Illinois FOIA weakens as public employee reviews become exempt, opponents get small victory

Since changes to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act went into effect January 1 of this year, several groups have been working to rollback these changes. And it looks like they’ve won their first victory.

Changes to the old Illinois FOIA include fines for failing to fulfill FOIA, a stricter 5 day deadline for responding to a request, and a cap on the amount public bodies are allowed to charge for copies. These changes came as a result of problems with the FOIA that allowed for too many exemptions and for too few penalties for governments that failed to live up to their open government duty.

The FOIA amendments, however, had opponents from the beginning. For example, two taxpayer-funded lobbying associations, the Illinois Municipal League and the Illinois State’s Attorney Association, opposed the changes citing increased burdens on local governments, among other things. Unions were also vocal about their opposition to the new FOIA.

The new FOIA had opponents from within the legislature, as well. Several legislators worked to weaken proposed changes before a strong bill could get to Governor Pat Quinn’s desk.

For awhile after the passage of the new bill, the forces fighting the changes to FOIA continued their fight. And it seems that they have succeeded, at least in small part. Senate members voted last week 45-9 to approve House Bill 5154, which exempts the performance evaluations of all public employees from disclosure under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.

Unions representing public employees support the bill, saying allowing requests for evaluations would lead to employees FOIAing one another’s evaluations, and would make public employees feel unvalued. Senator Kimberly Lightford, D-Westchester who sponsored the bill, echoed those sentiments saying job evaluations should remain unavailable to the public in order to protect the privacy of public employees and to allow them to trust their public officials. She also said some individuals may misuse FOIA in an attempt to incriminate a public employee.

Another State Senator, however, differently. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine, voted against the bill citing the power it takes away from citizens, and sees the bill as a step backwards. “At the end of the day, people want to feel like if they want to, go look and find out where their tax dollars are being spent,” Murphy said. “They have the right to do it and they should have the opportunity to do it. This whittled that away.”

The availability of routine job performance evaluations might help correct situations involving chronically troublesome employees. The State-Journal Register notes one example of a sheriff deput disciplined 42 times in his 13 years with the sheriff’s office.

These are not the only changes to FOIA law on the table. Pending legislation aimed at the new FOIA include a bill to allow public bodies to charge higher fees by eliminating the new limit of 15 cents a page and a bill that would eliminate the requirement that courts award attorney’s fees to citizens who prevail in court over illegally-withheld information. Two other bills would allow public bodies to deny records if they pertain to any issue “under investigation,” even if they are not the investigating agency.

As far as higher level officials in Illinois, Attorney General Lisa Madigan opposes any bill that weakens the FOIA. However, some speculate Governor Quinn will sign the bill. The long-run implications are yet to be seen, and it is unclear how the Illinois FOIA will look after all of this is settled.

Should Illinois be worried about new FOIA proposals?

In January, Illinois passed a law that improved its FOIA, which needed improvements after allegations that secrecy was the rule in Illinois, openness the exception. The most conspicuous case was the University of Illinois not releasing information to the Chicago Tribune, making the Tribune sue the university for the information. Supported by the Attorney General, the law made it so that governments had 5 days to respond to a request and would penalize those that failed to do so.

But the improvements did not come without a fight with some law makers creating a weaker alternative to the new law. That effort has begun again: State Senator John Millner is sponsoring a plan that would significantly weaken the new FOIA in Illinois, according to critics. His proposal would:

-Broaden protections against disclosing personnel and disciplinary information.
-Cut down public access to law enforcement records if the information could hurt another department’s investigation
-Relieve government bodies from having to pay legal fees for successful lawsuits against them.

A proposal introduced by another state senator, Senator William Haine, would exempt law enforcement personnel’s performance evaluations from disclosure, as well. Lawmakers and Gov. Pat Quinn have already approved exempting teacher evaluations from disclosure.

The Illinois attorney general’s office, which was was strongly vocal about its support for the new law, said it’s too soon to change it.

But the new FOIA has critics on the House side, too. State Representative Sidney Mathias is working with the Illinois Municipal League, which opposed last year’s changes to access laws and is a taxpayer-funded lobbying association, to change requirements that may be “too burdensome,” especially requiring government bodies to reply to requests within five business days. He also would consider doing away with a provision that requires local governments to pay attorney fees if someone sues to get information and a court rules that information should be turned over, a similarity to Millner’s proposed changes.

According to Representative Mathias, its in citizens’ interest to place limits on the requirements of government to meet this law. “Who ultimately pays that? It’s the residents. So there’s got to be reasonable limitations on these requests, also.”

Still, it’s one thing to have frivolous spending going on in Illinois, and another thing to have spending that is justifiable. As far as protecting investigation and police officers, this is also an important priority. However, the presumption should be openness, and a denial of information must be justified. While a realistic law that doesn’t overly burden officials is important, the emphasis should be on the citizens and on providing information in a way that is beneficial to them, not on making life easy for public officials.

Follow up on the lavish lifestyle of Charles Flowers

An editorial appeared in the Wednesday edition of the Chicago Tribune, which outlined in greater detail the irregularities found in the Suburban Cook County Regional Office of Education budget. Included in this report are the shocking expenditures that Charles Flowers assumed would go unnoticed by the Cook County taxpayers. Unfortunately for him they have been noticed and a memo has been sent to Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez for their review into the taxpayer-funded shopping spree. A few of the shocking expenditures include:

• Changes for thousands of dollars in private expenses for him and his family on a trip to Mississippi
• $15,000 in cash advances for two employees, including his sister that holds a position as his administrative assistant
• Money paid towards his nephew who only worked eight hour days but received pay for nine

In addition to these purchases, Flowers still could not account for 70% of the receipts for charges made on this government card as mentioned in the previous blog entry. The state’s attorney will have her hands full as more details are uncovered regarding just how much taxpayer money was wasted at the command of Superintendent Flowers.