Recent Court Decisions

This opinion, binding on the parties, demonstrates that the failure to respond to a FOIA request violates FOIA. The Public Access Counselor directed the City of Harvey to immediately provide the records, subject only to permissible redactions and exemptions, and to issue timely responses to future FOIA requests. The takeaway is that the PAC will rule against a public body if the public body ignores FOIA requests.

At issue in this PAC opinion, binding on the Village of Winnetka, was whether the Village had to disclose an employee’s employment application and résumé pursuant to a FOIA request. Finding yes, the PAC rejected the Village’s argument that the employee’s application and résumé qualified for the exemption for personal information the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The PAC determined that the employee’s education, training, and experience were all factors that bear on his ability to perform his public duties and, even if they did not, the Village did not sustain its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the exemption was applicable. The PAC also found that the application and résumé did not qualify for the exemptions for performance evaluations or deliberative material. The exemption for private information applied to allow the Village to redact unique identifiers and private information listed in section 7(1)(b) of FOIA, e.g., social security number, telephone number, and personal e-mail. The takeaway for school districts is that the PAC will likely require the disclosure of an employee’s application and résumé (with private information redacted), unless the district can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the application and résumé contain information that is highly personal.

This PAC opinion, binding on the parties, determined that the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (Authority) improperly denied an opportunity for a FOIA requester to review lease agreements for conventions and trade shows held at McCormick Place. In addition, the Authority argued that the information is exempt as confidential proprietary information. The PAC rejected these arguments. The takeaway for school districts is that the PAC will likely require the disclosure of agreements pursuant to a FOIA request.

“The public has a statutory right to address public bodies.”

A public body denied an individual the right to address it during its open meeting. The public body’s rules required individuals to submit written requests at least five working days before meetings. This individual’s request was submitted four days before the meeting and therefore denied by the public body.

A rule like this violates OMA. OMA requires public bodies to allow “[a]ny [individual(s)] …to address [them] under the rules established and recorded by the [it].” Rules for addressing a public body may only impose reasonable “time, place and manner” regulations that are necessary to further a significant governmental interest, e.g., maintaining decorum during public meetings. This rule did not. It did not even give the public an opportunity to see the posted agenda (required 48 hours before a meeting) before requesting to address the public body.

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

Tax refund claims aggregating to more than $3 million, not including statutory interest, were denied in this appeal. In a prior appellate decision involving the same parties, the court found that the school districts’ transfers of assets from the working cash fund to the operations and maintenance fund were improper. That decision remanded the case to the trial court for determining whether, if the transfer had been properly made to the education fund, the subsequent education fund levy would have resulted in an improper accumulation of the assets therein. The districts provided evidence that no such improper accumulation of assets would have resulted. Consequently, there was no issue of fact remaining and the Appellate Court decided in the districts’ favor.