Rauner, L. Madigan lawyers duel in letters – Illinois News Network

 

SPRINGFIELD — Top lawyers for Illinois’ Republican governor and Democratic attorney general are in a dustup over the governor’s office filing a “friend of the court” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s solicitor general says Gov. Bruce Rauner’s staff lawyers stepped out of line when they filed an amicus curiae brief in a case now before the court, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.

Rauner’s lawyers say Madigan’s office is wrong on several fronts.

The Friedrichs case is of nationwide interest to unions and right-to-work advocates, among others.

Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other California teachers who are not union members object to paying what are known as “agency fees” or “fair-share” dues.

They argue that being forced to pay dues, even those said to be directed only toward bargaining and contract administration, is a violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech and free association.

The high court announced in June it would hear the case this term, which began earlier this month. A decision is not expected until summer 2016.

On Sept. 25, Illinois Solicitor General Carolyn Shapiro wrote to Scott Harris, clerk of the court, to inform him of an “unauthorized” filing of an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief on behalf of Rauner in support of Friedrichs’ position.

The governor’s attorneys, Jason Barclay and Dennis Murashko, lack the authority to file such a brief, Shapiro argued.

Those attorneys “have no authority to file or order the filing of any brief in this court on behalf of the governor, in his official capacity, because neither the governor nor his attorneys have the authority, as a matter of state law, to represent the state or its officials in any court or to determine the state’s litigation positions,” Shapiro wrote.

“The Illinois Constitution provides: ‘The attorney general shall be the legal officer of the state,’” Shapiro wrote.

She cited the Illinois Attorney General Act which states, among other things, the attorney general has the power to “appear for and represent the people of the state before the Supreme Court in all cases in which the state or the people of the state are interested.”

She said the Illinois Supreme Court has, for at least a century, delegated the state’s legal representation to the attorney general.

For example, she cited the case of Fergus v. Russel, in which the Illinois Supreme Court held the attorney general “is the sole official adviser of the executive officers … and it is his duty to conduct the law business of the state, both in and out of the courts.”

She also cited the case of Scachitti v. UBS Financial services, in which the court said, “the attorney general is the chief legal officer of the state and its only representative in the courts.”

Shapiro contends “Mr. Barclay and Mr. Murashko are well aware that they do not have authority to file or authorize the filing of court documents on behalf of of the governor in his official capacity absent appointment by the attorney general as special assistant attorneys general.”

Barclay and Murashko wrote their own Oct. 1 letter to the clerk of the court and argued the solicitor general is off the mark.

The governor’s lawyers say Illinois is not and never has been a party to the Friedrichs case and the governor’s office isn’t trying to change that, but only filing an amicus or “friend” brief — which they argue Rauner has every right to do.

And they say the governor clearly and within court rules filed only in his individual capacity and alongside several individual employees of the Kaneland, Illinois, Unified School District No. 302.

“The governor never represented that he filed the brief on behalf of the state of Illinois, the attorney general of Illinois, or any other elected official in Illinois,” the governor’s attorneys wrote.

Finally, they say the governor and attorney general have been at odds in both state and federal cases and remain so in a state case concerning a Rauner executive order addressing First Amendment issues similar, if not identical, to matters at issue in the Friedrichs case.

When the attorney general is in conflict with another state executive official, such as the governor, the courts have held “attorney general must yield to the other official’s choice of counsel,” Barclay and Murashko wrote, citing the case of Suburban Cook County Regional Office of Education v. Cook County Board.

The governor’s lawyers conclude the “attorney general is, of course, free to file her own amicus brief in support of respondents in Friedrichs. She may yet do so. She may do so on behalf of her own office or on behalf of the state. But the attorney general cannot infringe on the governor’s ability to speak to this court, especially when…the governor and the attorney general are adversaries in active litigation on the same issue in Illinois.”

To date, nothing has become of the disagreement.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg said the letters are part of the case file and docket notes distributed to the justices. Should the court have any response, it will be noted on the docket, she said in an email.

Neither Rauner’s nor Madigan’s press secretaries had any comment Friday.

Rauner, L. Madigan lawyers duel in letters – Illinois News Network

Central Illinois newspaper sues Gov. Rauner over public information request for schedule

 

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois — A central Illinois weekly newspaper is suing Gov. Bruce Rauner after the attorney general's office said he must turn over appointment calendars showing his daily schedule.

An Illinois Times reporter submitted a May request through the Freedom of Information Act for Rauner's daily calendar from April 1 to May 15. When the documents arrived, information was redacted.

On Tuesday, Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office issued an 18-page opinion saying Rauner's office violated the act and should provide the requested information.

However, Madigan's office can't enforce the ruling.

That led to the Springfield newspaper filing a lawsuit Wednesday in Sangamon County. It seeks to force Rauner's office to turn over complete documents, saying the administration "intentionally and in bad faith" violated open records law.

Rauner spokeswoman Catherine Kelly declined comment, citing pending litigation.

Above from:  Central Illinois newspaper sues Gov. Rauner over public information request for schedule

 

Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2015 03:48 pm

AG rules against Rauner, in favor of Illinois Times

Newspaper sues governor

By Bruce Rushton

Gov. Bruce Rauner has refused to release his appointment calendar to Illinois Times, so the paper sued him today, following a favorable decision from the Illinois Attorney General. Photo by Patrick Yeagle.

Illinois Times today sued Gov. Bruce Rauner after Attorney General Lisa Madigan ruled that the governor must turn over his appointment calendar in response to the paper’s request made under the state Freedom of Information Act.
The newspaper asked for Rauner’s appointment calendar last spring after the governor walked out of a Holocaust remembrance ceremony. The newspaper’s request came after the governor’s press office ignored an emailed query asking where the governor had gone while a Holocaust survivor spoke at the annual ceremony held at the Old State Capitol.
Rauner gave the newspaper a redacted version of his appointment calendar showing that he had attended a meeting in the governor’s office while the ceremony continued. The governor redacted the names of the person, or people, with whom he met. The newspaper subsequently appealed to the attorney general, who ruled that Rauner must disclose the names of the people who attend meetings memorialized in his appointment calendar, which is prepared by public employees on public time using public equipment.
Rauner had claimed that the calendar was maintained for the governor’s convenience, but the attorney general determined that the calendar is the public’s business.
“(T)his office’s review of the redacted entries indicates that they all appear to pertain to the business of the state, rather than the personal affairs or private business interests of the governor,” Michael J. Luke, counsel to Madigan, wrote in the 18-page decision issued Tuesday. “Because the governor’s calendar was prepared and is maintained by the governor’s office and pertains to public business, it is a public record of the governor’s office for purposes of the Illinois FOIA.”
The newspaper sued Rauner today in Sangamon County Circuit Court, demanding that the governor release the requested appointment calendar. The newspaper sued because the attorney general’s decision is not final and could be appealed in court by the governor. In short, the Illinois Freedom of Information Act contains no provisions that force the governor to follow the attorney general’s directive.
“We have no way to enforce a binding opinion (by the attorney general),” said Don Craven, attorney for Illinois Times. “They (the governor’s staff) can just sit there and do nothing.”
Other media outlets, including the Associated Press and the Chicago Reader, have been unsuccessful in convincing Rauner to release his appointment calendar showing with whom he has met. Rauner has also refused to tell the Chicago Reader the names of lawyers in private practice who have done work for the state and been paid with public money.
In refusing to release his calendar to Illinois Times, Rauner had claimed that providing unredacted copies would pose a security risk and that someone who intended to harm the governor could discern patterns from the calendar that would provide opportunities to physically hurt Rauner. The attorney general’s office, after examining Rauner’s unredacted appointment calendar, determined that was nonsense.
“The governor’s calendar predominately consists of information regarding appointments: names of individuals and groups, and telephone numbers or meeting locations as applicable,” Luke wrote in his written decision. “The governor’s office has not provided facts demonstrating that disclosing those names, telephone numbers or meeting locations from past appointments would pose a security risk to the governor.”
The governor had also claimed that information on his appointment calendar was preliminary in nature and therefore exempt from disclosure. However, the attorney general found that Rauner had not demonstrated that this was true.
Rauner had also claimed that the public could discern his thought processes and legal strategies if he revealed his appointment calendar, particularly with regard to meetings attended by attorneys for the governor. The attorney general found no merit in that argument.
“(T)he mere presence of an attorney in a meeting is insufficient to justify (withholding of the record),” Luke wrote. “Based on our review, disclosure of the redacted entries would not reveal that privileged communications were involved or, more specifically, the substance of any confidential attorney-client discussions.”
As a candidate, Rauner had pledged to be open and transparent. Neither the governor nor a spokesman could be reached for immediate comment on Wednesday.

Read the lawsuit here.

Read the AG's decision here.

From:  Contact Bruce Rushton at brushton@illinoistimes.com

Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

 

A Circuit Court judge has issued an Agreed Order requiring state agencies to immediately reinstate the transmission of ‘fair share’ fees deducted from employee paychecks.

On March 5, the Illinois AFL-CIO and 26 unions representing more than 40,000 Illinois state employees filed suit in St. Clair County Circuit Court to invalidate an executive order issued by Governor Bruce Rauner that bars state agencies from collecting the fees, which are authorized under state law and multiple collective bargaining agreements. The fees cover the proportional cost to the union of providing representation to those employees.

The court order, issued by Associate Judge Christopher Kolker, is based on an agreement reached between the Rauner Administration and the affected labor unions. It requires the Administration to “remit fair share fees…pending the resolution of the case” and to transmit “the correct payroll information” regarding gross pay for affected employees to the Comptroller.

“We continue to believe that the governor’s executive order is meant to weaken the right of state employees to have effective union representation,” said Illinois AFL-CIO president Michael T. Carrigan. “We’re pleased that all fair share agreements will now be honored while our legal challenge is proceeding.”

Some of you old timers might remember Judge Kolker from his House staff days.

Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Illinois AG says GOP governor's anti-union proposals illegal

Lisa Madigan’s two decisions are available on line.  Municipalities and counties have no right to enact right-to-work zones.  See Opinion2015, 15/001 at:    http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/2015/15-001.pdf  Municipalities and counties have no right to opt out of prevailing wage requirements.  See Opinion 2015, 15/002 at:  http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/2015/15-002.pdf

By SARA BURNETT
Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) -- Illinois' Democratic attorney general on Friday delivered a blow to Gov. Bruce Rauner's efforts to weaken labor unions, saying two of the main ideas the Republican has been pitching across the state would be illegal.

Lisa Madigan issued formal opinions at the request of Democratic lawmakers who anticipated legislation would be proposed after Rauner first trumpeted his plans in his State of the State speech last month.

One proposal would allow voters to create "right-to-work zones" in Illinois counties where union membership and dues would be voluntary. The other would let local governments or school districts opt out of prevailing wage agreements, which require workers on public works projects to receive wages that reflect local compensation for similar jobs.

Rauner's office, in a statement, noted voters would decide whether his proposed legislation to protect employee rights should apply within their respective county, municipality, school district or other unit of local government. It said that would comply with the National Labor Relations Act.

Before crowds across Illinois in recent weeks, the multimillionaire businessman has argued unions have too much power and that overly generous salaries, benefits and pensions helped create Illinois' financial crisis. He says local voters should decide whether union influence should be curbed.

Rauner also says school districts could save almost $160 million per year if prevailing wage laws were changed and that establishing zones where employees have a choice on whether to join a union would help attract businesses - and much-needed jobs - to the state.

But Madigan said federal labor law only allows right-to-work to be enacted on a statewide basis, not by individual counties. She said both ideas also would violate state law.

Changing those laws or passing a right-to-work on a statewide basis would be nearly impossible in Illinois, where Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature and several Republican legislators also have been allies of organized labor.

Democratic state Sen. Gary Forby, one of the legislators who requested the legal opinion, said he hoped it would put an end to Rauner's rhetoric so lawmakers can instead focus on a state budget that is billions of dollars in the red.

"This guy, all he talks about is right-to-work states," said Forby, the chairman of the Senate's labor committee. "Well, now he can stop talking about right-to-work states and go back to trying to do a budget for the state of Illinois."

Madigan's opinions are just the latest in what's been a rocky early attempt by Rauner to take on organized labor. After he issued an executive order and sued to try to eliminate fees paid to unions by workers who choose not to join, more than two dozen unions filed their own lawsuit to stop him. Madigan also ruled that action by the governor was illegal, and the Republican comptroller said she wouldn't comply with the governor's plan to hold the dues in a state escrow account.

Rauner, who has called governors in states such as Wisconsin and Michigan who have stripped rights from unions his "role models," also has proposed banning unions from making campaign contributions.

Illinois AFL-CIO President Michael Carrigan said Madigan's opinions confirmed what unions suspected from the start.

"While Gov. Rauner continues his obsessive war on unions and the middle class, he just keeps running into huge road blocks - like the law," Carrigan said.

Read the entire article by clicking on the following:  Pantagraph.com | News from Associated Press

Capitol Fax.com - AG Madigan seeks dismissal of Rauner’s fair share suit

 

Attorney General Lisa Madigan today filed a motion to intervene in Governor Bruce Rauner’s federal lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of “fair share” fees as allowed under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. Madigan issued the following statement outlining her role in this litigation:

“Last month, Governor Rauner issued an Executive Order seeking to stop the payment of ‘fair share’ fees used to support non-political union activities such as contract administration and collective bargaining. On the same day, he also sued over two dozen unions in federal court in anticipation of a legal challenge to his Executive Order in state court.

Last week, the unions filed suit in state court seeking to prohibit Governor Rauner from implementing his Executive Order and breaching their contracts and to restore the ‘fair share’ fee payments.

Today, I filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of Illinois’ law. Along with the motion to intervene, I have submitted a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the Governor does not have the legal authority to sue to challenge the law in federal court.

As Attorney General, it is my job to represent the state and defend our laws when their constitutionality is challenged in court. Because the Governor’s case questions the validity of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, I moved to intervene to provide the court with arguments regarding the law’s constitutionality.”

The motion is here. The accompanying memorandum is here.

Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » *** UPDATED x1 - Rauner react *** AG Madigan seeks dismissal of Rauner’s fair share suit

Boone County panel probed for possible Open Meetings Act violation - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL

To read earlier postings on this subject see:  http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2015/02/did-boone-countys-ad-hoc-committee.html or to see BCJ’s editorial go to:  http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2015/02/bcj-editorial-on-boone-county-ad-hoc.html

By Ben Stanley
Rockford Register Star
Posted Feb. 26, 2015 at 12:06 PM
Updated Feb 26, 2015 at 8:22 PM

BELVIDERE — The Illinois attorney general's office is investigating an ad hoc committee in Boone County for possible violation of the Open Meetings Act.

The Boarding and Breeding Ordinance Advisory Committee, which is reviewing possible changes to regulations governing boarding and breeding kennels, secretly met Jan. 14 under instructions from a County Board member.

"Please remember this is an advisory ad hoc committee, which means we do not have to post public agendas or open our meeting up for the public to attend," Boone County Board member Denny Ellingson wrote in a Jan. 7 email, which the Rockford Register Star obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

"Please do not tell others about where or when these meetings are set for, so that we can meet without interference. When we get our work done, the public will get a chance to review our thoughts and decisions as our proposed ordinances will back through the ZSA and the PZB before the County Board gets a chance to adopt them."

The meeting was carried out behind closed doors. The Open Meetings Act says citizens have the right to attend the meetings of public legislative, executive, administrative and advisory bodies and should be given advance notice of those meetings.

Boone County State's Attorney Michelle Courier said it's unclear whether the committee falls under the regulation of the Open Meetings Act.

"It’s a gray area as to whether or not they should be subject to it," she said. "This is not the County Board members (meeting) or members that were entirely appointed by the County Board."

The committee has seven members — a veterinarian, two animal-welfare advocates, two community residents, one breeder and one kennel operator — and only one, Ellingson, is an elected official. Committee members joined at the request of County Board Chairman Bob Walberg, which further blurs the lines.

For the committee to have violated the Open Meetings Act, the attorney general's office would have to determine that the committee qualifies as a "public body," which state statute defines as "all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the state, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this state, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue."

Courier received complaints after the meeting that an Open Meetings violation may have occurred. She said Ellingson didn't ask her for legal advice before the meeting convened. "So it was my recommendation (to the committee) simply to publish the agenda, and they’ve been doing it since."

If the committee is found in violation, the attorney general's office can issue either an informal opinion, which is a nonbinding recommendation to correct practices, or a formal opinion, which could include fines and other punishments.  ….

- Read  more by going to: http://www.rrstar.com/article/20150226/NEWS/150229528/0/SEARCH#sthash.7V6HGoJl.dpuf

Rauner dealt blow on blocking union fair share fees - Chicago Tribune

By Monique Garcia, Kim Geiger and Rick Pearson Clout Street

Aides said the governor will order state agencies to withhold from unions the fees they are owed from workers who choose not to become a member. Rauner’s office called it an “operational solution” following a decision by Republican Comptroller Leslie Munger to not withhold “fair share” fees from the unions after Madigan advised her that doing so would be illegal.

The developments Friday came four days after Rauner issued an executive order to keep public employee unions from receiving the fees, which are required by state law and collective bargaining agreements between the unions and the state.

At the same time, Rauner went to federal court seeking a ruling ultimately aimed at having the U.S. Supreme Court declare payment of “fair share” fees unconstitutional and said the money should be kept in escrow pending a final legal determination.

It was the request for an escrow account that led the comptroller, who issues employee paychecks, to ask the attorney general for some legal advice. Under state law, an escrow account can only be created jointly by the state treasurer and comptroller, or by the courts. Madigan’s office noted that by state law, the comptroller must pay the unions money they are owed…

But the attorney general’s office said Friday that until there is a final legal determination by the courts, the state is required to collect the “fair share” fees and give them to the unions.

“Fair share fees remain constitutional,” said Natalie Bauer Luce, a Madigan spokeswoman.

Under Rauner’s work around, state agencies would deduct “fair share” dues from paycheck information provided to the comptroller. But agencies have no power to create escrow accounts and any money withheld would stay in agency budgets.

Still unanswered by Rauner’s move is the attorney general’s broader argument that it remains illegal for the Republican governor to put a stop on money unions are entitled to under state labor law and their employment contracts.

 

Click on the following to read all of the story:  Rauner dealt blow on blocking union fair share fees - Chicago Tribune

Should an individual limit their Freedom Of Information Requests to a government agency?

 

Can a Freedom of information Request be denied because the requester is a recurrent requestor?

 

The apparent answers are  “yes” and “yes” based upon the Illinois Attorney General’s 2012 opinion.  SEE:  http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/opinions/2012/12-001.pdf                                                   

If you are a recurrent requestor you can be denied or receive less than normal response time. The  apparent statutory threshold  is quite large--thresholds of 50 requests within a year, 15 requests within 30 days, or 7 requests within 7 days.

Illinois's Public Pension Crisis - Business Insider

 

But as soon as Mr Rauner was elected last month, the self-made millionaire toned down the rhetoric. The size and complexity of the public-pension mess suddenly hit him, and, aware that he had to bring together Democrats, unions and creditors, he began to backtrack.

He declares now that it is most important to "protect what is done — don't change history. Don't modify or reduce anybody's pension who has retired, or has paid into a system and they've accrued benefits."

Illinois is like Greece in one obvious way: It overpromised and underdelivered on pensions and has little appetite for dealing with the problem, says Hal Weitzman of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

This large Midwestern state, with a population of 13 million (Greece has 11 million, though a far smaller GDP than Illinois), has the most underfunded retirement system of any state and the largest pension burden relative to state revenue. It also has the highest number of public-pension funds close to insolvency, such as the one looking after Chicago's police and firemen.

The Economist

According to the Civic Federation, a budget watchdog, Illinois has piled up a whopping $111 billion in unfunded pension liabilities (see chart), in addition to $56 billion in debt for health benefits for pensioners.

The state devotes one in four of its tax dollars to pensions, which is more than it spends on primary and secondary education.

Mainly as a result of this gargantuan pension debt, Illinois's bond rating is the lowest of all the states, which means dramatically higher borrowing costs.

When the state government failed to address pension underfunding in its budget for 2014, two credit-rating agencies, Fitch and Moody's, cut the state's bond rating, which in Moody's case put Illinois on a par with Botswana. (An incensed editorial in the Chicago Tribune asked what Botswana had done to be so insulted.)

The main reason for the pension debacle is decades of underfunding. "Everything was always done with a short-term view," says Laurence Msall, head of the Civic Federation. "Unique to Illinois is the idea that you don't have to pay for pensions and you don't have to follow actuarial recommendations."

Whereas most other states follow the rules set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), which, however imperfect, require some budget discipline, Illinois has mostly ignored them.

In 2013 the state paid $2.8 billion into its pension fund for teachers, one of its five pension funds, but GASB rules would have required a contribution of $3.6 billion, says Joshua Rauh, a professor of finance at Stanford University. According to Mr Rauh's calculations, Illinois's true unfunded pension liability is $250 billion.

All the other calculations, he says, are based on over-optimistic assumptions. For example, the state assumes an average annual return on its investments of 7.75% over 30 years. But according to Mr Rauh it has only a 25% chance of achieving gains of that order.

After the public-relations disaster of the credit downgrades, Pat Quinn, the outgoing governor belatedly pushed for pension reform. In December 2013 the legislature approved a bill that reduces annual increases in pension payments, increases the retirement age and caps pensionable salaries.

Some have welcomed it as Illinois's first actuarially sound pension-funding scheme, designed to get the five plans fully funded in 30 years. Mr Rauh, however, thinks that the reform "does not even come close to addressing the problem".

Mr Quinn's changes were supposed to become law in June, but were held up by legal challenges and ultimately rejected by Judge John Belz of the Sangamon County circuit court for violating the state constitution, which makes existing pension contracts virtually untouchable. (Only New York and Arizona have similar safeguards in their constitutions.) Lisa Madigan, the state attorney-general, has appealed against the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court, which is looking at the case.

James Spiotto, a lawyer at Chapman Strategic Advisors, argues that if a state is unable rather than unwilling to pay its pensions, then the well-being of its citizens overrides any constitutional protections. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states cannot abdicate their responsibility to provide essential services and infrastructure. And if Illinois cuts public services yet further the state will lose more taxpayers, resulting in "a death spiral," says Mr Spiotto.

Union representatives disagree with this scenario. Dan Montgomery, the president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers, believes Mr Quinn's reform is illegal and that the state must find ways to pay up, for instance by extending the repayment schedule of its debt and increasing tax revenue by closing loopholes and expanding a sales tax on services.

Mr Rauner was elected on a promise that he would not make his predecessor's temporary increase of income and corporate tax permanent. But he has not explained how Illinois will cope with the loss of more than $7 billion in annual revenue. Nor has he laid out any broader plans for fixing the pensions mess.

For a start he might look to Washington and the budget deal hashed out in Congress. This allows some distressed private-sector pension plans to cut the benefits of retirees. In Illinois, though, more inventive measures may be needed.

In 2015 Illinois will either sink further into a Greek-style morass of debt or start its long-delayed rehabilitation. Mr Rauner has warned of a rough 24 months ahead. "I ain't going to be Mr Popularity for a while," he says. Voters may not mind, if he is able to sort this disaster out.

 

Illinois's Public Pension Crisis - Business Insider

BGA Urges State Lawmakers to Protect Open Records Law

Bad ideas, unlike fine wine, don't get better with age.

And that's especially true of HB 3796, a bill that would weaken FOIA, the state's Freedom of Information Act.

It was a bad idea when it breezed through the Illinois House and Senate in May with little explanation or debate.

So a coalition that included the Better Government Association and the Illinois attorney general's office asked Gov. Quinn to veto the measure, which he did in June.

---

READ MORE: BGA Backs Gov.’s FOIA Bill Veto At Press Conference

Open-government advocates urge state lawmakers not to try override.

---

But here we are, on the eve of the fall veto session in Springfield, and there's a movement afoot to override the governor's veto, which means it's time to redouble our opposition so that doesn't happen because it's still a bad idea.

The bill would give government agencies more time to respond to comprehensive FOIA requests from everyday citizens, and — this is the deal breaker — charge them up to $100 per request, which effectively prices low income people out of the public records market.

That's patently unfair — they're entitled to the public documents that explain how their tax dollars are being spent and the key policy decisions that affect their lives are being made — so the bill deserves to remain comfortably interred in the cemetery of ill-advised legislation.

Even proponents of the measure acknowledge its shortcomings.

During the Illinois Municipal League's annual conference in September, Brian Day, who led the league's legal team in getting the bill passed, admitted the legislation wouldn't accomplish its objectives because its language is confusing and riddled with loopholes.

"This was not a well-written statute," Day told a ballroom filled with municipal officials during the first day of the conference. "It would have been nice to have this, but it's flawed."

The passage of the bill was also flawed from a good government standpoint.

It sailed through both legislative chambers in just six days, which is not enough time for a thorough vetting of its content, objectives and potential consequences.

That's what public hearings and due diligence are for.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan said the bill is also unnecessary. Her letter urging a Quinn veto pointed out that FOIA already includes provisions that give government officials extra time to respond to requests "that would significantly burden its operations" or submissions from serial FOIA filers.

In addition, her office has a public access team that serves as the state's official FOIA "referee," so government agencies with questions about how to negotiate FOIA disputes can utilize that service, like hundreds of citizens and journalists do every year when their requests are thwarted.

The government agencies that backed HB3796 view FOIA as a nuisance, or a distraction from the "real" work they have to do, but let's remind them the "real" work is to serve the public, and that includes the timely and inexpensive release of public information.

So here's hoping state lawmakers realize a better way to serve their constituents is to step back and take a thoughtful approach to resolving FOIA concerns, instead of voting again for a bad bill that represents a knee-jerk response to political skirmishes inside some municipalities

Click on the following to read more:  BGA Urges State Lawmakers to Protect Open Records Law

Bloomington’s Alderman Stearns alleges Open Meetings Act violation

By Rachel Wells | rwells@pantagraph.com

BLOOMINGTON — A city alderman is alleging her fellow City Council members violated state transparency laws by discussing public business — including major departmental changes — behind closed doors.

Ward 4 Alderman Judy Stearns on Dec. 6 filed a request for review with the Illinois attorney general’s public access counselor, which has since asked for more information from the city.

She alleged the council during a Nov. 15 closed session discussed issues not exempt from the state’s Open Meetings Act, including broad discussions of general hiring practices, a sought-after “culture change” and “why it is critical that the Council be totally united on the changes to be made, including the comment by our City Manager (David Hales) that a 5 to 4 vote is not acceptable.”

Read the entire article by clicking on the following:  Alderman Stearns alleges Open Meetings Act violation

A special thanks to City Barbs (http://www.citybarbs.com/) for this item.

Lisa Madigan Scores Settlement against Illinois Medicaid Swindler

Amgen’s use of taxpayer dollars to influence what doctors prescribed created significant risks for vulnerable patients in Illinois’ Medicaid program,” Madigan said.

Under the settlement, Amgen will pay overall $612 million in civil damages and penalties to compensate Medicaid, Medicare, and various federal health care programs.

Amgen also pled guilty to federal criminal charges related to drug labeling and FDA reporting.

The settlement was secured due to 10 whistleblowers who brought Amgen to heel.

Click on the following to read the rest of the story:  Lisa Madigan Scores Settlement against Illinois Medicaid Swindler

McHenry County Blog | Crystal Lake Loses Precedent-Setting FOIA Ruling on Hiding High Salaried Employees’ Names

This appears to be very similar to our situation in Boone County.  See:  http://www.boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2012/11/budgeted-salaries-and-benefit-costs-for.html  Boone County is also only supplying job positions and not the individual names.

“We conclude that the City violate Section 7.3(a) of the O[pen] M[eetings] A[ct] by failing to post the names of employees whose total compensation packages exceed $75,000 per year. Accordingly, we request that the City immediately revise the information posted on its website to include the names of those employees, and also provide Mr. Skinner with an electronic copy of the salary compensation for those employees.”

The City has complied with the Public Access Divisions’ request.

Click on the following to read all of the situation involving Cal Skinner and the CIty of Crystal Lake: McHenry County Blog | Crystal Lake Loses Precedent-Setting FOIA Ruling on Hidding High Salaried Employees’ Names

New Changes to Open Meetings Act beginning January 1, 2013

Note several of these changes are merely codifying decisions previously made by the Attorney General’s Office.  The entire text is available at:  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=4687&GAID=11&LegID=64490&SpecSess=&Session=

 

CLICK ON THE PHOTOCOPY TO ENLARGE:

 

Lisa Madigan paralegals threaten to strike - chicagotribune.com

By Monique Garcia

 

group of 250 paralegals and clerical employees who work for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan are preparing to strike if negotiations fail to produce an agreement on a new contract.

The workers are members of the Illinois Federation of Public Employees, which has been in contract talks for the past year. Frustrated with a lack of progress, 88 percent of union members have voted to support a work stoppage if talks remain unsuccessful, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Click on the following for more details:  Lisa Madigan paralegals threaten to strike - chicagotribune.com

Kent Law School request Illinois AG action regarding DeKalb Library Expansion

The following request for a review of the Open Meetings Act is being requested by the Center for Open Government of Kent Law School. 

Click on the photocopy to enlarge:

All elected or appointed officials are required to be trained on Open Meetings Act

Open Meetings (HB 1670/PA 97-0504): Requires all current and future elected and appointed officials in Illinois to take Open Meetings Act training courses administered by the Public Access Counselor in the Attorney General’s office. Elected school board members are exempted from receiving their training through the AG’s office if they take an alternate course offered by an institution created under Article 23 of the School Code.

The actual act is available at:  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=097-0504 and is shown below. The underline portions are the new or amended sections.

HB1670 Enrolled
LRB097 10495 JDS 50792 b

AN ACT concerning government.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,

represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Open Meetings Act is amended by changing

Sections 1.05 and 4 as follows:

(5 ILCS 120/1.05)

Sec. 1.05. Training.

(a) Every public body shall designate employees, officers,

or members to receive training on compliance with this Act.

Each public body shall submit a list of designated employees,

officers, or members to the Public Access Counselor. Within 6

months after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the

96th General Assembly, the designated employees, officers, and

members must successfully complete an electronic training

curriculum, developed and administered by the Public Access

Counselor, and thereafter must successfully complete an annual

training program. Thereafter, whenever a public body

designates an additional employee, officer, or member to

receive this training, that person must successfully complete

the electronic training curriculum within 30 days after that

designation.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, each

elected or appointed member of a public body subject to this

Act who is such a member on the effective date of this

amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly must successfully

complete the electronic training curriculum developed and

administered by the Public Access Counselor. For these members,

the training must be completed within one year after the

effective date of this amendatory Act.

Except as otherwise provided in this Section, each elected

or appointed member of a public body subject to this Act who

becomes such a member after the effective date of this

amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly shall successfully

complete the electronic training curriculum developed and

administered by the Public Access Counselor. For these members,

the training must be completed not later than the 90th day

after the date the member:

(1) takes the oath of office, if the member is required

to take an oath of office to assume the person's duties as

a member of the public body; or

(2) otherwise assumes responsibilities as a member of

the public body, if the member is not required to take an

oath of office to assume the person's duties as a member of

the governmental body.

Each member successfully completing the electronic

training curriculum shall file a copy of the certificate of

completion with the public body.

Completing the required training as a member of the public

body satisfies the requirements of this Section with regard to

the member's service on a committee or subcommittee of the

public body and the member's ex officio service on any other

public body.

The failure of one or more members of a public body to

complete the training required by this Section does not affect

the validity of an action taken by the public body.

An elected or appointed member of a public body subject to

this Act who has successfully completed the training required

under this subsection (b) and filed a copy of the certificate

of completion with the public body is not required to

subsequently complete the training required under this

subsection (b).

(c) An elected school board member may satisfy the training

requirements of this Section by participating in a course of

training sponsored or conducted by an organization created

under Article 23 of the School Code. The course of training

shall include, but not be limited to, instruction in:

(1) the general background of the legal requirements

for open meetings;

(2) the applicability of this Act to public bodies;

(3) procedures and requirements regarding quorums,

notice, and record-keeping under this Act;

(4) procedures and requirements for holding an open

meeting and for holding a closed meeting under this Act;

and

(5) penalties and other consequences for failing to

comply with this Act.

If an organization created under Article 23 of the School

Code provides a course of training under this subsection (c),

it must provide a certificate of course completion to each

school board member who successfully completes that course of

training.

(Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

(5 ILCS 120/4) (from Ch. 102, par. 44)

Sec. 4. Any person violating any of the provisions of this

Act, except subsection (b) or (c) of Section 1.05, shall be

guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

(Source: P. A. 77-2549.)

Effective Date: 1/1/2012

Sparland, Il faces state investigations over FOIA issues as village officials resignation

This story has been printed in the Chicago Tribune however the original story is for the Peoria Star: http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1481469243/Another-resignation-cuts-Sparland-board-down-to-three

The resignations come in the wake of a third investigation by the Illinois Attorney General's Office into village practices. That involves alleged failure to comply with the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, while two earlier probes focus on possible violations of the state's Open Meetings Act.

In addition, the board had to revote on some major ordinance amendments that had been passed with illegal "proxy" voting by absent members, including a water rate increase. The village also faces enforcement action from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency over a sewer problem. And Fluffers, which opened last spring, has continued to generate divisions on the board

Here is earlier article on the story:

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x2140450728/Sparland-faces-new-investigation-alleged-violation-of-Freedom-of-Information-Act

Resident Margaret Murry, who has been a vocal critic of village government in recent months, submitted the FOIA request on Nov. 17 to village clerk and then-FOIA officer Susan Persinger. Murry asked for records that included meeting minutes, copies of some ordinances and amendments, certain financial records and the oaths of office taken by elected officials.

State law requires a response to FOIA requests within five working days. Murry asked the AG's Office to review the matter after two weeks had passed.

"The public body has failed to respond to my request," she wrote.

The investigation comes at a time when the village has no one filling the legally required position of FOIA officer

Should elected official receive private phone calls/emails during a government meeting

Well it appears if they do-=- those communications will be subject to FOIA disclosure.

 

Illinois AG gets help in robo-signing investigation

July 20, 2011

By Andrew Thomason Illinois Statehouse News

SPRINGFIELD — A group of 12 county recorders in Illinois are providing documents to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan for her investigation into an illicit practice relating to the national real estate and subsequent foreclosure crises, known as "robo-signing."

“Robo-signing is actually a variety of practices. It can be mortgages individuals signing a document that they have no idea of what’s contained within the document and without verifying the information,” said Champaign County Record Barb Frasca. “It can mean someone forging an executive signature on a document or using their own name on the document with a fake title.”

Madigan launched her investigation earlier this year into Lender Processing Services and Nationwide Title Clearing, two of the largest loan servicing companies in the country.

County recorders, one for each of the state’s 102 counties, are stewards of deeds and other documents relating to real estate ownership, and often receive paperwork from loan servicing and other mortgage processing companies. Josh Langfelder, Sangamon County recorder, said he and the 11 other recorders voluntarily are assembling documents for Madigan.

“They gave us a sample of documents that may be related to our investigation, and they are gathering more documents to provide,” attorney general spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said. “We’re reviewing the information they provided.”

Ziegler would not identify the documents provided or comment on whether the initial sampling will help in Madigan’s investigation, because it is ongoing.

When the global recession hit and the real estate bubble burst, banks and other mortgage holders were flooded with foreclosures. To keep the surge of paperwork moving, some institutions disregarded safeguards that would protect homeowners, such as providing an affidavit verifying the identity of the mortgage owners.

These practices led to a temporary halt in foreclosures last fall, as sloppy paperwork turned into unnecessary foreclosures. Without proper documentation, confusion emerged over who owed what to whom.

“We want to be protective of the homeowners, people who have perchance been foreclosed on that perhaps the ownership (of the mortgage) was not clearly identified, or someone who has bought a foreclosed home,” said Rock Island County Recorder Pat Veronda.

Similar county officials in Minnesota and Massachusetts, for example, are working with their states’ attorneys general in robo-signing investigations. For example, the county recorder office for Essex County, Mass., claims to have nearly 1,200 documents with 22 different handwriting styles that all read “Linda Green,” according to the Associated Press.

"Linda Green" signatures have found their way to Illinois as well, said Glenda Johnson, chief deputy recorder for St. Clair County.

The Massachusetts example "made us look further into it. She is all over out there," Johnson said.

While companies have claimed to stop the practice of robo-signing, recent investigations by the AP and Reuters indicate this is not happening, which could prove troublesome as the rate of foreclosures refuses to drop to prerecession levels.

While foreclosure rates dropped by nearly 25 percent for June when compared with the same period this past year, they inched up by 4 percent from May, according to RealtyTrac, a company that monitors foreclosures nationwide.

Illinois had 11,014 foreclosures in June, or one in every 480 housing units, mainly in the counties surrounding Chicago. Only Michigan, Arizona, Florida and California had more foreclosures in June than Illinois