Metropolitan Water Reclamation District properly withheld facility plans under 7(1)(k)

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 and Ms. Wright:

Ms. Helen Shields Wright March 4, 2016 a security risk in that such information could be used in a deliberate attack on our facilities." 1 Additionally, the District stated that its risk manager determined that "[ t] he District should not release drawings of facilities that are existing and in use or may be used. The release of information contained in these documents could pose a security risk to the District[ ]" 2 On May 23, 2015, replied and asserted that because the District had previously provided similar records to him, disclosure of the requested records would not compromise security. included several records he had received with his reply.

On August 7, 2015, the District sent a supplemental response and provided electrical drawings for Division Q to our office and to and explained that the drawings were provided because they " contain equipment that has been removed, is no longer in service and do not include or reference any service buildings or equipment."3 The District, however, stated in its supplemental response that its Executive Director previously determined " that any drawings of existing facilities should not be released to the public because of the potential security risk or threat as contemplated by [ section 7( 1)( k)] under FOIA since such disclosure could compromise security[.] i4 On August 24, 2015, replied by clarifying that he requested mechanical drawings and not electrical drawings. On August 31, 2015, the District sent another supplemental response after consulting with Engineering staff and determining that Division 0 and R mechanical drawings may be disclosed. However, the District continued to withhold mechanical drawings of Division M pursuant to section 7( 1)( k), asserting that " these sheets contain existing facilities that are infuse and disclosure to the public represents a possible Ms. Helen Shields Wright March 4, 2016 potential threat or compromise of security for same. i5 Division 0 and R mechanical drawings were provided to this office and to who confirmed receipt of the drawings on September 9, 2015. On September 13, 2015, replied that the District had previously provided him with records similar to the mechanical drawings that it continued to withhold, and that disclosure of those records would not compromise security.

DETERMINATION

All public records in the possession or custody of a public body are " presumed to be open to inspection or copying." 5 ILCS 140/ 1. 2 ( West 2014); see also Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Dept. of Public Health, 218 I11. 2d 390, 415 ( 2006). A public body " has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence" that a record is exempt from disclosure. 5 ILCS 140/ 1. 2 ( West 2014).

Section 7( 1)( k) exempts from disclosure:

Ms. Helen Shields Wright March 4, 2016 records concerning water treatment facilities, sports stadiums and other specific public buildings and facilities, at 160. Public Act 93- 422, effective August 5, 2003, subsequently expanded section 7( 1)( k) to exempt, in addition to architects' plans and engineers' technical submissions, other construction related technical documents[.]" Section 7( 1)( k) has not been interpreted by an Illinois reviewing court.

In its response to the Public Access Bureau, the District explains that all the relevant drawings are either for buildings existing and in service or with future service possible. Further, the District contends that the records are " technical engineering documents related to the construction of publicly funded government owned building and contain detailed information concerning the function and structure of internal components, which could compromise security of the District' s system." 6 This office has reviewed the'records in question. Based upon our review, we conclude that the records do constitute " architects' plans, engineers' technical submissions, and other construction related technical documents" within the scope of section 7( 1)( k). Further, we have no basis to dispute the District' s assertion that these technical documents contain detailed information concerning the structural, electrical, mechanical, and process piping which, if disclosed, could compromise security of the facilities. Even assuming has received similar records from the District in the past, FOIA does not preclude the District from asserting 7( 1)( k) with respect to other records or require the District to provide him with the records in question. Accordingly, we conclude that the District did not improperly withhold these records under section 7( 1)( k) of FOIA.

In accordance with the conclusions expressed in this letter, the District has properly withheld the documents responsive to request. The Public Access Counselor 6Letter from Helen Shields Wright, Head Assistant Attorney, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, to Lindsey C. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Public Access Bureau ( May 22, 2015), at3.

Ms. Helen Shields Wright March 4, 2016 has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. If you have any questions, please contact me at ( 312) 814- 5206. This letter shall serve to close this matter.

S. PIYA MUKHERJI E Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 34937 f 71k proper spd