Requests for Records May Properly Be Submitted to a Public Body via Personal Delivery

This reading view follows the source PDF's positioned text blocks. Page headers, repeated office furniture, and lower-margin notes are kept out of the narrative; source notes are available below. Reconstruction is automatic and imperfect — the PDF is the authoritative version, and it's linked on this page.

Dear Mr. Ford and Mr. Orwig:

This binding opinion is issued pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOTA) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2010), as amended by Public Act 97-579, effective August 26, 2011). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the Village of Smithfield (Village) has violated FOIA by refusing to accept a FOIA request personally delivered by Mr. Vernon Ford to the Village President at a Village Board meeting on October 12, 2011.

BACKGROUND

At a regular meeting of the Village Board held on October 12, 2011, Mr. Ford approached Village President Bill Mustread and attempted to hand him a FOIA request for public records.’ President Mustread initially refused to take possession of the request. He later took the request from Mr. Ford and set it aside, orally indicating to Mr. Ford that all FOIA requests to the Village must be. submitted by mail, therefore his request was denied.

On October 13, 2011, the Public Access Bureau received Mr. Ford's request for review challenging the Village's refusal to accept his FOIA request via personal delivery. This office forwarded a copy of Mr. Ford's request for review to the Village on October 19, 2011, and asked for, an explanation of its basis for refusing to accept Mr. Ford's FOIA request by hand delivery.”

On November 16, 2011, the ¢ Village responded to the Public Access Bureau's request for an explanation, in part, as follows:

The Village of Smithfield has made a determination that we would accept FOIA requests by mail only, and have posted this on our information page in three places in the Village. As we have no office hours or full-time employees, we cannot accept FOIA or OMA Requests at our office.° (Emphasis in original.)

The Village further asserted that it had changed its policy from accepting hand delivered requests to accepting mailed requests only because Mr. and Mrs. Ford had hand-delivered FOIA requests to Board members in person on private property and on public streets, and the Village viewed this as harassment. ‘Thus, the Village agrees that it refused to accept Mr. Ford's FOIA request via personal delivery ata Board meeting, and acknowledges that the Village has no office hours or full-time employees.

We forwarded a copy of the Village's response letter to Mr. Ford on November 29, 2011.* On December 4, 2011, Mr. Ford responded to the Village's answer explaining that his wife had entered private property to hand deliver a FOIA request to Tim Orwig on only one occasion, and would not do so again.” Mr. Ford also acknowledged that Mrs. Ford had, on one occasion, hand-delivered a FOIA request to: Village President Mustread while Mr. Mustread was on a Village street. Mr. Ford asserted that hand delivery of FOIA requests to Board members is necessary because the Village has no office hours, nor is the mail picked up in a timely manner. According to Mr. Ford, the Board has stated in response to questioning at meetings that mail is picked up from the post office either close to the date of a Village Board meeting, which could mean every two or three weeks, or every one to two weeks. The Village did not dispute this assertion.

ANALYSIS.

In order to determine whether the Village violated the requirements of FOIA by refusing to accept personal delivery of Mr. Ford's FOIA request, we need only examine the plain language of the Act. In interpreting a statute, the "primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, the surest and most reliable indicator of which is the statutory language itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning.” People v. Perry, 224 Ill.2d 312, 323, (2007). Section 3(c) of FOIA provides that FOIA requests for inspection or copies of public records "shall be made in writing and directed to the public body” and that "[w]ritten requests may be submitted to a public body via persunal delivery, mail, telefax, or other means available to the public body." (Emphasis added.) 5 ILCS 140/3(c) (West 2010). Once a written request for-records is received by a public body, FOIA requires that "[a]ll requests for inspection and copying received by a public body shall immediately be forwarded to its Freedom of Information officer or designee" (5 ILCS 140/3(c) (West 2010)) and that "[e]ach public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request[.]" (5 ILCS 140/3(d) (West 2010)).

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

After full review and giving due consideration to the arguments of the parties, the Public Access Counselor's findings, and the applicable law, the Attorney General finds that:

1) On October 12, 2011, the Village of Smithfield Board of Trustees held a regular meeting.

2) At the October 12, 2011, meeting Mr. Vernon Ford attempted to personally deliver a FOIA request to Village President Bill Mustread.

3) President Mustread informed Mr. Ford that his FOIA request would not be accepted based upon the Village's policy that all FOIA requests must be submitted by mail.

4) On October 13, 2011, Mr. Ford submitted to the Public Access Counselor a Request for Review of the Village's denial of his October 12, 2011, FOIA request. Mr. Ford's Request for Review was timely filed and otherwise complies with section 9.5(a) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/9.5(a) (West 2010), as amended by Public Act 97-579, effective August 26, 2011).

5) The Attorney General properly extended the time to issue a binding opinion by 30 business days pursuant to section 9.5(f) (5 ILCS 140/ 9. 5(f) (West 2010), as amended by Public Act 97- 579, effective August 26, 2011), until January 26, 2012. Therefore, the Attorney General may issue a binding opinion with respect to the Village's denial of Mr. Ford's October within 35 days of the date of this decision, naming the Attorney General of Illinois and Mr. Vernon Ford as defendants. See 5 ILCS 120/7.5 (West 2010).

Very truly yours,

LISA MADIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: (helt Michael J. Luke Counsel to the Attorney General