City of Streator Police Department properly designated requester as recurrent requester

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 Mr. Lee:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA) ( 5 ILCS 140/ 9.5(f) (West 2022)). For the reasons that follow, the Public Access Bureau concludes that the City of Streator Police Department ( Department) did not violate FOIA by designating as a recurrent requester.

On July 5, 2023, submitted a FOIA request to the Department seeking police reports for numerous recent incidents. On July 14, 2023, filed a Request for Review with this office alleging that the Department had not responded to his FOIA request or taken an extension. On July 19, 2023, this office sent a copy of FOIA request and his Request for Review to the Department and asked it if it had responded to FOIA request. The same day, the Department informed this office that it had designated as a recurrent requester, as defined by section 2(g) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 2(g) ( West 2022)), and would respond to his requests within 21 business days of receipt.

The Department also provided this office with a copy of a notice it sent to informing him of his status as a recurrent requester, which was triggered by June 30, 2023, FOIA request. On July 20, 2023, this office forwarded to a copy of the Department' s response letter. On July 21, 2023, he replied.

DETERMINATION

Section 2(g) of FOIA defines a " recurrent requester" as a " person" who, in the 12 months immediately preceding the request, has submitted to the same public body ( i) a minimum of 50 requests for records, ii) a minimum of 15 requests for records within a 30- day period, or ( iii) a minimum of 7 requests for records within a 7-day period.

For purposes of this definition, requests made by news media and non- profit, scientific, or academic organizations shall not be considered in calculating the number of requests made in the time periods in this definition when the principal purpose of the requests is (i) to access and disseminate information concerning news and current or passing events, ( ii) for articles of opinion or features of interest to the public, or ( iii) for the purpose of academic, scientific, or public research or education.

A public body' s time within which to respond to a request by a recurrent requester is extended to 21 business days after receipt of the request. 5 ILCS 140/ 3.2(a) ( West 2022). 1 acknowledged that he has submitted approximately 60 FOIA requests in the year prior to his June 30, 2023, FOIA request. disputes that he is a recurrent requester, however, because all of his FOIA requests were " for information to be disseminated on my electronic news media page to educate the public of the tax funded jobs being done in the community." 2 explained that he has a " Facebook news media group page ' Streator Happenings'" to which he posts the information he receives from the Department. 3 He also alleged that the Department is aware of his Streator Happenings Facebook page; the Department does not dispute that it is aware of the page.

First, although the Department is aware of the Streator Happenings Facebook page, the request at issue in this Request for Review does not assert that the individual submitting the request is a member of the news media or a non- profit, scientific, or academic organization, or assert that the principal purpose of the request was among the three principal purposes that are excluded from the definition of " recurrent requester" in section 2(g) of FOIA.

Consequently, the Department was unable to consider the representation made to this office when making its own determination as to whether the requests qualified as requests submitted by a recurrent requester.

Second, section 2(f) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 2(f) (West 2022)) defines " news media" in relevant part as a " newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format, a news service whether in print or electronic format[.]" In the context of self- published websites purporting to be " news media," this office has determined that the statutory definition of " news media" requires more than simply disseminating information through a website or e-mail:

Merely disseminating information or criticism electronically though a website, or via e-mail, does not meet the statutory definition of " news media." If it did, then any person who chose to post an opinion or comment on a matter of public interest electronically would become a news medium, which was clearly not the intent of the General Assembly when it enacted the exception. Ill. Att' y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 44649, issued December 2, 2016, at 3 ( quoting Ill. Att' y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr.

33323, issued February 13, 2015, at 4).

In the absence of Illinois law on how to interpret the term " news media," this office has found cases from other jurisdictions interpreting similar statutory definitions to be persuasive. Those cases hold that " an individual or entity that self- publishes information on the Internet generally must demonstrate some adherence to recognized journalistic standards such as editorial oversight or the creation of original content similar to that of traditional media" in order to be considered " news media." Ill. Att' y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 34653, issued April 4, 2017, at 5-6; Ill. Att' y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 44649, at 5. We further observed that "[ t]he General Assembly has not expanded the definition in FOIA to include other individuals or entities apart from those traditional media sources and their electronic versions." Ill. Att' y Gen. PAC Req.

Rev. Ltr. 44649, at 5.

This office has reviewed the Streator Happenings page on the Facebook social media platform. The page is a " Public group" that describes itself as " a news media group that is for informing good people of Streator of what does ( and doesn' t) happen in Streator, bad or good, although I do try to highlight the problems to hopefully inspire others to ask for better." 4 The About" section also notes "[ t]his page is editorialized, and the narrative may be controlled to try to promote my personal desires to see better for the many good caring people of Streator, by exposing the public corruption, lack of proper enforcement of laws that I believe have hurt the community for so long, and the problems that are hidden by the leaders." 5 The group was created two years ago, has 7,078 members, and had 101 posts in the past month. 6 The posts to Streator Happenings vary in nature. Some posts are pictures of arrest reports, including mugshots, with or without commentary about the arrest.

periodically posts lists of police calls, pictures of court documents, or links to news articles. He frequently posts his opinions concerning alleged crimes in Streator. Other posts are memes, questions from group members looking for advice or recommendations, or inter- group member interactions. While it is clear that is disseminating crime- related information, " Streator Happenings" is not a news media outlet. Upon review, the posts are not original content by journalists using recognized journalistic standards, but instead are largely images accompanied by short summaries or opinions. The Streator Happenings group page therefore lacks the essential components of a " newspaper," " periodical" or " news service"

included in FOIA' s definition of " news media." use of this social media page to disseminate information to the general public does not qualify him for exemption from the recurrent requester" provisions in FOIA.

Accordingly, we conclude that the Department did not violate FOIA by treating FOIA requests as requests submitted by a recurrent requester in accordance with section 2(g) of FOIA.

In his Request for Review, raised questions about when individuals' FOIA requests may be combined and counted together to calculate whether the recurrent requester threshold has been met. To provide education on this topic, this office has attached to this determination selected determination letters discussing factual scenarios involving multiple requesters and the applicability of section 3.2 of FOIA. See Ill. Att' y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr.

61809, issued May 7, 2020; Ill. Att' y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 56925, issued April 2, 2019.

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, please contact me at laura. harter@ilag. gov.

Very truly yours, LAURA S. HARTER Deputy Bureau Chief Public Access Bureau Attachment 77333 f 2g proper pd

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF ILLINOIS

WAME RAOUL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 7, 2020 Via electronic mail Via electronic mail Mr. Jordan T. Klein Erickson, Davis, Murphy, Johnson & Walsh, Ltd.

132 South Water Street, Suite 610 Decatur, Illinois 62523 jklein@erick§ ondavislaw. com January 31, 2020, letter. acknowledged that he contributes to the DPL Watchdogs website (" keepdplhonest. wordpress. com") and that he has used the DPL Watchdogs e- mail address to make FOIA requests to the Library, but he contended that he always signed his name to those requests. He asserted that he did not submit any of the requests from DPL Watchdogs that do not bear his name.

On February 24, 2020, this office sent the Lib ary a copy of the Request for • Review and asked it to provide a detailed explanation of the factual and legal bases for the Library' s 'designation of as a recurrent requester and to provide copies of the FOIA requests the Library used in its determination. On March 4, 2020, the Library provided a written response , and the requested materials. On March 9, 2020, thi office forwarded the Library' s written response to He replied on March 10, 2020.

DETERMINATION

office concluded that all of the requests could be attributed to that individual for purposes of designating him as a recurrent requester. Ill. Att' y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 56925, at 2- 3.

In his reply, acknowledged that he is the only author listed for the posts on the website, but argued that the website has other contributors who submit FOIA requests to the Library.

After reviewing the records, this office is unable to determine who submitted the FOIA requests signed only as " DPL Watchdogs." This office has received at least one other Request for Review ( 2020 PAC 62320) from a contributor to the DPL Watchdogs website who may have used the DPL Watchdogs e- mail address. Unlike the circumstance in Ill. Att' y Gen.

PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 56925, where the requester signed everyOIA request, there is insufficient proof that submitted the DPL Watchdogs requestthat he did not sign. Further, not all requests submitted by could reasonably be considered to have been on behalf of the DPL Watchdogs website, as the first post on that site is dated August 29, 2019, 3 months after many of the FOIA requests cited by the Library as proof of s recurrent requester 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 atg. state. il. us. any questions, please contact me at ( 217) 524- 7958 or LHarter Very truly yours, LAURA S. HARTER Deputy Bureau Chief Public Access Bureau 61809 f 2g improper lib

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF ILLINOIS

KWAME RAOUL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

April 2, 2019 Via electronic mail RE: FOIA Request for Review — 2019 PAC 56925 Dear Section 2( g) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 2( g) ( West 2016)), defines a " recurrent requester" as:

a person that, in the 12 months immediately preceding the request, has submitted to the same public body ( i) a minimum of 50 requests for records, ( ii) a minimum of 15 requests for records within a 30 - day period, or ( iii) a minimum of 7 requests for records within a 7 -day period. For purposes of this definition, requests made by news media and non- profit, scientific, or academic organizations shall not be considered in calculating the number of requests made in the time periods in this definition when the principal purpose of the requests is ( i) to access and disseminate information concerning news and current or passing events, ( ii) for articles of opinion or features of interest to the public, or ( iii) for the purpose of academic, scientific, or public research or.

Group. Nevertheless, the Will County Public Records Group is listed at the top of these two requests instead of the Bolingbrook Transparency Group, and again, your name is listed along with the group' s name and you signed the requests.

In this matter, you signed each of the twelve FOIA requests, you were listed as the contact person for each of the twelve requests, and the same telephone number that was listed on your Request for Review to this office was listed at the top of each request. Moreover, Exhibits A and B to your Request for Review are documents you stated you submitted to the District " whereupon the members of the aforementioned groups declare their association with such groups by way of signature."' Those documents demonstrate that each group had two declared members at the time of the submission of the FOIA requests, and that you were one of the two members of each group. The documents indicate that both groups are intended to promote transparency in government.

A statute should not be construed in a way that would defeat its purpose " or yield an absurd or unjust result." Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. v. Pappas, 194 Ill. 2d 99, 107 2000). Comments during the Senate floor debate by one of the co- sponsors for House Bill 1716, which as Public Act 97- 579 added the recurrent requester provision in section 2( g) to FOIA, indicate that the legislation was intended to ease the strain on public bodies that had been heavily burdened by large numbers of FOIA requests:

The sweeping FOIA law that was put into place was outstanding in principle, outstanding conceptually, but, frankly, the pendulum had swung too far and became very impractical for many municipalities and local units of government to maintain. And, in fact, many local units of government were overwhelmed by commercial FOIA that got in the way of legitimate citizen Access Bureau determines that the twelve requests you delivered on January 3, 2019, were submitted by a single " person."

In your Request for Review, you also declare " that the principle purpose of my FOIA requests to [ the District] is to access and disseminate information concerning news and current events," that you use a social media account to do so. 2 You therefore request that this office consider whether this activity qualifies you for exemption from the recurrent requester designation. As quoted above, section 2( g) of FOIA states that " requests made by news media and non- profit, scientific, or academic organizations" for the one of these purposes outlined in that section shall not qualify as requests made by a recurrent requester.

First, we note that none of the twelve requests at issue in this Request for Review assert that the individual or group submitting the request is a member of the news media or a non- profit, scientific, or academic organization, or assert that the principal purpose of the requests was among the three principle purposes that are excluded from the definition of recurrent requester" in section 2( g) of FOIA. Consequently, the District was unable to consider the representation made to this office when making its own determination as to whether the requests qualified as requests submitted by a recurrent requester.

Internet generally must demonstrate some adherence to recognized journalistic standards such as editorial oversight or the creation of original content similar to that of traditional media" in order to be considered " news media." Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 34653, issued April 4, 2017, at 5- 6; I11. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 44649, at 5. We further observed that "[ t]he General Assembly has not expanded the definition in FOIA to include other individuals or entities apart from those traditional media sources and their electronic versions." I11. Att'y Gen. PAC Req.

Rev. Ltr. 44649, at 5.

This office has reviewed the social media webpage linked in your e- mail to this office, which is a Twitter page associated with the handle @BolingbrookComl . The account appears to have tweeted five times before the submission of the Request for Review, with each tweet displaying a copy of a document or letter along with a one- to three -sentence explanation of the meaning of the document. These tweets are not original content or links to original content compiled by journalists using recognized journalistic standards, but instead are images of documents with short descriptions of those documents. The @BolingbrookComl twitter page Finally, footnote 6 of your Request for Review alleges that the District' s FOIA Officer' s " demand for private records in the possession of private citizens unequivocally represents an act of harassment," and states that through your Request for Review, you are submitting a " formal grievance for harassment pursuant to section 2.260 of School District Board Policy. i5 However, the Public Access Counselor' s authority is limited to addressing alleged violations of FOIA and the Illinois Open Meeting Act. 15 ILCS 205/ 7( c) (West 2016).

Accordingly, this office does not have the authority to address your grievance for alleged harassment.

For the reasons stated above, this office has determined that no further action is warranted in this matter. This letter shall serve to close this matter. Should you have questions, you may contact me at ( 312) 814- 6437 or lbartelt@atg. state. il.us.

Very truly yours,

LEAH BARTELT

Assistant Attorney General