February 11, 2025

Case Name: Public Access Opinion 25-001
Body: Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois
Case Number: Request for Review 2024 PAC 83751
Decision Date: February 11, 2025

Introduction

Unlocking Transparency in Public Access Opinion 25-001

Public Access Opinion 25-001, was decided by the Office of the Attorney General of Illinois, under case number 2024 PAC 83751, with the decision filed on February 11, 2025. The controversy arose when Mr. Derek Van Buer requested, on September 30, 2024, the Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb’s fiscal year 2024 and 2025 Excel budget workbooks, including links to supporting files.

The Authority extended its response deadline on October 7, 2024, and provided locked Excel files on October 15, 2024. Van Buer objected on October 16, 2024, citing restricted functionality due to password protection and hidden columns. On October 29, 2024, the Authority supplied updated locked files with visible columns, but still inaccessible for editing. Van Buer filed a Request for Review on November 1, 2024, alleging the locked files violated FOIA. The Authority defended its response on December 8, 2024, prompting this binding opinion.

Relevant FOIA Rules & Findings

The decision hinges on several FOIA statutes from the Illinois Compiled Statutes (5 ILCS 140/).

• Section 1 (5 ILCS 140/1 (West 2022)) establishes the public policy that “all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government,” emphasizing transparency.
• Section 1.2 (5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2022)) presumes all public records are open for inspection or copying absent an exemption, placing the burden on agencies to justify withholding.
• Section 3(a) (5 ILCS 140/3(a) (West 2022)) mandates that public bodies make records available for copying, except as provided in
• Section 7, which lists exemptions not invoked here.
• Section 3(e)(v) (5 ILCS 140/3(e)(v) (West 2022)) allows a five-business-day response extension, which the Authority utilized.
• Central to the dispute, Section 6(a) (5 ILCS 140/6(a) (West 2022)) states: “When a person requests a copy of a record maintained in an electronic format, the public body shall furnish it in the electronic format specified by the requester, if feasible.” If not feasible, the agency may provide it in its maintained format or paper, at the requester’s option. Feasibility is key, and no exemptions applied.
• Section 9.5(a) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(a) (West 2023 Supp.)) governs Requests for Review, requiring timely filing, which Van Buer met.
• Section 9.5(f) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2023 Supp.)) authorizes binding opinions and allows a 30-business-day extension, exercised here to February 14, 2025.
• Section 11.5 (5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2022)) permits judicial review within 35 days.

Analysis & Conclusion

Applying these rules, the Attorney General found the Authority’s response deficient.

Section 6(a) required providing Van Buer’s specified Excel format—interpreted via Fagel v. Department of Transportation (2013 IL App (1st) 121841) as an unlocked, functional file—unless infeasible. The Authority’s locked files, provided on October 15 and 29, 2024, restricted sorting, filtering, and formula access, akin to a PDF, not a fully usable Excel workbook.

The Authority argued it maintains locked files, distinguishing Fagel (where unlocked files existed), but Section 6(a)’s plain language prioritizes feasibility over maintenance format. The Authority neither pleaded infeasibility nor cited Section 7 exemptions, undermining its position. Fagel clarified that security concerns do not override FOIA absent statutory exemption, a precedent binding here. Van Buer’s timely Section 9.5(a) review request triggered this analysis, extended lawfully under Section 9.5(f).

The Attorney General, in unlocking transparency in Public Access Opinion 25-001, concluded on February 11, 2025, that the Authority violated FOIA by denying Van Buer unlocked Excel workbooks. It directed immediate compliance, providing a final, reviewable decision under Section 11.5. The matter affirmed FOIA’s transparency mandate, rejecting the Authority’s format-based defense.

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

Home: FOIA.law