Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests

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. DiFebo and Mr. Kos:

who had filed for a division of an identified parcel of real property and a copy of the recent application relating to the parcel that Mr. DiFebo identified by its Property Index Number. Mr. DiFebo also sought the new legal descriptions and drawings showing where the parcel's new boundaries would be located.? On October 21, 2020, Mr. DiFebo submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Bureau alleging that the Assessor's Office had failed to respond to his FOIA request.? On October 30, 2020, by an e-mail sent to Mr. Mark Kos, Manager of the Freedom of Information Department of the Assessor's Office, the Public Access Bureau forwarded a copy of the Request for Review to the Assessor's Office along with a letter asking whether it had received and responded to Mr. DiFebo's FOIA request.* The October 30, 2020, letter also requested that, if the Assessor's Office had received the request but had not yet responded to Mr. DiFebo, it do so and provide this office with a copy of its response.” The Assessor's Office did not respond to the Public Access Bureau's October 30, 2020, correspondence.

| On November 12, 2020, the Public Access Bureau sent an e-mail to Mr. Kos, notifying him that the Public Access Bureau had forwarded Mr. DiFebo's Request for Review to him on October 30, 2020, and explaining that the Public Access Bureau had not yet received a response to that letter. Mr. Kos did not respond to the Public Access Bureau's November 12, 2020, e-mail message.

| On December 3, 2020, the Public Access Bureau sent a second copy of Mr. DiFebo's Request for Review to the Assessor's Office, this time through the United States Postal Service, along with another letter asking it to respond to the FOIA request and to provide this office with a copy of its response.’ The Assessor's Office did not respond to the Public Access Bureau's December 3, 2020, correspondence.

| On December 15, 2020, the Public Access Bureau sent an e-mail to Mr. Kos, notifying him that the Public Access Bureau had not received responses to its previously sent letters or e-mail message, and that Mr. DiFebo had not yet received a response to his FOIA request. 8 Later that same day, Mr. Kos left a voicemail message for an Assistant Attorney General i in the Public Access Bureau, stating that the Assessor's Office was preparing its response to the FOIA request, and it anticipated that it would issue a response within ten days.”

| On December 18, 2020, the Public Access Bureau properly extended the time within which to issue a binding opinion by 30 business days, to February 3, 2021, pursuant to section 9.5(f) of FOIA.!° | ' As of the date of the issuance of this binding opinion, this office has not received a written response from the Assessor's Office in response to its inquiry letters nor confirmation from Mr. DiFebo that he has received a response to his September 29, 2020, FOIA request.

| ANALYSIS inspection or copying all public records, except as otherwise provided in Sections 7 and 8.5 of this Act." Section 3(d) of FOIA further provides:

Each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section. Denial shall be in writing as provided in Section 9 of this Act. Failure to comply : with a written request, extend the time for response, or deny a | . request within 5 business days after its receipt shall be considered : a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the requisite periods in this Section but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for such copies. A public body that fails to respond to a request received may not treat the request as unduly | burdensome under subsection (g).

The Assessor’ Office did not respond to Mr. DiFebo's FOIA request within five business days after its receipt by either complying with his request, extending the time for its response pursuant to section 3(e) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/3(e) (West 2018), as amended by Public Act 101-081, effective July 12, 2019), or denying the request in writing. The failure of the Assessor's Office to comply with the requisite procedures violated section 3(d) of FOIA.

, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 3) On October 30, 2020, the Public Access Bureau forwarded a copy of Mr. DiFebo's Request for Review to the Assessor's Office, along with a letter asking the Assessor's Office to advise this office whether it had received and responded to Mr. DiFebo's FOIA request. The Assessor's Office did not respond to this office's inquiry.

| | 4) On November 12, 2020, the Public Access Bureau sent an e-mail to the Manager of the Assessor's Office's Freedom of Information Department, explaining that the Public Access Bureau had not received a response to its October 30, 2020, letter. The Assessor's Office did not respond to that e-mail.

5) On December 3, 2020, this office sent the Assessor's Office an additional copy of the Request for Review and this office's October 30, 2020, letter, along with a letter inquiring as to the status of the Assessor's Office's response to this office. The Assessor's Office did not respond to that inquiry, either.

| 6) On December 15, 2020, the Public Access Bureau sent a second e-mail message to the Manager of the Assessor's Office's Freedom of Information Department, explaining that the Public Access Bureau had not received a response to its inquiry letters or earlier e-mail message. Later that same day, the Manager of the Assessor's Office's Freedom of Information Department left a voicemail message for an Assistant Attorney General in the Public Access Bureau stating that the Assessor's Office's was preparing its response to Mr. DiFebo's effective January 1, 2020; 101-455, effective August 23, 2019).'! If the Assessor's Office determines that any portion of the responsive records is exempt from disclosure under section 7, it is directed to issue a written denial that fully complies with the requirements of section 9(a) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/9(a) (West 2018)).

| This opinion shall be considered a final decision of an administrative agency for the purposes of administrative review under the Administrative Review Law. 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2018). An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision by filing a complaint for administrative review with the Circuit Court of Cook County or Sangamon County within 35 days of the date of this decision naming the Attorney General of Illinois and Mr. Ralph DiFebo as defendants. See 5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2018).

)

Sincerely,

KWAME RAOUL ATTORNEY GENERAL

Brent D. Stratton | Chief Deputy Attorney General copy of the foregoing Binding Opinion (Public Access Opinion 20-010) upon:

Mr. Ralph DiFebo , 1110 Thomas Avenue Forest Park, Illinois 60130 — | [email protected] Mr. Mark Kos Manager, Freedom of Information Department Cook County Assessor's Office ~118 North Clark Street, Suite 301 Chicago, Illinois 60602 | [email protected] | by causing a true copy thereof to be sent electronically to the addresses as listed above and by causing to be mailed a true copy thereof in correctly addressed, prepaid envelopes to be | deposited in the United States mail at Springfield, Illinois on December 30, 2020.

J ud LL. SARAH L. PRATT ; Public Access Counselor