7(1)(p)
FOIACollective bargaining negotiation records
Collective bargaining negotiation records (final contracts stay public)
Read the full statute text on /statutes →
Jump to the 3 issues decided under this provision, with a drafting brief ↓
1 upheld (no violation found) · 1 rejected (violation found) · 1 partial violation, out of 3 documents.
Not legal advice, and not a per-exemption ruling — this reflects each document's overall disposition. See the FAQ disclaimer.
How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(p)
Section 7(1)(p) concerns records relating to collective bargaining negotiations, including draft proposals and preliminary contract language exchanged during negotiations. The decisions include a reporter's request for draft contract documents and salary information after a school board approved general terms of a teachers' contract, and a request for emails where a district invoked sections 7(1)(f), 7(1)(m) and 7(1)(p) together.
The PAC has focused on whether the public body proved the exemption applied. It concluded a confidential memorandum to the board could be withheld as predecisional, deliberative material, but the district failed to prove that draft proposals and language exchanged with the union were exempt on that basis. Where one exemption already justified withholding, the PAC declined to address additional claimed exemptions, and it found improper redactions where privilege was claimed without justification.
At a glance: 3 documents(0 binding opinions, 3 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 7(1)(m) (Attorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials) (2); 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy) (1); 7(1)(f) (Preliminary drafts, notes, and deliberative materials) (1); 7(1)(n) (Employee grievance/discipline adjudication records) (1).
Recurring issues
- Whether draft proposals and preliminary contract language exchanged with the union during bargaining are exempt from disclosure. (Draft contract language and salary schedules from union negotiations)
- Whether an internal confidential memorandum to the board should be treated differently from proposals shared with the other bargaining party. (Draft contract language and salary schedules from union negotiations)
- Whether correspondence can be withheld when a public body claims sections 7(1)(f), 7(1)(m) and 7(1)(p) together. (Correspondence about classroom observations and integration)
- Whether redactions claimed under privilege are proper when the public body does not justify the claim. (Invoices and purchase orders for legal services)
Practical points
- A public body should separately justify each group of records rather than applying the same exemption claim to all withheld material.
- A public body should distinguish internal predecisional communications from proposals and language already exchanged with the union.
- A requester seeking bargaining-related drafts should describe whether the request includes internal memos, exchanged proposals, or final terms.
Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.
All 3 documents citing 7(1)(p)
- Draft contract language and salary schedules from union negotiationsDetermination letter · No violation
No violation found
- Correspondence about classroom observations and integrationDetermination letter · Partial violation
Improperly withheld records
- Invoices and purchase orders for legal servicesDetermination letter · Violation found
Improperly withheld records
Issues decided under 7(1)(p)
Individual questions the Public Access Bureau decided under this provision, with the rule it applied, grouped by outcome. Extracted automatically from the letters; check each source letter.
3 issues across 3 determination letters:2 violation found · 1 no violation.
Counts are per issue, not per letter, and come from automated extraction checked against sampled letters. Determination letters are not binding precedent.
Authorities the Bureau cites most on this issue
- Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 176 Ill. 2d 401, 407 (1997) cited 2 times
- Kalven v. City of Chicago, 2013 IL App (1st) 121846, ¶24, 7 N.E.3d 741, 748 (2013) cited 2 times
- Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 32159 cited 2 times
- Invoices for legal services to a city (Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14-002) cited 2 times
Drafting brief for an AI assistant
Copy this into your assistant to help draft a request, appeal, or challenge to a denial that turns on this issue. It carries the rules and decisions, not your facts: add those yourself. Machine-readable version: foia-7-1-p.json.
Violation found (2)
Section 7(1)(p) exemption for community communications
Rule: Section 7(1)(p) does not exempt unsolicited communications from third-party community members who were not participants in the collective bargaining process.
Violation found Communications about scheduling make-up school days · September 11, 2023
Withholding of records relating to collective negotiating matters under section 7(1)(p)
Rule: Section 7(1)(p) applies only to records of an active or imminent collective bargaining process, not discussions that merely could lead to bargaining.
Violation found Correspondence about classroom observations and integration · February 7, 2019
No violation (1)
Draft proposals and preliminary contract language under 7(1)(p)
Rule: Records constituting the substance of ongoing collective negotiations between a public body and its employees' representatives are exempt under 7(1)(p).
No violation Draft contract language and salary schedules from union negotiations · June 30, 2016