Rauner bemoans Madigan’s FOIA backlog
Tuesday, Mar 17, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The AP looks at a backlog of FOIA appeals at Lisa Madigan’s office…
(T)he “public access counselor” in the attorney general’s office has yet to respond to more than 2,800 appeals of Freedom of Information Act requests for information that a government agency deemed secret, according to an analysis of records obtained by The Associated Press. That’s about one in five of all FOIA appeals submitted to the office since the law took effect in 2010.
While it means the office can claim more than 80 percent of its cases closed, the AP found that nearly 1,200 of the open cases have gone unanswered for at least two years.
Over 80 percent of the backlogged appeals were filed by private citizens, who might possibly be unwilling to settle. The AG’s office is being swamped with 349 appeals a month, way over the numbers from two years ago.
* Back to the story…
The bureau has 10 lawyers and is interviewing to hire as many as five more, but turnover is constant, [Ann Spillane, chief of staff to Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan] said. And because of the budget crisis, even with a growing backlog, Spillane said the attorney general will focus on preserving the current budget instead of asking for more. […]
When asked about it Friday, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner bemoaned the “inefficiency, lack of productivity, lack of effectiveness, high costs” he says envelop state government.
“We’ve got to change that culture and be more responsive,” Rauner said. “I look forward to investigating that and seeing what I can do to help fix that.”
One reason why the AG’s office has always had a high turnover rate is they don’t pay very well and they work their lawyers pretty hard. They recruit a lot of people out of law school and then they move on to better paying gigs.
I suppose the AG could try outsourcing this, but private attorneys ain’t cheap.
- Soccermom - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:07 pm:
Where do I begin? The hypocrisy of Rauner urging increased transparency, or the bad judgment in going after the AG when he has to work with the GA?
- anon - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:08 pm:
=== One reason why the AG’s office has always had a high turnover rate is they don’t pay very well and they work their lawyers pretty hard. ===
The Governor claims state employees are overpaid, (except for the ones he hires.) If these lawyers really are overpaid, then one would think more of them would stick around instead of constantly seeking new employment.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:08 pm:
just use the FL model. The ag’s office bills its hours to the agencies for whom it is performing work. then they can pay higher salaries.
- Look out - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:09 pm:
“Those public employee lawyers are just not workin’ hard enough. Maybe if they make less money and a few of them lose their jobs, they’ll wise up.”
- How Ironic - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:10 pm:
Sure would have liked to have seen those taxes Brucie…
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:10 pm:
Governor Rauner could direct his staff to stop denying FOIA requests. That would certainly cut down on the workload over at the AG’s office.
Welcome to “due process”, governor. Yes, it is burdensome. What did you just say about democracy?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:12 pm:
I dunno if questioning and commenting the efficiency of another Constitutional Officer’s office is a good way to make a point about all of government.
Governor, don’t you hace agencies you should worry about when it come to efficiency?
Those who live in glass houses…
You own your own inherited inefficiencies in the Executive. Fix those, then go after another Constitutional.
…unless Rauner and Uihline and Sen. Kirk are worried about Lisa Madigan running for US Senate, then it “kinda” makes sense, but it’s ridiculously bad form so early in Rauner’s run.
There may be more going on than the Governor commenting on the Attorney General’s Office.
Boy that’s Kass-like.
- anon - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:12 pm:
Don’t you know that those AG’s are lazy greedy public servants who are the root cause of all of this State’s woes? They should work for no pay and no pension.
- Jocko - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:13 pm:
How’s Rauner have time to weigh in on this? Isn’t he busy “..working to resolve [the childcare program’s] funding shortfall”?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:15 pm:
Plus, the petty Rauner probably isn’t too pleased the AG is working against Fair Share, citing the law as the reason.
Rauner is Sonny Corleone; timing matters not. Payback must be doled out, as fast as possible.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:15 pm:
“….. Rauner bemoaned the ‘inefficiency, lack of effectiveness, lack of productivity, high costs’ he says envelop state government.
Yet he and his band of high-priced ideologues only proposed $200 million in unidentified “operations efficiencies” in his budget. That’s about one half of one percent of GRF spending.
For the high cost, they are unproductive and ineffective.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:17 pm:
Two years? Ouch.
@Ghost’s suggestion is a good one. These are appeals of FOIA decisions other agencies made. The AG should at least bill those agencies when they were wrong not to release that public information.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:19 pm:
===When asked about it Friday, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner bemoaned the “inefficiency, lack of productivity, lack of effectiveness, high costs” he says envelop state government.
“We’ve got to change that culture and be more responsive,” Rauner said. “I look forward to investigating that and seeing what I can do to help fix that.”===
Cut and paste that and create your own macro because he’s going to be saying some variation of these sentences a lot over the next year or so. I’d bet $50 he gave the AP that answer and had no idea what he was being asked about.
“Huh? Hey Lance, what’s a foya?”
- GA Watcher - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:20 pm:
Guess they think it’s not too early to start going after the likely opponent in your next election.
- anon - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:26 pm:
Can I assume that Rauner is not accepting Chief Justice Garman’s invitation to watch one of those inefficient, unproductive, ineffective and overpaid assistant AG’s in action tonight? “The State will be represented by an attorney from the Office of the Attorney General, and the de-fendant will be represented by the Office of the State Appellate Defender,” Chief Justice Garman noted in her letter to the governor, legislative leaders, and members of the Senate and House. “Thus, you will have the opportunity not only to see the Court at work, but also to observe these valuable public employees performing their vital functions on behalf of the people of the State of Illinois.”
- Norseman - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:29 pm:
Another drive-by comment by Governor .01%. He has no clue as to the issues involved, but he feels free to spout gratuitous insults.
This is what happens when you create or expand programs and don’t provide the necessary resources to support them. Rauner will have a ton of opportunities to use his insult since the resources are going continue to diminish, thus exacerbating an already rampant problem.
To Rauner cabinet members; look at this example and repeat to yourself, “the Governor will have my back.”
- The Captain - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:34 pm:
Looking forward to the Governor investigating and telling another constitutional office how to run, that should go over well.
- Just Observing - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:39 pm:
The AG’s Public Access Bureau does good work and are good advocates for the public, but they are seemingly short staffed. However, in my experience, as lawyers and government tend to be, they are overly formal on very cut-and-dry FOIA cases — they say in a three page letter what they can say in one paragraph.
- Regulator - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:43 pm:
Assistant attorney generals (the staff attorneys) as a matter of law cannot be unionized. As a result it seems, they are underpaid and overworked and have high turnover. Lucky for them, though, they are empowered and have the right to work!!
- Bill Baar - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:45 pm:
I have a hard time believing it takes a lawyer to process most FOIA requests. The hard part (and I’ve done it) is redacting the thing in a digital age. No easy task.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:47 pm:
Just Observing is right on target. Lawyers and freedom of information is a non-sequitur.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 12:56 pm:
it’s not just an AG office problem, government in general is suffering under the weight of FOIA requests. agencies must decide if there is more transparency possible and post more information on line. but in some cases citizen activists often simply decide to flood the system and the weight is too great for agencies. It’s often not a matter of stonewalling, it’s the lack of ability to get things done. more transparency when possible is best and easier.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 1:05 pm:
@Amalia - well said. More transparency to begin with will also reduce the number of these FOIA appeals and the backlog.
- Rasselas - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 1:12 pm:
Bill Barr - these are appeals, not the initial requests. The appeals do require a lawyer’s review.
- Gooner - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 1:14 pm:
I suspect it is more than the salary that gets people to leave.
One reason that people take jobs at the SA is because they end up with trial experience that they can use to make money (the same reasoning applies to a lot of insurance defense lawyers).
Here, I don’t see any upside. The idea of processing those things sounds horrible. Unless you are at the bottom of your class and have no other options, I can’t imagine doing that work.
Bill Baar makes a good point. Why are attorneys handling these anyway? Clerks or paralegals should be doing the work.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 1:20 pm:
speaking of transparency….thanks FKAs….SCHOCK!!!!!!!!!
- Bruce Rushton - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 1:56 pm:
What’s happened is, public bodies have figured out how to game the system, which is nothing new. John O’Connor’s story is an excellent one and merely the latest chapter in how governmental bodies have managed to flood the AG’s office with work, the end result being a de facto subversion of the law.
Without going into the dirty details, the public access counselor’s office has been behind from the very beginning, and there is no way that the AG’s office will ever catch up the way that the law is now written. Public bodies need only throw up silly claims that records are somehow exempt from disclosure and count on the backlog at the AG’s office to do the rest.
It doesn’t have to be this way, nor should it be this way. The public should be outraged that taxpayers are shelling out for 10, soon to be 15, full-time lawyers to battle this state’s culture of secrecy. That cost should be borne by recalcitrant public bodies that see no down side in ignoring the law because, frankly, there is no down side to ignoring a law that carries no real penalties for violations.
The AG’s office shouldn’t play any role in refereeing FOIA disputes. That, I think, should be the role of judges, and the law should be written in such a way that public bodies who flout the law do so at risk of paying a hefty price in court. You do that by writing a statute that lowers hurdles to filing suit. The legislature took an important step toward lowering those hurdles by requiring public bodies that lose lawsuits to pay plaintiffs’ legal fees. But that is only one step. The law still contains too many loopholes and weaknesses that aren’t going to be plugged or fixed anytime soon. So here is what we should do in the meantime.
Public bodies that end up on the wrong end of decisions by the AG’s public access office should be required to pay per-day penalties, say, $100 per day, to the AG’s office to fund the public access counselor’s office. This would, I think, dramatically reduce the backlog that has clogged the system to the quagmire point. It is one thing to claim exemptions simply to see if they will stick, it is another thing entirely to claim them knowing that if you lose, you will be forced to pay real money. The beauty is, the backlog would then work against public bodies that are now claiming all kinds of silly reasons to withhold records and punting to the AG. Sorry, we had a six-month backlog, so your bill comes to 30 grand or whatever the per-day penalty amounts to. It would certainly make public bodies think twice before flouting the law.
This is just one idea, but the bottom line is, FOIA needs penalties, real penalties, if it is ever going to work. And I would be remiss if I didn’t engage in a bit of shameless self promotion. The Better Government Association is sponsoring a panel discussion (which includes me) on FOIA and the future of the law scheduled for 4 p.m. on March 24 at the State Journal Register in Springfield. It should be lively, given that it includes panelists from all sides of the issue. Seating is limited, so pre-registration is encouraged. Google “better government association” and do the rest of the work yourself.
- Jon - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 2:00 pm:
It would be interesting to know where the FOIAs originated from, state vs. local governments. My guess would be that most are local government FOIAs, but the AP story is unclear. When you realize that every govenment body in the state is subject to the law, it makes sense there are so many appeals.
- Rusty618 - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 2:16 pm:
If Gov Rauner get his way during the next contract negotiations, and state employee salaries are reduced, you will see a high turnover rate in many other agencies. Some of the state training programs are very good, but retention rate has not been very good for many reasons. At least one agency had new hires sign a contract to commit to a certain number of years of service after the training. Some who left, fought this in court and won, as it was found to be unconstitutional.
- Kodachrome - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 3:27 pm:
= Public bodies need only throw up silly claims that records are somehow exempt from disclosure and count on the backlog at the AG’s office to do the rest. =
Exactly right
- RNUG - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 5:25 pm:
== “Thus, you will have the opportunity not only to see the Court at work, but also to observe these valuable public employees performing their vital functions on behalf of the people of the State of Illinois.” ==
With that invitation to Rauner, I almost have to think the court is telegraphing their response to a lot of Rauner’s hot air.
- Mama - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 7:30 pm:
It is funny a negative attack against the AG would come out right after the guv fair- share EO is shot down by the AG due to a conflict with the law.
- Mr. Moto - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 7:39 pm:
The bureau has 10 attorneys? Hiring 5 more? They used to have one guy who wasn’t even replaced right away when he retired. What is going on? Pat O’Malley isn’t running for anything again, is he?
- Millennial - Tuesday, Mar 17, 15 @ 8:36 pm:
It is common knowledge in attorney circles that Illinois Assistant Attorney generals are severely underpaid. About two years ago the beginning salary was $49,000.00 a year, with the possibility of promotion in 5 years. Out of pocket expenses included up to $500.00 a week for gas to travel to court (expenses which took up to 6 months to be reimbursed). Don’t forget almost every attorney has expensive student loans which range btw $300-1500/mo depending on payment plan. A year ago Lisa Madigan gave her staff attorneys raises to $56,000.00 a year. A coordinated media campaign was launched against her. Kellan Howell from the Washington Times, a contributor to Forbes.com, and the illinois review. The raises were labeled “patronage” which negligently confuses Agency practices. ALL assistant attorney generals serve at will and are exempt, but that does not mean they are political hires. I know many Republicans who work for Lisa Madigan, and people who worked for Lisa Madigan and Rauner’s campaign. Of course the elephant in the room is the possibility that Lisa Madigan will run for Governor. They are trying to throw mud on her now as a preemptive attack.