Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A lone ray of sunshine
Next Post: Encouraging News For Illinois Nuclear Plants, But Policy Reforms Still Needed
Posted in:
* I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this…
The Chicago Tribune filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that Mayor Rahm Emanuel violated state open records laws by refusing to release communications about city business conducted through private emails and text messages.
The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, asks a judge to order the mayor to comply with a state Freedom of Information Act request from the Tribune and produce the documents. The lawsuit also seeks to have Emanuel declared in violation of the Illinois Local Records Act for failing to preserve emails and texts he sent or received while doing city business. […]
Illinois law says written communications by government officials are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. The law covers “electronic communications,” but does not spell out the rules for the use of personal email and text messages on private cellular phones, according to experts.
The office of Attorney General Lisa Madigan has issued an opinion on the matter. In 2011, in a case involving members of the Champaign City Council, Madigan’s public access counselor determined that written communications about government business on personal email accounts and private cellphones are subject to FOIA. In essence, the office said it was not the device that mattered but the person using the device and the content of the communications.
The case was appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court in Springfield, which took issue with some aspects of the attorney general’s opinion. But the court agreed that emails and texts on personal devices sent by council members during a public meeting were subject to FOIA.
The lawsuit is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 1:39 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A lone ray of sunshine
Next Post: Encouraging News For Illinois Nuclear Plants, But Policy Reforms Still Needed
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Good. But I’m not holding my breath for the Trib to take a similar stand against the governor.
Comment by Tournaround Agenda Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 1:45 pm
Note the Appellate Court’s “during a public meeting” qualification - that’s the key issue here. And it will be interesting to see if AG Madigan aka “Champion of Ensuring Open and Honest Government” takes a position in the suit.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 1:48 pm
“The office of Attorney General Lisa Madigan has issued an opinion on the matter.
More accurately, “The office of Attorney General Lisa Madigan has issued an (non-binding)opinion on the matter.
Comment by Lobo Y Olla Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 2:02 pm
She has the power to issue a binding opinion, but seemingly never elects to do so.
Comment by Lobo Y Olla Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 2:02 pm
Champaign involved discussion between members during a public meeting, so if they wanted to split hairs they could attempt to make that argument.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 2:03 pm
@Lobo Y Olla - She elected to do a major binding opinion regarding the Rauner schedule FOIA. Although he seems to be inclined to ignore the law…
Comment by Juan MacLean Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 2:10 pm
Clearly the FOIA laws haven’t kept up with today’s technology and how it is commonly used. Most e-mails and texts by public officials could be called “informal” communications, while letters, calendars, official proclamations, etc., are formal communications.
I typically send a lot of e-mails and texts as part of a deliberations process well before any decision gets made. I don’t think those types of communication should be subject to FOIA, but maybe I’m wrong.
If the Tribune prevails, I’d expect a lot fewer e-mails/texts and lots of face-to-face conversations which will be very inefficient, and also not transparent.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 2:19 pm
===She has the power to issue a binding opinion===
Yes, she does, but the AG’s binding opinion powers are quite narrow. She cannot just decree that local governments do something. Do you realize what country you live in?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 2:21 pm
There is a common sense issue here.
Before emails and texts, there was no legal way of getting the actual substance of a conversation.
Ok, Official A talked to Individual A on the phone.
What did they discuss? Well, no one was privy to that conversation.
Texts/emails represent an expedited means of communication.
In the future, public officials will probably shy away from electronic communications and just have conversations again.
Comment by Austin Blvd Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 2:33 pm
== The lawsuit also seeks to have Emanuel declared in violation of the Illinois Local Records Act for failing to preserve… ==
Whoa!
Can’t wait for the Tribbies to file this lawsuit: ‘The lawsuit also seeks to have Raunner declared in violation of the Illinois Constitution and IL State Statutes for failing to deliver a balanced budget to the IL GA as required.’
Comment by sal-says Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 2:43 pm
Two FOIA articles in one day!
More than likely, the logical conclusion to FOIA law is that the content of a message will determine its characterization as either a public record or private message. But, the flip-side is that all of the same–and much maligned (by some)–exemptions are still applicable. So the net result isn’t going to be dramatically different.
Comment by Nobody Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 2:44 pm
Definetly public records and should be turned over.
Honestly public officials should just put their personal cell phones in syorage while in office and avoid these messes
yes i know that is not realastic. What they should do is forward all messages and emails about govt buisness, no matter how remote, to their govt email and phine accounts to keep a full public record in those locations
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 3:03 pm
but political communications by those who are also government….or, let’s say, not for profit…..officials belong in the private realm. right? cause we don’t use business for private activities. right?
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 4:31 pm
==Honestly public officials should just put their personal cell phones in syorage while in office and avoid these messes
==
Madigan got a cell phone once as a gift, and immediately threw it in Bubbly Creek.
Comment by walker Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 4:59 pm
So let me get this straight–the government can now force an individual in the public sector to turn over all of his or her private e-mails so someone can read them and determine which ones to give the Tribune?
George Orwell would not be surprised.
Comment by Chicago parent Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 5:28 pm
Rahm should be able to decide which emails are private and which are business.
Worked for Hillary Clinton.
Comment by drop the soapbox Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 6:36 pm
So, Chicago Parent, your position is that as long as the Mayor, Governor and others use their “private” email addresses and “private” cell phones to conduct government business, that the public can’t know about it?
Comment by Michael Westen Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 8:05 pm
And people still make fun of me for having two cell phones? One is for govt work and one is for personal use and never the two shall meet! I guess foia only applies to lowly govt worker
Comment by Little Brother Thursday, Sep 24, 15 @ 8:16 pm
How is a public body supposed to force a board member to give up his or her personal phone for examination? What if the board member refuses? Who is then at fault? The public body or the stubborn board member?
Comment by Just Me Friday, Sep 25, 15 @ 2:08 am
What an official does during official office time is business, regardless of topic. So if there is a need to reconstruct a day’s events in a court of law, then all conversations taking place while that official is on duty, is FOIAble.
Even conversations. Even phone calls. Even cell phone messages, or emails, or telegrams, or carrier pigeon mail, or smoke signals - it doesn’t matter.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 25, 15 @ 7:34 am
Yes, she does, but the AG’s binding opinion powers are quite narrow. She cannot just decree that local governments do something. Do you realize what country you live in?
Yes, Rich I know. Point is she has an option of “teeth” or “no teeth.” She elects no teeth, routinely. If its just for show, why not make it binding? You do know what state you live in?
Comment by Lobo Y Olla Friday, Sep 25, 15 @ 9:37 am
This might be interesting - One of the Illinois machine politicians making full disclosure of information relating the city business.
An the Attorney General is doing to what?
Comment by Cannon649 Friday, Sep 25, 15 @ 9:48 am