It's that time of year when we close out 2025 with a summary of the binding opinions issued by the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor's office (PAC). To-date, the PAC has issued 14 binding opinions, which are all published on the Attorney General's website. Today, we will focus on the PAC’s 11 binding opinions on FOIA.
PAC Op. 25-003, PAC Op. 25-005 (Failure to respond to FOIA requests)
In binding opinions PAC Op. 25-003 and PAC Op. 25-005, the PAC found that several public bodies violated FOIA by failing to respond to FOIA requests.
PAC Op. 25-001 (Disclosing Electronic Records in Format Specified by Requester)
In PAC Op. 25-001¸the PAC found that a County Housing Authority violated Section 6(a) of FOIA by disclosing a password-protected locked versions of Microsoft Excel budget workbooks, instead of unlocked versions sought by the requester, because the requester specifically requested an unlocked versions, and it was feasible for the Authority to disclose the unlocked versions
PAC Op. 25-002 (Improperly Withheld Resignation/Termination Records)
In PAC Op. 25-002, the PAC concluded that a city police department improperly withheld termination/resignation letters, because it did not demonstrate how and why disclosing the records would interfere with either (1) a pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceeding, (2) an active administrative enforcement proceeding, or (3) create a substantial likelihood of depriving people of a fair trial or an impartial hearing. The PAC also determined that the records were not exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 7(1)(d-6) of FOIA, because the Illinois Police Training Act does not exempt local law enforcement agencies from disclosing public records subject to FOIA.
PAC Op. 25-004 (Record Not “Related to” Adjudicatory Proceeding)
In PAC Op. 25-004, the PAC found that a municipal police department improperly withheld a video recording of a former deputy chief's DUI arrest pursuant to Section 7(1)(n) of FOIA, because the video was created before any disciplinary proceeding took place and existed independently on the subsequent adjudication. The PAC stated that a record can only "relate to" an adjudication within the meaning of Section 7(l)(n) of FOIA if it is created in the process of conducting the adjudication itself.
PAC Op. 25-006 (Settlement Records Improperly Withheld)
In PAC Op. 25-006, the PAC found that that a city department improperly withheld a settlement records concerning a class action lawsuit against a named alderperson pursuant to Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA, because the alderperson was represented by a private attorney, while the city was represented by attorneys from its law department, so the parties had separate interests in the subject matter of the withheld record, and there was no indication that the city’s attorney were acting as the alderperson’s attorneys in connection with the settlement. Because the withheld record was not an attorney-client privileged communication, and related to the obligation, receipt, or use of city funds regarding the settlement, the PAC determined that the public had a right to know the purposes for which public funds were expended in connection with the settlement.
PAC Op. 25-008 (Record of Billing Dispute with Former Attorney Improperly Withheld)
In PAC Op. 25-008¸ the PAC found that an email attachment regarding a billing dispute between a school district with its former attorney was improperly withheld pursuant to Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA, because the record pertained to a billing dispute and did not reveal the substance of matters for which the school district sought legal advice or any legal advice the school district’s former attorneys provided while acting as their legal advisor. The record was also not exempt pursuant to Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA, because the record did not reflect deliberations with a third party acting on the school district’s behalf, since the school district’s former attorney was acting with independent interests that were not aligned with the school district’s interests at the time of the communication.
PAC Op. 25-010 (Separation Agreement Improperly Withheld)
In PAC Op. 25-010, the PAC concluded that a public body improperly withheld a police officer’s separation agreement pursuant to Sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of FOIA, because the withheld records concerned a public employee’s separation from employment which "bears on the public duties" of a public employee," and are therefore subject to disclosure. However, the public body was authorized to discreetly redact exempt private or personal information within the record.
PAC Op. 25-012 (Construction Plans Properly Withheld)
In PAC Op. 25-012, the PAC found that a county land use department properly withheld construction-related technical documents relating to a proposed commercial solar farm, because the records were commissioned by the private company, and no public funds were used to construct or develop the project, so these records were per se exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 7(1)(k), and the department did not have to demonstrate that disclosure would compromise the security of the project.
PAC Op. 25-013 (Improperly Charged Fee for Electronic Copy of Report)
In PAC Op. 25-013, the PAC determined that a city violated Section 6(a) of FOIA by improperly assessing a fee for disclosing an electronic copy of the incident report. Because state law does not expressly authorize imposing a statutory fee in excess of the cost of the recording medium for electronic copies of incident reports, and it was feasible for the city to disclose the report in the electronic format without the need to purchase a recording medium, the city was prohibited by FOIA from assessing the requester a fee for disclosing an electronic copy of the incident report.
PAC Op. 25-014 (Imposing “redaction charge” violates FOIA)
In PAC Op. 25-014, the PAC determined that a city police department violated FOIA by imposing a per minute “redaction charge” for redacting body camera footage. Because FOIA imposes fiscal obligations on public bodies, Section 6 of FOIA does not authorize reimbursing public bodies for redaction costs, and FOIA restricts fees for electronic records to the cost of purchasing the "recording medium" (i.e., CD, flash drive) and not other costs, the police department could not impose a "redaction charge" on FOIA requesters.
PAC Op. 25-015 (Redactions improper)
A requester filed a FOIA request with a county state's attorney's office (SAO) seeking copies of records showing law enforcement officers or experts who responded "yes" to a question on a "Brady/Giglio Form" regarding professional misconduct, credibility, or disciplinary history. The SAO provided four police officer questionnaires but redacted the officers' names, as well as other information. The requester filed a request for review with the PAC, and the PAC issued binding opinion PAC Op. 25-015, finding that the redactions were improper because the information was not exempt under FOIA's personal privacy exemption because the information "bears on the public duties of public employees." The PAC also rejected the SAO's other arguments that the information was exempt under the "deliberative privilege" and attorney-client privilege exemptions, finding that the SAO did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that those exemptions applied.
Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink
