December 27, 2024

Case Name: Public Access Opinion 24-016
Body: Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois
Case Number: Request for Review 2024 PAC 83122
Decision Date: December 27, 2024

Introduction

The case revolves around a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by a requestor on September 5, 2024, seeking a copy of a letter sent by current and former Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA) employees to the Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability (Commission). The letter urged the Commission to hold a no-confidence vote on COPA Chief Administrator Andrea Kersten.

The Commission denied the FOIA request on September 18, 2024, citing several FOIA exemptions, including: Section 7(1)(f) – Deliberative Process; Section 7(1)(m) – Attorney-Client Privilege/Internal Audit; Section 7(1)(n) – Employee Grievance Adjudication.

On September 19, 2024, requestor contested the denial by filing a Request for Review with the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. After an investigation and legal review, the Attorney General issued a binding opinion on December 27, 2024, concluding that the Commission violated FOIA by improperly denying the request.

Relevant FOIA Rules & Findings

The opinion references multiple FOIA statutes and evaluates their applicability to the denied request. The relevant provisions analyzed include:

• Section 7(1)(c) – Personal Privacy Exemption: This section exempts personal information from disclosure if it constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Ruling: The letter does not contain highly personal information, and the public interest outweighs privacy concerns. Therefore, the Commission incorrectly applied this exemption.
• Section 7(1)(d)(iv) – Confidential Source Protection: Protects records that would disclose the identity of a confidential source or individuals providing information to administrative or investigative bodies. Ruling: The Commission is not a law enforcement agency, and the letter does not qualify as a law enforcement record. The exemption does not apply.
• Section 7(1)(d)(vi) – Physical Safety Risk: Exempts records if disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Ruling: The Commission failed to provide evidence that releasing the letter would pose a threat to anyone’s safety.
• Section 7(1)(f) – Deliberative Process Exemption: Exempts preliminary drafts, recommendations, or other records in which opinions are expressed as part of a decision-making process. Ruling: The letter was a third-party submission, not an internal agency deliberation. The exemption does not apply.
• Section 7(1)(m) – Attorney-Client Privilege/Internal Audit: Protects communications between a public body and its attorney or materials compiled for an audit. Ruling: The letter was not prepared for an audit and does not fall under attorney-client privilege. The exemption was improperly applied.
• Section 7(1)(n) – Employee Grievance Adjudication: Exempts records relating to a public body’s adjudication of employee grievances. Ruling: The letter was not part of a formal grievance process, so the exemption does not apply..

Conclusion

Chicago Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability Violated FOIA

The Attorney General ruled in favor of the requestor, concluding that the Commission violated FOIA by denying access to the letter. The Commission was ordered to release the requested document.

This decision reinforces transparency and accountability in government, emphasizing that FOIA exemptions must be applied narrowly and with clear justification. The public has a right to access records related to government affairs unless a strong legal basis for withholding them exists.

For a detailed review, you can access the full document here.

Home: FOIA.law