14 Comments - narrow interpretation of request - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:47 pm: Rich, you asked for a copy of the receipt for the FEDERAL search warrant. My understanding is that the Illinois State Police served the warrant, so it would not be federal. - Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:51 pm: Either I made a typo or they did. Resubmitted. - JSS - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:32 pm: It would seem there would have to be some type of due process requirement, for example, providing notice, regarding individuals banned from the Capitol Complex. Maybe ask for notifications to individuals? Also, maybe call the FOIA Officer (or in your case the SOS media person) just to see if they have anything that they can provide that in someway has information about the banned folks. I wouldn’t expect the only information about banned individuals would reside in the General Orders, there has to be some other record(s) containing names. - Just Another Anon - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:46 pm: Appeal it - reddevil1 - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:54 pm: maybe I am missing something…but does it seem that they know exactly what you are wanting, but don’t want to provide you with the information? - A State Employee Guy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:56 pm: Gotta read the law first, Rich. - thechampaignlife - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:01 pm: ===I am requesting the list of people who are currently banned from entering the Illinois Statehouse and/or the Statehouse complex=== You need to use more lawyerly terms such as: I request all records, reports, forms, writings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs, microfilms, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records, electronic communications, recorded information and all other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, pertaining to: (1) the people who are currently banned from entering the Illinois Statehouse and/or the Statehouse complex, (2) summary information about such bans such as the number of currently banned people or the number of bans per year for the last 3 years, (3) the request and/or implementation of such a ban, and (4) the process by which such as ban is established. - Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:05 pm: So a public entity bars people from a public building and then says that action isn’t a public record. - Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:13 pm: ===You need to use more lawyerly terms=== From the original response: “In balancing the privacy rights of the alleged victim, the banned individual and any witnesses, with the public interest in disclosure, the Office of the Secretary of State respectfully declines to invade the personal privacy of, or expose the victim, the banned individual and any witnesses to, potential harm either personally or professionally by revealing their identities through the release of the requested information.” I’ve asked for any specific SoS written policy on this topic. - thechampaignlife - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:21 pm: By asking for more than just the people, such as all records pertaining to those people and for summary information about the bans in general, they can protect the privacy of the victims, banned person, and witnesses while still giving some information. Just knowing that there were 3 bans last year does not tell you who, when, or why they occurred. They just need a broad enough request and a bit of context to know what you are looking for so that they can crack out the redaction wand and get you something, even if 95% of it is redacted. - Leatherneck - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:56 pm: Could Attorney-Client Privilege, etc. also come into play in the FOIA rejection? - Just Observing - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 3:06 pm: === It would seem there would have to be some type of due process requirement, for example, providing notice === I’m an elected official of a small public body that, once or twice a year or so, bans individuals from entering our property for a period of time (depending on the infraction). Each individual receives a notice and a right to appeal. - DuPage Guy - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 3:17 pm: You’re going to have to appeal it to the PAC. They are using an expansive definition of privacy that, IMO, won’t be upheld. The PAC tends to be very skeptical of such claims. Its also a very strange grouping for privacy. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c) is the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, but the standard is a reasonable person. Highly subjective, but I dont think a list of people being banned off government property would be objectionable to a reasonable person. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(iv) is about confidential informants or interfering with investigations. 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(vi) is “vi) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person; or” - nadia - Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 4:20 pm: It might be the old “needle in the haystack” situation. Maybe know what you want and may know they can provide it to you but until the request is 100% properly worded or formatted they will not provide it. It’s similar to making an information request to your friendly HR department or Benefits department; if you don’t use the correct terminology, e.g. co-pay versus deductible, they will either say the information doesn’t exist or you get a response that doesn’t relate yo your request. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.