PAC Binding Opinions for 2018

PAC Binding Opinions for 2018

  Thursday, January 03, 2019    Julie Tappendorf

---

It's the beginning of a new year, and that means it is time to summarize all of the PAC's binding opinions issued in 2018.  There are 16 of them this year.  2 OMA opinions and 14 FOIA opinions (4 of which deal with a complete failure to respond to a FOIA request).  Enjoy!

PAC Op. 18-001 (Resignation letter releasable under FOIA)

In PAC Op. 18-001, the PAC found a public body in violation of FOIA when it provided a redacted copy of the village president’s resignation letter in response to a FOIA request. The PAC rejected the village’s argument that the information that was redacted was exempt as part of the “deliberative process” under 7(1)(f) of FOIA. The PAC also rejected the village’s argument that it was exempt under 7(1)(n) as adjudication of an employee grievance or disciplinary case because the village had not identified any ongoing or contemplated grievance, complaint, or disciplinary action that was or would be adjudicated.

PAC Op. 18-002 (Water customer information not exempt)

In PAC Op. 18-002, the PAC rejected a city's argument that a water customer's name was exempt from release under the "private information" exemption (section 7(b) of FOIA), finding that the definition of "private information" in section 2(c-5) of FOIA did not expressly exempt a person's name from release, and ordered release of the water customer’s name.

PAC Op. 18-003 (Failure to respond to FOIA)

The PAC found a public body in violation of FOIA for failing to respond to a FOIA request. PAC Op. 18-003.

PAC Op. 18-004 (City failed to show that developer financial information a “trade secret”)

The PAC found a public body in violation of FOIA when it failed to release public records relating to redevelopment project costs in response to a FOIA request. PAC Op. 18-004. The PAC rejected the city's argument that the developer’s financial information was proprietary and a trade secret under section 7(1)(g), finding that the city did not establish that the information was provided under a claim of confidentiality and that disclosure would cause competitive harm.

PAC Op. 18-005 (Salary information about public employees subject to FOIA)

The PAC found a public body in violation of FOIA when it denied a request for records of City employees’ wages and salaries, rejecting the city’s argument that it was “personal information” that is exempt under 7(1)(c) of FOIA. PAC Op. 18-005.

PAC Op. 18-006 (Failure to respond to FOIA)

The PAC found a public body in violation for failing to respond to a FOIA request. PAC Op. 18-006.

PAC Op. 18-007 (Repeated requests)

In PAC Op. 18-007, the PAC found a public body in violation of FOIA for improperly denying a second FOIA request for the same records that had been requested in a previous FOIA request. The public body had responded that section 3(g) does not require a public body to respond to repeated requests from the same person for the same records, and that it had conducted a search for the requested records and had provided the records it found through its search. On appeal, the PAC determined that because the public body did not provide sufficient support that it performed a thorough search and provided all relevant records in response to the first request, it could not deny the second request filed by the same person for the same records. 

PAC Op. 18-008 (Unduly burdensome/trade secrets)

In PAC Opinion 18-008, the PAC found that a public body improperly denied a request for records as unduly burdensome because it was a repeated request for the same records, and further finding that the financial terms requested were not exempt under 7(1)(g).  The PAC noted that a repeated request is only considered an unduly burdensome repeated request if the public body previously provided the records or previously properly denied the prior request for the same records. The PAC also found that CCHHS failed to demonstrate that disclosure of the rates would cause competitive harm.   

PAC Op. 18-009 (Private information)

The PAC found a public body in violation of FOIA for redacting the Parcel Identification Numbers (PINs) from records released in response to the FOIA request. PAC Op. 18-009. The PAC rejected the public body’s argument that PINs were "unique identifiers" under 7(1)(b), finding that this exemption applies to information about people (such as a social security number), and not information about property.

PAC Op. 18-010 (Settlement agreement)

In PAC Op. 18-010, the PAC found a public body in violation for FOIA for not disclosing the details about claims that were the subject of a settlement agreement. The redacted information described the nature of the principal's allegations against the district in broad, general terms but did not detail any circumstances or events giving rise to the allegations. The PAC rejected the district's argument that the issues surrounding the allegations were sensitive and highly personal in nature, and determined that the public had the right to see the terms that led to the district paying a settlement to the former employee in exchange for his resignation.

PAC Op. 18-011 (Failure to respond to FOIA)

In PAC Op. 18-011, the PAC found a public body in violation of FOIA for failing to respond to a FOIA request, and failing to respond to the PAC's request for review.

PAC Op. 18-012 (Budget discussion in closed session)

In PAC Op. 18-012, the PAC found a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Act for improperly discussing its budget, layoffs, and related matters in closed session during a board meeting. The public body argued that that the Board’s discussion was about specific employees within the scope of section 2(c)(1) of the OMA that authorizes the discussion of compensation, performance, hiring, and dismissal of specific employees.  The PAC concluded that the Board of Trustees' closed session discussion exceeded the scope of the OMA's exceptions, and violated the OMA. The PAC ordered the public body to release a copy of the closed session minutes and verbatim recording, except for that portion that discussed a specific employee.

PAC Op. 18-013 (Unduly burdensome)

The PAC found that the Governor’s office improperly denied a request for records as unduly burdensome. PAC Op. 18-013. The Governor’s office claimed its initial search for emails yielded 44,356 potential responsive emails.  The PAC found that the Governor’s office failed to demonstrate that the initial search was a reasonably adequate search for responsive emails, noting that a subsequent more narrow search yielded only 1,783 potentially responsive emails.  The PAC found that the Governor’s office did not show that review of 1,783 emails would be unduly burdensome.  Further, the PAC noted that the Governor’s office did not show that the burden of reviewing and responding to this FOIA request would outweigh the public interest in the information sought.  

PAC Op. 18-014 (Failure to respond to FOIA)

The PAC found a public body in violation of FOIA for failing to respond to a FOIA request. PAC Op. 18-014. 

PAC Op. 18-015 (Performance/salary of elected officials in closed session)

The PAC found a public body in violation of the Open Meetings Act when it discussed the performance and salaries of two elected officials in closed session. PAC Op. 18-015. The PAC rejected the public body’s use of the “personnel” exception under 2(c)(1) of the OMA, finding that it only applied to employees, not elected officials. The PAC also rejected the exception contained in 2(c)(3) which allows a closed session discussion of public officers, noting that this exception only applies if the public body has the authority to remove the public officers being discussed, which is not the case with these two elected officials.

PAC Op. 18-016 (Release of records relating to minor victim/witness)

In PAC Op. 18-016, the PAC found a public body in violation of FOIA when it denied a request for accident reports involving six minors who were listed as victims and witnesses in the report. The PAC found that the Juvenile Court Act protects law enforcement records where a minor is being investigated, arrested, or taken into custody, but does not protect records where the minor is a victim or witness.