Recent Court Decisions

In August 2006, plaintiffs, Jerry Reppert and the Gazette Democrat, filed a complaint against defendants, Southern Illinois University (SIU) and SIU chancellor Walter V. Wendler, seeking disclosure of the employment contacts of several SIU employees. The Plaintiffs argued that the FOIA compelled disclosure of the requested documents. Defendant, SIU prevailed in the trial court; however the 4th District appellate court reversed in favor of the Gazette Democrat. The court held that the statutory definition of “public record” included the information contained in the employment contracts at issue in the case stating that contrary to defendants' (SIU) suggestion, the mere fact that personnel files are per se exempt from disclosure ... does not mean that the individual contracts are also per se exempt simply because they are kept in those files. The court declined to follow Copley Press in as much as it purported to include an employment contract as exempt from FOIA.

In this case, plaintiff alleged police brutality on a routine traffic stop. During the proceedings he requested internal investigation documents from the police. The police declined on the grounds the requested documents were part of a personnel file and exempt from FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). At trial, the Court of Appeals concluded that only "personal information" in police personnel files are completely exempt from disclosure, merely placing documents within personnel files does not automatically confer exemption.

Heinrich submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for access to administrative decisions by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regarding licenses that were suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State (SOS). Heinrich also requested the DMV decisions within one year. This request sought documents that were not yet created, but it also sought records that did exist. The SOS denied Heinrich’s FOIA request because (1) the information contained in the documents was private, and (2) the requested documents did not exist.

Under 2-123 (f-5) of the Ill. Vehicle Code, the SOS cannot disclose or make otherwise available any personally identifying information obtained by the SOS in connection with a driver’s license, vehicle or title registration record. However, this section does not include information like vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driving status. Under section 7 of the FOIA, personal information like driver’s license numbers or home addresses are exempt from disclosure.

The appellate court concluded that the SOS should have turned over the documents with the personal information redacted. A FOIA request cannot be dismissed because part of a request is invalid, and although the documents contained private information, it could be redacted (blacking-out private information). While the trial court decided that the redacted documents were likely useless, the appellate court found that it is not the trial court’s job to decide if redacted documents are useless.

The SOS also argued that the production of the documents would be burdensome. However, the appellate court offered that to prove that a request is burdensome, the elements that must be present are: (1) compliance with the request must be unduly burdensome, (2) there must be no way to narrow the request, and (3) the burden on the public body must outweigh the public interest. The case was reversed and sent back to the lower court to review the burden of Heinrich’s request under this test and Heinrich’s continued need for the information.

Rachel Prezek, IASB Law Clerk

Two candidates challenged the election results for local school council (LSC) members of a Chicago public school. These elections are governed by rules developed by the Chicago Board of Education rather than the Election Code. The challengers complained of the improper use of school resources as well as improper distribution of campaign literature on election day. The hearing officer for the Chicago Board of Education conducted a hearing in accordance with the Board’s rules. In reviewing his decision, the Illinois Court of Appeals found no error in his conclusion that the facts demonstrated no “substantial and uncured election violations.”

UPDATE: The Illinois Supreme Court held that an employment contract is not the kind of record the General Assembly intended to keep from public view and does not fall within the exemption for personnel files in section 7(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Illinois Supreme Court agreed that remand for the circuit court to privately inspect the contract is appropriate, but disagreed as to the scope of the inspection. It directed the circuit court to determine whether it contains personal information (such as a social security number or bank account information) which, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the superintendent’s personal privacy. That information must be deleted. See 5 ILCS 140/8.

But, the Court was clear that the circuit court's inspection is not to become a battle of details where the circuit court determines whether each individual paragraph or subsection bears on the superintendent’s public duties.

Therefore, an employment contract, as a whole, bears on the employee’s public duties and, moreover, constitutes a “contract dealing with the expenditure of public or other funds of public bodies”; (5 ILCS 140/2(c)(vii)) and, with the exception noted above for personal information, the superintendent’s employment contract must be disclosed in its entirety.

HISTORY OF THIS CASE:

In Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200, No. 107139. (November 26, 2008), the Illinois Supreme Court granted a petition for leave to appeal to determine whether the trial court properly denied plaintiff's FOIA request for a copy of the superintendent's contract. The trial court found that the superintendent's employment contract was per se exempt under FOIA because it was part of his personnel file.

Before the petition for leave to appeal was filed, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court and found that public employees' employment contracts were subject to disclosure under FOIA with respect to information bearing on public duties. The Appellate Court also found that there were issues of material fact regarding whether any portion of the subject contract was exempt under FOIA.

The Appellate Court issued its opinion on June 9, 2008. Then, it modified and superseded its opinion when it denied a rehearing on July 11, 2008. After that, the Appellate Court withdrew its opinion on July 25, 2008 and modified it on August 12, 2008. The petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court was granted on November 26, 2008.

IASB's October 2008 Newsbulletin's Recent Developments in School Law column discussed the issues in this case and why they are important for school officials to be aware of, understand and watch.