IL Gov. Rauner signs Molly's Law, extends statute of limitations on violent crimes

 

MURPHYSBORO, IL (KFVS) -

On Tuesday afternoon, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed House Bill 6083 and House Bill 4715. The bills are known as Molly’s Law. 

He signed the legislation in front of a packed room full of Justice for Molly supporters and members of the media.

The legislation was inspired by Molly Young who was found dead with a gunshot wound to the head in her ex-boyfriend's Carbondale apartment four years ago. 

The initiative will change the statute of limitations to sue for wrongful death and add stiffer financial penalties to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act for non-compliance.

“Today is an important day for Illinois families seeking justice,” Gov. Rauner said. “This bill provides families a longer time frame to bring wrongful death actions against perpetrators of intentional violent crimes and gives families access to the necessary public information to find closure in a loved one’s death.”

Governor Rauner told Molly Young's family and supporters that he would be listening to their concerns. 

Larry Young is asking the Governor to help orchestrate a meeting with the head of the Illinois State Police to see if a new investigation can be conducted.

HB 6083 extends the statute of limitations for wrongful death cases to 5 years, instead of two as in the current law.

The bill allows a maximum fine of $5,000 for public bodies that refuse to turn over documents under the Freedom of Information Act by court order or a binding opinion from the Illinois Attorney General, and adds a fine of $1,000 per day for every day the public agency is not compliant.

The manner of Molly Young's death could not be determined by a coroner's jury.

Molly Young's family remains convinced foul play was a factor in her death.

No criminal charges have ever been filed.

HB 6083 and HB 4715 go into effect on January 1, 2017.

Above is from:  http://www.kfvs12.com/story/32476088/il-gov-rauner-signs-mollys-law-extends-statute-of-limitations-on-violent-crimes

Suing the governor

Rauner’s secrets land him in court

By Bruce Rushton

 

It’s a quote that can’t be repeated often enough as Gov. Bruce Rauner builds a reputation for secrecy at all costs – so long as he isn’t the one paying the bills.
“I want to make Illinois government the most efficient, transparent (state government) in America,” Rauner said last year on the campaign trail.
Now, the governor is, again, a defendant in a lawsuit, this one filed by Illinois Times, after refusing to turn over records in response to a request made under the state Freedom of Information Act.
The newspaper filed suit last week, after the attorney general’s office ruled that Rauner must turn over his appointment calendar in response to a request made last spring, after the governor walked out of a Holocaust remembrance ceremony, then ignored an emailed query asking where he had gone. The governor told the AG that the public could somehow discern his thought processes, which he apparently thinks should be kept secret, as well as his legal strategies if we knew the names of people who met with him. He also claimed that someone could discern patterns in his behavior and movements if they knew details of past meetings, which would pose a security risk.
Malarkey, the AG ruled on Sept. 22. After the ruling, the paper promptly sued, knowing well that the state’s public records law is fraught with weaknesses that make enforcement problematic.
Time and again, public bodies have ignored the attorney general when it comes to the state Freedom of Information Act, and there have been no consequences. In 2012, Chicago Public Schools ignored a FOIA request from a reporter who wanted records on student suspensions. The attorney general sent a letter to the district, reminding officials that they have a legal obligation to answer FOIA requests. The next year, the district got a similar letter from the AG after ignoring a request from a different reporter who wanted copies of emergency management plans. When the attorney general in 2012 told the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation that it had a legal duty to give the attorney general copies of a complaint file so that the attorney general could determine whether documents must be made public, the department flatly refused.
The law allows Rauner to sue if he disagrees with the attorney general’s decision, and if that were to happen, the newspaper would become a defendant. The governor’s legal expenses would be borne by taxpayers; the newspaper, as a defendant, would bear its own costs. State law requires public bodies to pay the legal expenses of successful plaintiffs, but there are no such provisions for defendants in FOIA lawsuits.
On the theory that it is better to be a plaintiff than a defendant and that a court order carries more weight than an opinion from the attorney general, the newspaper sued the governor. Should a judge agree with the attorney general and require Rauner to release his calendar, the governor, under state law, would be required to pay the newspaper’s legal expenses, and he could also be fined as much as $5,000, with the money coming from taxpayers.
All this could have been avoided had Rauner simply said, when asked, why he walked out of last spring’s ceremony. After being sued, his staff last week did exactly that, telling the State Journal-Register that Rauner had gone to a meeting with legislative leaders.
The governor’s office is also facing a lawsuit in Cook County filed by the Better Government Association, which wants copies of emails exchanged between Rauner and top aides. The governor is courting yet another lawsuit by refusing to tell the Chicago Reader the names of attorneys in private practice who have done work for the state. The governor argues that revealing the names of lawyers who have been paid with public money would somehow violate attorney-client privilege.
On the other hand, Rauner has released documents when he thinks that he can make someone look bad. Case in point are emails released by Rauner’s staff last week when Patrick Buchen, who says he was forced to resign as manager of the state fair, accused the governor’s office of cronyism and forcing him to issue free fair passes and press credentials to insiders.
After Buchen went public with his complaints, the governor’s office released an exchange of emails between him and Robert Alec Messina, an environmental policy adviser to the governor who somehow landed in a spat about who should be the grand marshal of the fair’s torchlight parade. The emails could almost certainly have been kept secret under the state’s public records law, given they are filled with opinions and talk of matters that are not yet final, both things that are exempt from disclosure under the law. At one point, Buchen writes that he might need to “go elsewhere” if the governor’s office wasn’t serious about promoting agriculture.
“You need to understand that when my nose gets bloodied I will break those who bloodied mine,” Buchen tells Messina.
And Rauner doesn’t think that he should reveal what he says in emails or let the public know how he spends his time.
Go figure.

Suing the governor

Sunshine Week: Huge backlog hampers Freedom of Information appeals in Illinois - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL

SPRINGFIELD — After the scandal that sent Gov. Rod Blagojevich to prison in 2012, legislators adopted a raft of reforms that included creating a referee to intervene when bureaucrats reject citizens’ requests for government records…..

The office can claim more than 80 percent of its cases closed, but the AP found that nearly 1,200 of the open cases have gone unanswered for at least two years.

The numbers concern legislators who pushed for the added layer of appeal. A Freedom of Information advocate says the delay means denial for citizens counting on prompt government information — and who believe the records are illegally being kept secret.

“The intent was to facilitate responses to the public at large seeking information,” said Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat. “If you have (the appeals office) overburdened, that doesn’t carry out the spirit of the law.”

Ann Spillane, chief of staff to Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan, acknowledged the backlog but defended the bureau’s work: Counting disputes over the open-meetings law, 85 percent of the pleas it handles have been settled.

In 2013, the public access counselor received a monthly average of 285 appeals on FOIA and open meetings in 2013; this year, it’s 349, according to the attorney general’s office.

The appeals are not just the domain of snooping journalists or buttoned-down law firms. Four of 5 come from individual taxpayers — 2,320 of the total that are unresolved.

The bureau has 10 lawyers and is interviewing to hire as many as five more, but turnover is constant, Spillane said. And because of the budget crisis, even with a growing backlog, the attorney general will focus on preserving the budget instead of asking for more.

“It’s not our goal for anyone to wait,” Spillane said. “In a perfect world, we would turn these around, each of them, as quickly as we can, but we’re dealing with a very high volume.”…

Read the entire article by clicking on the following:  Sunshine Week: Huge backlog hampers Freedom of Information appeals in Illinois - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL

New FOIA charges for “voluminous requests”

This is published in a township magazine but HB 3796 is true for most units of Illinois government.

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.

Wall Street to Workers: Give Us Your Retirement Savings and Stop Asking Questions - Working In These Times

 

If you are a public school teacher in Kentucky, the state has a message for you: You have no right to know the details of the investments being made with your retirement savings.

That was the crux of the declaration issued by state officials to a high school history teacher when he asked to see the terms of the agreements between the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System and the Wall Street firms that are managing the system’s money on behalf of him, his colleagues and thousands of retirees.

The denial was the latest case of public officials blocking the release of information about how billions of dollars of public employees’ retirement nest eggs are being invested. Though some of the fine print of the investments has occasionally leaked, the agreements are tightly held in most states and cities. Critics say such secrecy prevents lawmakers and the public from evaluating the propriety of the increasing fees being paid to private financial firms for pension management services.

The secrecy trend is spreading throughout the country. Last month, for instance, Illinois officials denied an open records request for information identifying which financial firms are managing that state’s pension money. Like their Kentucky counterparts, Illinois officials asserted that the firms’ identities "constitute trade secrets." Illinois’ Freedom of Information Act includes special exemptions for information about private equity firms.

The denial from Illinois pension officials followed a decision earlier this year by Rhode Island General Treasurer Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, to reject a newspaper’s open-records request for information about state pension investments. The treasurer's office argued that financial firms have the right to “minimize attention” around their compensation. Last week Raimondo, who is now Rhode Island's governor-elect, held a closed-door meeting of the state investment commission to review the state’s $61 million investment in a controversial hedge fund.

Read more by clicking on the following:  Wall Street to Workers: Give Us Your Retirement Savings and Stop Asking Questions - Working In These Times

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

Bill Pysson questions FOIA Procedures for Boone County

The following email was sent to Sub Committee Chairmen last Thursday.  The item is on the agenda for Monday’s Admin & Legislative Subcommittee which meets Monday, July 1, 2013 at 6:00PM,

From: Bill Pysson
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:16 PM
To: Karl Johnson; Ken Terrinoni; Denny Ellingson
Cc: Bob Walberg; Michelle Courier; ,
Subject: FOIA compliance by

Recent communications with the Building Department and the County Administrator have shocked me. Please review the documents which I have attached.

A denial of a Freedom of Information Request was sent to my constituent without informing him of his appeal rights by an employee (using the employee’s signature) and the employee is not trained in FOIA requirements.  I don’t understand how this is possible.

Additionally I received a statement from Mr. Terrinoni that according to the States Attorney that it is “not a violation to have a non FOIA trained personnel respond”.  I find that statement to be inconceivable and incompatible with the required training which board members and FOIA officers are required to complete by the Attorney General.

I request that the PZB Subcommittee, Administrative Subcommittee and/or other appropriate officials comply with the following requests:

1. Who is the FOIA officer for inquiries to the Building Department and Zoning Compliance Office? Are all the individuals named on the county’s website (http://www.boonecountyil.org/page/foia) fully FOIA trained?  (Quite naturally this request is not for any county department administered by an elected official.)

2. Provide an administrative review (by an employee who is fully FOIA trained as a FOIA officer) of all FOIA request which were answered by personnel not FOIA trained. Upon review provide whatever remedial action that is required. I request that a summary of the findings be submitted in writing to the county board.

3. Have our States Attorney provide (preferably in writing) a statement regarding county board members’ responsibilities in insuring that county departments (not supervised by an elected official) are complying with FOIA requirements. And possibly explain, Mr. Terrinoni’s email statement about when there is and when there is not a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

I thank everyone in advance for their prompt response to these requests. 

Based upon previous requests, I am sending a copy of my request to the States Attorney but understand that I cannot expect a reply unless a subcommittee chairman or department head requests her opinion.  I trust that the information supplied warrants her assistance. 

BILL PYSSON

Boone County Board

The County Administrator has sent this response, dated June 28 but sent (by email) June 1.

The following is taken from the Boone County website:  http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/FAQ_FOIA_Public.pdf

Here is the page on the Boone County Website which indicates FOIA Officers.(http://www.boonecountyil.org/page/foia)

Note that Roger Tresemer is listed as a FIOA Officer. According to Mr. Terrinoni’s memo above, Mr. Tresemer is not FOIA trained.

Monday’s Admin & Legislative Sub-committee Meeting will have several interesting items

There are several items on the agenda which you may find interesting.

1.  Two individuals will be interviewed for the vacant District 3 board seat.  SEE:  https://www.boarddocs.com/il/boone/Board.nsf/files/994PEN63FA45/$file/prospective%20County%20Board%20district%203%20appointees_201306281311.pdf

2.  Board Member, Bill Pysson,  has raised the question whether FOIA requests are being treated correctly by Building Inspections and Zoning Enforcement.  SEE:  https://www.boarddocs.com/il/boone/Board.nsf/files/994PPZ657A85/$file/FOIA%20procedures_201306280922.pdf

Hope to see you at the meeting the

 Administrative/Legislative Committee

Date & Time: Mon, 07/01/2013 - 6:00pm

1212 Logan Ave., Belvidere, IL   The full agenda is available at:  https://www.boarddocs.com/il/boone/Board.nsf/Public

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

The County Board of Health spends $16,266 and what did they get?

An earlier posting (http://boonecountywatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/12/update-two-boone-county-board-members.html) spoke of a FOIA request from two county board members who wished to read the expensive personnel report that the Board of Health ordered up.  The Health Department’s answer was that the Health Department/Board of Health did not have a copy of the report and they would obtain a copy and send it to the requestors. 

Apparently the Boone County Journal also requested the controversial report.  Below is the BJC story in this weeks paper.  Below ”The Report” story is a photocopy of the actual report.

.

Click on the photocopy to enlarge:

Click on the photocopy to enlarge:

Resident takes denial of FOIA request to Attorney General

now has sent a letter to the Public Access Counselor in the Office of the Illinois Attorney General in Springfield, asking for assistance.

And more recently, in a letter to township Trustee Paul Zeien, she addresses his suggestion that the Boone County Board make a donation to the Belvidere Boone County Food Pantry in Capron.

Click on the following to read this story:  http://www.belvideredailyrepublican.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7339:resident-takes-denial-of-foia-request-to-attorney-general-&catid=106:belvidere&Itemid=508

Belvidere SD 100’s Revised FOIA policy is a good primer on citizen’s FOIA Rights.

These are a citizens’ right at all levels of government in Illinois with only minor exceptions for special units such as the courts.

The following  is taken from this month’s board packet:

http://www.boarddocs.com/il/district100/Board.nsf/files/8PSHQM499EE1/$file/Working%202.250%20Access%20to%20District%20Public%20Records.pdf

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.

 

Update: Two Boone County Board members FOIA Health Department concerning the “$16,266 Personnel Survey Results”

Mr. Mattison and Mr. Freeman received the following letter from the Health Department regarding their information request.

Click on the photocopy to enlarge:

Mr. Mattison and Mr. Freeman are now seeking “input” from the States Attorney, Ms. Michelle Courier.  The States Attorney is the legal advisor to elected officials of the county and to the Health Department.

Boone County Health Department Problems back in the News

The following story and editorial is taken from the October 4, 2011, Boone County Journal which is available free of cost at a merchant near you or on line at:  http://www.boonecountyjournal.com/news/2011/Boone-County-News-11-04-11.pdf#page=1

Click on the photocopy to enlarge:

Sunshine Review: Amendments to Illinois FOIA

The following bill is awaiting signature from the governor.

c
House Bill 1716
i

Status:
Final Status:x (Awaiting transfer to the Governor)

• House:p (05/31/2011, 84-Yeas, 31-Nays, 0-Not Voting)
• Senate:p (05/30/2011, 43-Yeas, 16-Nays, 0-Not Voting)
• Governor:

Sponsor:
Representative Jim Durkin

Introduction date:
02/16/11

State law:
Illinois Freedom of Information Act

Bill text:
As Introduced
As amended by the House
As amended by the Senate

[edit] HB 1716

HB 1716 introduced to the House by Representative Jim Durkin which would make significant alterations to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. It would add special rules for "Recurrent requesters" in regards to fees, deadlines and exemptions. It would also for additional fees for commercial records requests. Finally it would redact sections relating to the duties of Access Councilors.^[1]

[edit] Details

Below are the amendments that effect Open Meetings or Public Records law:

Section 2:

• subsection g - A person who makes more than 50 records requests in one year, more than 15 requests in a month, or more than 7 requests in a week who is not a member of a media organization, scientific or academic organization or other non-profit would be considered a "Recurrent requester." These groups would not be considered "Recurrent requesters" provided that the requests were made for articles of opinion or features of public interest, or educational, scientific, and public research.

Section 3.2:

• subsection a - would allow agencies 21 days to respond to record requests. The response would be required to include an estimate of fees that would be assessed, a denial based on an exemption, or notification that the request is unduly burdensome.
• subsection b - would allow agencies 5 days after receiving a request from a "Recurrent requester" to give response which must include reasons why the agency is classifying the requester as such. The public body would then have 21 days after response to notify the requester of proposed responses.
• subsection c - unless the request is exempt from disclosure the public body is required to respond within a "reasonable period" given the size and complexity of the request.

Section 6:

• subsection a - if requests are made for commercial purposes an agency may alter charges for researching or reproducing records.
• subsection b - if requests are made for commercial purposes an agency may add charges for search and review of records and any personnel costs associated with it.
• subsection f - allows the public body to charge $10 for each hour spent by personnel retrieving records for commercial purposes as laid out by subsection a and b. If the agency does assess additional fees it must provide an accounting of all fees, costs and hours involved in the request.

Section 9:

• subsection b - a person who makes a request for commercial purposes may file for a request of review with a Public Access Councilor. It would redact the previous section b that allowed for Access Councilors to clarify the basis for request denials, grant councilors the ability to review with further inquiry, and mediate between a requester and an agency. ^[1]

How to File a FOIA in Illinois

The following is taken from the Better Government Association website:  http://www.bettergov.org/watchdog/foia.aspx

 

How to File a FOIA in Illinois

What is FOIA?

FOIA is an acronym for the Freedom of Information Act.
FOIA is an open-government law grounded in the principle that the public should be able to access public records and information about the workings of their government.

"[A]ll persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them as public officials…" 5ILCS 140/1

"Such access is necessary to enable people to … monitor[] government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interest." Id

"Each public body shall make available to any person for inspection or copying all public records…" 5 ILCS 140/3

The website for the Office of the Attorney General has an extensive section on FOIA.

How do I file a FOIA request in Illinois?

1. Find the right FOIA officer.
A FOIA officer handles and responds to FOIA requests. Find this person on the Internet or use the main number of the office from which you’re requesting public records. For example, if you are looking to file a FOIA request with the City of Chicago, visit the FOIA page on cityofchicago.com to find the right officer.

2. Write your request.

• No specific format is required.
• No standard form is required.
• No reason for your request is necessary.
• Be as specific as possible about what records you are requesting.
• Include your name and contact information.
  
  A sample FOIA Request:
  January 1, 2010
  Dear FOIA Officer (use specific name):
  This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
  I would like copies of records of all of your agency’s current employees and officers, including each person’s name, title, hire date, current salary and overtime paid in 2006.
  Please send a copy of the records to me at the address below. I would also be happy to accept the records electronically. Because these records are in the public interest, I ask that you waive any reproduction fee.
  If you deny this request, please tell me on what grounds, and to whom I should appeal.
  Thank you,
  Mary Frances O’Connor
  Better Government Association
  223 West Jackson
  Chicago, IL 60606
  312-821-9026 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 312-821-9026 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
  mfoconnor@bettergov.org

3. Write your request.

• The public body must comply with or deny the request within 5 business days.
• The public body may request an extension of up to 5 business days.
• No response from the public body equals a denial, and you may then appeal (see below).
• Keep notes and records (names, dates, times) of all communication, including phone calls.

What do I do if my FOIA request is denied?

Denials are common. Here’s what you can do.

1. Submit a request for review with the Public Access Counselor in the Illinois Attorney General’s office — it typically takes 60 days for an opinion — here: http://foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/.

2. File a lawsuit. Filing fees can be expensive. For example, in Cook County the filing fee is about $400. A lawsuit usually takes at least six months to resolve.

3. Call/email BGA, and tell us about your situation.

---

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

Contact:
Mary Frances O’Connor
Director, Citizen Watchdog Training
mfoconnor@bettergov.org
312.821.9026 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 312.821.9026 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Access takes another hit

Quinn was at it again last Friday, when he signed into law House Bill 1716. The law further erodes the state’s Freedom of Information Act – something Quinn and the state Legislature have been doing since FOIA reform went into effect Jan. 1, 2010.

Some of HB 1716’s lowlights:

• It eliminates the requirement that public bodies ask for permission from the Public Access Counselor’s Office of the state Attorney General before denying records requests based on exemptions for personal privacy and preliminary drafts of documents.

• It allows governments to take up to 21 days to respond to FOIA requests by “recurrent” requesters – people who file more than 50 FOIA requests in a year, more than 15 requests in a month or more than seven in a week.

• It allows government entities to charge for the actual costs of retrieving information stored off-site.

Click on the following for the complete story:  http://www.nwherald.com/2011/08/29/access-takes-another-hit/apziqnd/