dismissal of an employee without identifying that employee. Section
2(e) of OMA requires that final action be preceded by a public
recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other
information to inform the public of the business being conducted.
The board contended that the employee's privacy interest justified
withholding the employee's identity. The binding opinion, however,
concluded that the public is entitled to information concerning the
performance of public employees and that the board's failure to
identify the employee deprived the public of any meaningful
information concerning the impact of its decision to recommend
termination.
-
Request for Review Letter 25171, issued Dec. 11, 2013
— The Medill Watchdog, a student journalism program at Northwestern
University, sought from the village of Forest Park incident reports
and records of 911 calls and calls for service reports concerning
violence and victimization of individuals under 21 years old at
Riveredge Hospital, a psychiatric facility. The village denied those
records under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA, which exempts information
that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if
disclosed. The Public Access Bureau determined that redactions of
names and identifying information would protect the patients'
privacy interest, and that the strong public interest in information
regarding the adequacy of services provided to individuals with
mental health issues, especially minors, necessitated disclosure of
the records. The village complied with the determination and
disclosed the records.
-
Request for Review Letter 21461, issued Jan. 28, 2013
— The
Register-Mail newspaper in Galesburg submitted a FOIA request to
Knox County seeking records concerning settlement agreements for
lawsuits alleging sexual harassment by the Knox County state's
attorney. The county responded that it did not possess any
responsive records. Following consultations with the Public Access
Bureau, the county provided the Public Access Bureau with copies of
three settlement agreements covered by confidentiality clauses. The
Public Access Bureau determined that because the General Assembly
intended Section 2.20 of FOIA to require the disclosure of all
settlement agreements to which a public body is a party, the
confidentiality clauses did not provide a valid basis for
withholding the records. The county subsequently disclosed the
settlement agreements.
Madigan also highlighted a 2013 court ruling upholding a binding
Public Access Bureau opinion that will have a significant impact on
how public bodies treat online and mobile communications in FOIA
requests:
- In city of Champaign v. Madigan, a reporter for the Champaign
News-Gazette filed a FOIA request seeking copies of electronic
communications sent by members of the Champaign City Council during
work sessions and city council meetings. The request encompassed
communications on city council members' personal electronic devices
and personal email and Twitter accounts. The city provided records
from the city's electronic equipment, but asserted that
communications exchanged on privately owned equipment are not public
records subject to disclosure under FOIA. The attorney general
issued a binding opinion finding that text messages and emails sent
on city council members' personal electronic devices during meetings
that pertain to the transaction of public business constitute public
records in the city's possession. The city filed a lawsuit in
circuit court to overturn that binding opinion. The circuit court
affirmed the attorney general's binding opinion. The city then
appealed that ruling to the 4th District Appellate Court, which
affirmed the circuit court's decision upholding the binding opinion.
The court stated that "it is not unreasonable to conclude
communications ‘pertaining to the transaction of public business,'
which are sent to and received by city council members' personal
electronic devices during a meeting are in the possession of the
public body."
More information about Illinois' sunshine laws can be found at
the Illinois attorney general's
website. Anyone seeking assistance
from the Public Access Bureau can contact the hotline at
1-877-299-FOIA (3642) or send an email to
publicaccess@atg.state.il.us.
[Text from file received from the office of
Illinois Attorney General Lisa
Madigan]
 |
