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 Ms. Fisher and Ms. Wingeld-Bond:

This binding opinion is issued by the Attorney General pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2023 Supp.)). For the reasons discussed below, this o;ce concludes that the Village of Lynwood (Village) violated section 3(d) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/3(d) (West 2022)) by failing to comply with, deny in writing in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request submitted by Ms.

Lynette Fisher.

BACKGROUND

On March 19, 2025,' Ms. Fisher submitted a FOIA request to the Village seeking copies of the following records:

1. Internal Communications Regarding Mayor Jada Curry's Salary Increases e All emails, text messages, and memos from 2021 to present between the Mayor, Village Clerk, Finance Director, and Board of Trustees regarding:

e Salary increases for Mayor Jada Curry e Discussions on whether such increases were legal under Illinois law e Concerns raised internally about the appropriateness or legality of these increases 2. Payroll & Budget Records e All payroll records from 2021 to present showing:

e Salary payments made to Mayor Jada Curry e Documentation of who approved and processed these payments e All municipal budget records from 2021 to present indicating:

e The o;cially approved salary for the Mayor each year e Any amendments or discussions regarding changes to the salary ordinance 3. Board Meeting Minutes & Ordinances e Copies of all Board of Trustees meeting minutes from 2021 to present where:

e The Mayor's salary was discussed, voted on, or amended e Any trustees, sta=, or o;cials raised concerns about salary discrepancies e Acopy of the current salary ordinance and any amendments from 2021 to present.

4. Resident Complaints & Public Concerns About Mayor's Salary Increases e All public records, emails, letters, or formal complaints submitted by residents from 2021 to present regarding concerns about: Mayor Jada Curry's salary increases Potential misuse of public funds Pension fraud related to her reported earnings to IMRF Copies of Board of Trustees meeting minutes where residents raised concerns about the Mayor's salary, including any responses given by village o;cials.

e Any o;cial responses from the Village Clerk, Finance Director, or Board of Trustees to residents or the public regarding these concerns.”!

On April 1, 2025, and April 8, 2025, Ms. Fisher submitted the records required to le a Request for Review with the Public Access Counselor alleging that the Village had failed to respond to her March 19, 2025, FOIA request.

On April 15, 2025, the Public Access Bureau e-mailed’ a copy of the Request for Review to the Village's FOIA O;cer together with a letter asking whether the Village had received and responded to Ms. Fisher's FOIA request.° The April 15, 2025, letter also requested that if the Village had received but not responded to Ms. Fisher, it do so and to provide a copy of its response to this o;ce.® The Village did not respond to the inquiry letter. On April 25, 2025, E-mail from Lynette Fisher to FOIA O;cer, Village of Lynwood (March 19, 2025).

Ms. Fisher informed the Public Access Bureau that she had not received a response from the Village.’ On April 28, 2025, Ms. Fisher sent an additional e-mail to this o;ce stating that the Village still had not responded to her FOIA request.? On April 28, 2025, an Assistant Attorney General (AAG) in the Public Access Bureau sent an e-mail to the Village's FOIA O;cer following up on the April 15, 2025, letter, and asking for an update on the status of the Village's response.” The Village did not respond to that e-mail.

On May 1, 2025, the Public Access Bureau sent an additional copy of the Request for Review to the Village via both e-mail!° and United States Postal Mail and again asked the Village to respond to the April 15, 2025, inquiry letter.'' The letter advised the Village that if it did not promptly respond to the request or assert that it did not receive the request, this o;ce may issue a determination letter or a binding opinion concluding that the Village violated FOIA.!? On May 8, 2025, and May 12, 2025, Ms. Fisher sent additional e-mails to this o;ce stating that the Village still had not responded to her FOIA request.!° As of the date of the issuance of this binding opinion, this o;ce has not received any response from the Village, nor has it received any indication that the Village has responded to Ms. Fisher's March 19, 2025, FOIA request.

7E-mail from Lynette Fisher to [Michael J. Knight, Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau, O;ce of the Attorney General] (April 25, 2025).

8E-mail from Lynette Fisher to [Michael J.] Knight, [Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau, O;ce of the Attorney General] (April 28, 2025).

ANALYSIS

"It is a fundamental obligation of government to operate openly and provide public records as expediently and e;ciently as possible in compliance with [FOIA]." 5 ILCS 140/1 (West 2022). Under section 1.2 of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2022)), "{a]ll records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying."

Section 3(a) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/3(a) (West 2022)) provides that "[e]ach public body shall make available to any person for 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).

Section 3(e) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/3(e) (West 2022)) permits a public body to extend its response time by no more than ve business days for any of seven enumerated reasons. Any additional extension requires a written agreement between the requester and the public body. 5 ILCS 140/3(e) (West 2022).

It is undisputed that the Village did not respond to Ms. Fisher's March 19, 2025, FOIA request within ve business days after its receipt by either complying with her request, extending the time for its response pursuant to section 3(e) of FOJA, or denying the request in writing in whole or in part. The Village's failure to comply with the requisite response procedures violated section 3(d) of FOJA.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

After full examination and giving due consideration to the information submitted, the Public Access Counselor's review, and the applicable law, the Attorney General nds that:

1) After business hours on March 19, 2025, Ms. Lynette Fisher submitted a FOIA request to the Village seeking copies of certain records related to Village's budget, salaries, and payroll.

2) On April 8, 2025, Ms. Fisher completed the submission of her Request for Review to the Public Access Bureau alleging that the Village had failed to respond to her FOIA request. Ms. Fisher's Request for Review was timely led and otherwise complies with the requirements of section 9.5(a) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/9.5(a) (West 2023 Supp.)). Therefore, the Attorney General may properly issue a binding opinion with respect to this matter.

3) On April 15, 2025, the Public Access Bureau forwarded a copy of the Request for Review to the Village along with a letter asking whether the Village had received and responded to Ms. Fisher's FOIA request. On April 28, 2025, the Public Access Bureau sent the Village an e-mail following up on the April 15, 2025, letter, and asking for an update on the status of the Village's response. The Village did not respond to the April 15, 2025, letter or the April 28, 2025, e-mail.

4) On May 1, 2025, the Public Access Bureau sent an additional copy of the Request for Review and a second letter to the Village, via e-mail and United States Postal Mail, asking the Village to promptly respond to Ms. Fisher's request or notify this o;ce if it had not received the request. The Village did not respond.

5) As of the date of the issuance of this binding opinion, this o;ce has received no information indicating that the Village has responded to Ms. Fisher's March 19, 2025, FOIA request.

Therefore, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that the Village has violated section 3(d) of FOIA by failing, within the statutory time period for responding to Ms. Fisher's March 19, 2025, request, to provide copies of the requested records or to deny the request in writing in whole or in part. Accordingly, the Village is hereby directed to take immediate and appropriate action to comply with this opinion by providing Ms. Fisher with copies of all records responsive to her March 19, 2025, FOIA request, subject only to permissible redactions, if any, under section 7 of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7 (West 2023 Supp.), as amended by Public Acts 103-605, e=ective July 1, 2024; 103-865, e=ective January 1, 2025).'* If the Village 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 2022)).

This opinion shall be considered a nal decision of an administrative agency for the purposes of administrative review under the Administrative Review Law. 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2022). An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision by ling 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 Ms. Lynette Fisher as defendants. See 5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2022).

Sincerely,

KWAME RAOUL

ATTOARPNIRV GRNIAR AT WN Aa WAAL LWVININE 1 By:

Brent D. Stratton Chief Deputy Attorney General that he has served a copy of the foregoing Binding Opinion (Public Access Opinion 25-005)

upon:

Ms. Lynette Fisher 2655 West 68th Street, Apartment 2 Chicago, Illinois 60629 lynette[email protected] The Honorable Karen Wingeld-Bond Village Clerk & FOIA O;cer Village of Lynwood 21460 Lincoln Highway Lynwood, Illinois 60411 [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 Chicago, Illinois on June 6, 2025.

(Yoshua M. Jones Bureau Chief Joshua M. Jones Bureau Chief Public Access Bureau, Chicago O;ce of the Attorney General 115 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 814-8413