Village of Sherrard violated FOIA by failing to respond to two records 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. Kilbane and Ms. Green:

This binding opinion is issued by the Attorney General pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2025 Supp.)). For the reasons discussed below, this office concludes that the Village of Sherrard (Village) violated section 3(d) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/3(d) (West 2025 Supp.)) by failing to comply with, deny in writing in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to two FOIA requests submitted by Mr. Matthew Kilbane.

BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2026, Mr. Kilbane e-mailed a FOIA request to the Village seeking copies of "all Agendas and Meeting Minutes for all meetings the village has held between January 1, 2026 to April 19, 2026." 1 (Emphasis in original.) Approximately ten minutes later, Mr. Kilbane e-mailed a second FOIA request to the Village seeking records concerning mold remediation at the Village Hall and asked whether "critical physical documents" had "been relocated to a safe location, or are they still in the village hall subjected to possible irrevocable damage? And if so, why have those documents not been moved and when will they be moved?" 2 On April 30, 2026, Mr. Kilbane submitted two Requests for Review to the Public Access Counselor alleging that the Village had failed to respond to his April 20, 2026, FOIA requests. 3 On May 21 , 2026, the Public Access Bureau e-mailed4 copies of the Requests for Review to the Village Mayor and Village Clerk, together with a letter asking whether the Village had responded to Mr. Kil bane's FOIA requests. 5 The May 21, 2026, letter also requested that if the Village had not responded to Mr. Kilbane, it do so and provide copies of its responses to this office.6 The Village did not respond to the inquiry letter.

On June 11, 2026, the Public Access Bureau sent additional copies of the Requests for Review to the Village via both e-mail 7 and United States Postal Mail and again asked the Village to respond to the May 21, 2026, inquiry letter. 8 The letter advised the Village that if it did not promptly respond to the request, this office may be compelled to conclude that the Village had not complied with the requirements of FOIA.9 On June 25, 2026, this office extended the time in which to issue a binding opinion by 30 business days, to August 11, 2026, pursuant to section 9.5(f) ofFOIA. 10 On June 29, 2026, Mr. Kilbane e-mailed this office stating that the Village still had not responded to his FOIA requests. 11 As of the date of the issuance of this binding opinion, this office has not received any response from the Village, nor has it received any indication that the Village has responded to Mr. Kilbane's April 20, 2026, FOIA requests.

ANALYSIS

"It is a fundamental obligation of government to operate openly and provide public records as expediently and efficiently as possible in compliance with [FOIA]." 5 ILCS 140/1 (West 2024). Under section 1.2 of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2024)), "[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/J(a) (West 2025 Supp.)) 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) ofFOIA 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 2025 Supp.)) permits a public body to extend its response time by no more than five 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 2025 Supp.)).

It is undisputed that the Village did not respond to Mr. Kilbane's April 20, 2026, FOIA requests within five business days after their receipt by either complying with his requests, extending the time for the Village's responses pursuant to section 3(e) of FOIA, or denying the requests in writing in whole or in part. The Village's failure to comply with the requisite response procedures violated section 3(d) of FOIA.

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 finds that:

1) On April 20, 2026, Mr. Matthew Kilbane submitted two FOIA requests to the Village seeking copies of meeting agendas and minutes and various records concerning mold remediation at the Village Hall. One of the requests also asked questions concerning the location of certain records and their possible relocation.

2) On April 30, 2026, Mr. Kilbane submitted two Requests for Review to the Public Access Counselor alleging that the Village had failed to respond to his April 20, 2026, FOIA requests. Mr. Kilbane's Requests for Review were timely filed and otherwise comply with the requirements of section 9.5(a) ofFOIA (5 ILCS 140/9.5(a) (West 2025 Supp.)).

3) On May 21 , 2026, the Public Access Bureau forwarded copies of the Requests for Review to the Village along with a letter asking whether the Village had responded to Mr. Kilbane's FOIA requests. The Village did not respond.

4) On June 11 , 2026, the Public Access Bureau sent additional copies of the Requests for Review and a second letter to the Village, via e-mail and United States Postal Mail, asking the Village to promptly respond to this office's request for further information. The Village did not respond.

5) On June 25, 2026, this office extended the time in which to issue a binding opinion by 30 business days, to August 11 , 2026, pursuant to section 9.5(f) ofFOIA. Therefore, the Attorney General may properly issue a binding opinion with respect to these matters.

6) On June 29, 2026, Mr. Kilbane sent an e-mail to this office stating that the Village still had not responded to his FOIA requests.

7) As of the date of the issuance of this binding opinion, this office has received no information indicating that the Village has responded to Mr. Kilbane's April 20, 2026, FOIA requests.

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 Mr. Kilbane's April 20, 2026, requests, to provide copies of the requested records or to deny the requests 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 Mr. Kilbane with copies of all records responsive to his April 20, 2026, FOIA requests, subject only to permissible redactions, if any, under section 7 ofFOIA (5 ILCS 140/7 (West 2025 Supp.)). 12 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 2024)). 13 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 2024). 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. Matthew Kilbane as defendants. See 5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2024).

Sincerely,

KWAMERAOUL ATTORNEY GENERAL

By:

R. Douglas Rees Chief Deputy Attorney General has served a copy of the foregoing Binding Opinion (Public Access Opinion 26-008) upon:

Mr. Matthew Kilbane 801 Bend Boulevard, Apartment 103 East Moline, Illinois 61244 Matthewkilbanel [email protected] The Honorable Laura Green Village Clerk Village of Sherrard 517 3rd Street Sherrard, Illinois 61281 [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 July 28, 2026.

Teresa Lim Deputy Bureau Chief Teresa Lim Deputy Bureau Chief Public Access Bureau Office of the Attorney General 115 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 814-5206