Village of Tinley Park did not violate FOIA by providing YouTube link to meeting video

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. Godette:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2022), as amended by Public Act 103-069, effective January 1, 2024). For the reasons that follow, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the response by the Village of Tinley Park (Village) to February 21, 2020, request did not violate FOIA.

On February 21, 2020, submitted a FOIA request to the Village seeking a copy of the video of the February 18, 2020 Village Board meeting. On February 28, 2020, the Village denied the video pursuant to section 8.5 of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/8.5 (West 2018)) and directed him to a recording of the meeting on the Village' s YouTube page.

On March 4, 2020, submitted a follow-up request to the Village, noting that he was unable to copy the video from the referenced web page and requested a copy of the recording. On March 12, 2020, the Village denied this request, stating that it was a On March 13, 2020, submitted the above- referenced Request for Review disputing the Village' s denial of his request. He argued that the Village' s " failure to provide a copy of the video denies [ him] reasonable access to the document as required by FOIA[,]" as it would require him to have an " internet capable device as well as access to the internet and the Village's web page at any time [ he] and others need to access and review the meeting for various purposes." 1 On March 19, 2024, this office forwarded a copy of this Request for Review to Village, requesting an explanation of the legal and factual bases for section 8.5 and section 3(g). While this office never received a formal response, this office and the Village exchanged correspondence over the next two years. Within these communications involved questions regarding whether the issue had been incorporated into a lawsuit and as a result, would render this matter moot under section 11 of FOIA. 5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2018). This office withdraws its request that the Village address the merits of the Request for Review as we have determined it is unnecessary for the reasons explained below.

DETERMINATION

It is a fundamental obligation of government to operate openly and provide public records as expediently and efficiently as possible in compliance with this Act." 5 ILCS 140/1 (West 2018). Section 8.5(a) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/8.5(a)) ( West 2018)) provides that " a public body is not required to copy a public record that is published on the public body's website. The public body shall notify the requester that the public record is available online and direct the requester to the website where the record can be reasonably accessed." ( Emphasis added.) Section 8.5(b) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/8.5(b) (West 2018)) further provides:

If the person requesting the public record is unable to reasonably access the record online after being directed to the website pursuant to subsection ( a) of this Section, the requester may resubmit his or her request for the record stating his or her inability to reasonably access the record online, and the public body shall make the requested record available for inspection and copying as provided in Section 3 of this Act.

The information provided to this office and a viewing of the Village' s website demonstrates that the recording of the February 18, 2020, meeting can be accessed on the Village' s YouTube channel through an internet link posted on the Village's website. 2 3 The plain language of section 8.5 of FOIA relieves a public body of the obligation to provide copies of records if the requester can reasonably access the records on the public body's website.

contends that the requested recording was not reasonably accessible because he was unable to download and save a copy of the recording and because he and others who may wish to review the recording do not have continuous and uninterrupted access to the internet. Construing section 8.5 in that manner would establish an impossible standard that would defeat its purpose and be contrary to its plain language. " Access" is defined as " to open or load (a computer file, an Internet site, etc.)[.]" 4 " Copy" is defined as "[ t]o make a duplicate of[.]" 5 If the General Assembly had intended to require public bodies to publish records on their websites in formats that may be copied and saved, it would have said so expressly. Instead, section 8.5 provides merely provides that a requester must able to reasonably access the record online[.]" did not assert that he is unable to use a computer or access the Village' s website, and the Village has no means or obligation to ensure The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. This letter serves to close this matter. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (312) 814-3180 or at Matthew. Rogina@ilag. gov Very truly yours, MATTHEW C. ROGINA Senior Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 62182 f 8.5 proper mun