Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup…

People who file piles of requests under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act would have to wait longer for responses from public bodies under legislation that’s cleared the General Assembly.

Government bodies could declare someone a “recurrent requester” for filing more than 50 FOIA requests in a year, 15 in a month or seven in seven days. They could take 21 business days — it’s five days for others — to answer.

Media, not-for-profit organizations and academics are exempt.

* This was an agreed bill with the Illinois Press Association, but not everybody is happy…

Emily Miller, policy and government affairs coordinator for the Better Government Association, explained why her organization opposed the measure.

“If someone files seven requests for information in one week, they are labeled a recurrent requester for a year and would have to wait longer for a response, while a person who realizes you can bundle all seven requests into one FOI request will not be classified as a recurrent requester,” Miller said.

“You can actually ask for an unlimited number of documents in one request and not be deemed a recurrent requester, but the average person isn’t going to know that so we think it is unfair.

“In addition, people are entitled to government information just like they’re entitled to fire and police protection,” Miller continued.

* The Question: Do you agree with this bill to allow governments to delay FOIA responses for “recurrent requesters”? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.

Online Surveys & Market Research

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 9:43 am

Comments

No opinion. I might say yes if delays caused by recurrent requests lead to a lot of press release lawsuits but I don’t have that data.

Comment by Dirt Digger Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 9:47 am
Having enough people on staff to satisfy everyone’s idle curiosity no matter what the subject is a real expense to government.

Comment by blogman Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 9:52 am
No. Illinois’ government entities need to be more transparent, not less.

Comment by GoldCoastConservative Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 9:53 am
Not sure why any private citizen needs to file a FOIA request once per week. They can wait.

Comment by Jeff Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 9:54 am
If you’ve every filed a FOIA on the Univ of Illinois or a recalcitrant municipality, you know the stunts they pull. U of I simply denies all FOIAs as a matter of course that they don’t want to fulfill.

Now they can simply provide partial information saying “You’re request wasn’t clear”, sandbag all year, and then when someone refiles to many times, BOOM, you’re a vexatious requestor.

Most public documents should be online, that would eliminate all FOIAs.

Before sandbagging requestors, some standard should be used. We all know what someone’s “idle curiosity” looks like and we all know what a commercial request looks like.

There are groups that do lots of FOIAs for transparency projects. Now, they are lumped in with the wackos.

Comment by John Bambenek Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:02 am
This bill does not go far enough to alleviate problems with people who just want to file numerous requests or requests for information that is already available on web sites, to harass or punish local government. We are all for transparency (at both the state and local level) but some people carry it to ridiculous extremes.

Comment by One of the 35 Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:07 am
I have a problem with the media exemption. Why are media outlets given effectively greater access than citizens?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:09 am
It harms the governmental process to tell someone or a group they will have to wait at the back of the line because thye ask too many questions. Without knowing the reason why the FOIA request is being made, this measure runs aking to a 3 strikes and you are out policy.

While the media is exempt, that smacks of being elite and detrimental to the rest of us.

I am a member of a public body and we had a frequent requester, who we all agreed was a pain…but he was exercising his rights. Why should we say no to him.

Doug Dobmeyer

Comment by Doug Dobmeyer Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:12 am
No.

From a fairness issue, I object to exempt individuals and organizations. Yet again, government chooses to treat its favored groups over those that are not favored, and individuals.

Let’s say an agency issues several rulings in a week. With each new ruling, an individual or non-exempt organization makes an FOIA request. Because of the activity of the agency, the requestors are labeled as repeat offenders.

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:13 am
yes, actually I think this modification does not go far enough and here’s why:

Since the FOIA expansion many commercial operators and attorneys are using the FOIA procedure to obtain commercially relevant information but they don’t file the requests as commercial in nature - the number of FOIA requests is placing an increasing burden on local government staffers.

I think the next FOIA reform must place a limit on commercial requests, or provide for some fee / cost recovery structure. I don’t want to stand in the way of NFP’s, press or individuals having access to their government’s information - but the commercial requests are clogging the system.

Comment by siriusly Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:15 am
Bundling your FOIA requests is not a difficult thing to do. Would you rather go to the grocery store once for eight things or make five trips to get the same eight things? If you opt for the latter you are a fuel waster and if you file multiple FOIA requests you waste governmental assets.

Comment by Jake From Elwood Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:28 am
I absolutely agree with this. Yes, the public is entitled to information but there comes a point where somebody’s requests become akin to harassment. I think it needs to be carefully monitored, though. Those of us that work in government know who our frequent requesters are. If we can limit it to them I say good.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:29 am
NO! If the process was made clearer, or explanations were made, the demand would drop. Yes there are those who abuse for the sake of being a pain, I suppose, but the underlying reason for FOI is clear, to be open to the public.
Those not interested in supplying information for any reason should be the focus of attention. Why? As Bambeck commented, feet dragging in responding is a clear indication of discomfort in letting information out. That’s WHY we have FOI. I also agree with Emily Miller, for once.

Comment by LisleMike Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:32 am
Public documents are not owned by government bodies. They are merely our appointed caretakers. They should be doing everything possible to make every public document as easily accessible to the public as possible. This legislation burdens that access.

Comment by Draznnl Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:34 am
Just a note to those of you who say no. You have no right to complain about the full time staff it takes to fulfill these requests. You better label those staff as essential government workers.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:34 am
‘Do you agree with this bill to allow governments to delay FOIA responses for “recurrent requesters”?’

Sure. Now tell me how I get certified as “media.”

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:40 am
I voted no, though I do think something should be done to prevent people from bogging down agencies with time wasting requests. This doesn’t seem like the best route. I think more information being available online is a better route, though I’m not a fan of admitting agreement with Mr. Bambenek.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:43 am
Demoralized,

Your point is well taken. I consider the workers that provide transparency and accountability to be among the most vital of government workers. The costs of fulfilling FOIA requests could be reduced of the agencies were committed to true transparency and had all information discoverable by an FOIA request available on their websites in an easy to find manner (as opposed to the confusing sites that now exist).

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:43 am
Having worked in a large government agency there are people who spend their time failing FOIs. Guess what, most agencies don’t have someone who is paid full time (some do) to handle these requests. It takes much time and often is not so simple to compile the information they want. It should be 21 days for all requests at least.

Comment by 212121 Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:43 am
I’m an attorney that makes more than fifty requests per year for a variety of reasons. Each time I do so, though, it is for the benefit of a different client. I would like to see an additional exemption for law firms - though the twenty-one days is not that unreasonable.

Comment by LawDude Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:44 am
Illinois public bodies are, by and large, exaggerating the toll FOIAs take on their resources — these are the same tactics they took in 1983 when Illinois passed it’s first FOIA — they complain its such a drain on resources, but in reality they are continuously looking to decrease transparency. I’m not saying there are no abuses with FOIAs, but they are the exception.

Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:04 am
That is a silly rule. It allows the agencies to pick and choose who they provide information to. Once branded a recurrent requester, is that label assigned forever?

If the unit of government plays the game of hiding information, it can easily lead to multiple request to get the nugget of information that the citizen wanted.

There should always be a bias towards openness vs opacity, not the other way around.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:06 am
I voted No. I’m less than convinced that this is a real problem, and I’m skeptical that this bill will solve the problem. The folks who file for commercial purposes will figure out that they need to combine their requests. So will the cranks.

Comment by Still Stuck with Sen. CPA Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:07 am
I voted no even tho I can understand an agency having difficulty with a persistent, multiple filer. It seems this was done without ensuring that legitimate repeat filers would have any recourse if flagged.

Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:08 am
–Yes, the public is entitled to information but there comes a point where somebody’s requests become akin to harassment.–

The public is not “entitled” to information, it belongs to them, not some clerk or officholder.

The harassment is the obfuscation, foot-dragging and indifference you get from some bodies in retrieving public information. It is not “theirs” to “give.”

I voted no. It’s 2011. Public information should automatically be put online. It’s really not that hard.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:15 am
I voted no. It’s FOIA as presently structured (and restructured) that’s vexatious — not members of the public requesting public information.

Nonprofits are exempt from the new requirements? Hey, you can fly a space shuttle through that loophole.

The Illinois Secretary of State’s office can set you up in a not-for-profit corporation. Online. Today.

Find two other people to be directors with you, pay $77.50 in upfront fees, and FOIA away. http://www.ilsos.gov/nfparticles/

Comment by Dooley Dudright Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:24 am
I have to agree with the various people who have already stated public information should be made public.

Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:29 am
I voted yes, simply because to me it seems like the difference between 5 and 21 days isn’t terribly significant. If you only file a few FOIAs, you’ll get the info in less than a week. If you file more than 7 requests in a week, you’ll get in 3 weeks. I don’t think this harms anyone, but does provide some relief for the units of government to sort through everything.

Look at it this way, if you’re a blogger working on a big expose, plan ahead and prioritize. The people working in these offices shouldn’t have to drop everything to get you some bit of obscure info just because you want it right away.

Here’s a suggestion: why can’t the request and the response be posted on-line? Once someone (anyone) requests the info, shouldn’t we be able to track a list of what info was released? Wouldn’t that solve the problem of redundant requests? How many times does the same info get requested by multiple parties?

Put all FOIA requests and replies on-line and that alone would reduce the number of new requests.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:32 am
I agree with Cincinnatus and Demoralized. First, as a FOIA officer, I absolutely agree, that the public is entitled to the information and I think I’ve have only extended the original deadline twice ever. But please realize, at least for us, we do expend a huge amount of our time and resources on FOIA. I’m not saying that’s wrong or it should change, but the fact that it’s the right thing to do doesn’t make it take up less of my time.

To everyone who says it should all be available online, I agree, but we are NOT allowed under FOIA to direct people to our website. If they ask for information we have on the website and they want it sent directly to them (and they do - all the time), I have to save it separately and send it to them and if they want it saved in a different format than what we have it available, then I have to do that, too.

Comment by Katiedid Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:39 am
I’m both an officer of a NFP and, as a newsletter editor, part of the “media” so I guess I don’t have to have an opinion … I’m double exempt!

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:49 am
Cinci:

We are currently converting tens of thousands of paper files to electronic format for the purposes you speak of.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 11:57 am
Reluctantly yes. FOIA requests can be abused and used as a means of harassment just like anything else. And some people enjoy doing that. But the issue that’s actually a problem does not seem to have been addressed: agency stonewalling.

Comment by Excessively Rabid Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 12:42 pm
47W-
You can file a FOIA request to determine who previously filed FOIA requests. Doesn’t fall under any exemption I am aware of.

Comment by Jake From Elwood Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 1:02 pm
A couple of years ago, I requested some zoning info from the City. It took 3 or 4 requests and about a year before I gained access to some non-material.
It always seemed to me that when there was not an issue, the material was available but if there was a question, there was a delay.

Comment by A Different Belle Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 1:25 pm
no - seems like there’s ways around it - for example, a lawyer could use a fellow lawyer or law clerk or legal assistant’s name once the max was reached.

Comment by Robert Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 2:06 pm
I agree with a need for transparency; but I also see the abuses involved where commercial enterprises obtain individuals’ info under FOIA from counties and then buy mineral rights and etc. for pennies on the dollar value. There should be more limits on those type of requests and more openness about the quid pro quos that go on in state government. In other words, more transparency in govt operations and more protections for individuals’ data held by governments…

Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 2:28 pm
>>>>Media, not-for-profit organizations and academics are exempt.

LOL, I’m surprised that they did not put a John O’Connor clause in there.

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 3:05 pm
The public is entitled to information, but it is not entitled to use FOIA to harass public employees, and in some cases, an individual citizen just floods a small unit of local government with volumes of FOIAs just to make busy work.

Comment by Not a Newcomer Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 4:08 pm
==Look at it this way, if you’re a blogger working on a big expose, plan ahead and prioritize. The people working in these offices shouldn’t have to drop everything to get you some bit of obscure info just because you want it right away.==

Obscure? Really? Who judges that?

I have no doubt that real harassment exists, but there has to be a better standard. Let the harassed party appeal to the PAC, for example.

Comment by yinn Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 5:54 pm
Don’t we have more governmental units than any other state? Thousands upon thousands of them? What percentage has ever had a problem with vexatious FOIA’s? It has to be miniscule. As one who spent years in taxpayer advocacy, filing many FOIA’s, investigating myriad abuses because the local media would not or could not spend the concentrated time required to discover the truth, I resent any attempt to limit my access. I know that bundling requests, which I always did, will be seen by some local governments as individual requests to sand bag. I was once charged an hourly rate by my downstate county for searching — it didn’t matter that it wasn’t legal.

Comment by Justsickofit Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:46 pm
Heck, I once had to FOIA as an elected official –to get information from the institution I was elected to govern.

Comment by Justsickofit Wednesday, Jun 1, 11 @ 10:54 pm