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.
On March 6, 2024, this office sent a copy of the Request for Review to the Village and asked it to provide unredacted copies of the requested e-mails for this office's confidential review. This office also requested a detailed explanation of the factual and legal bases for withholding some of the e-mails pursuant to the section 7(1)(a), 7(1)(m), and 7(1)(s) exemptions. On May 3, 2024, the Village furnished those materials and a written answer, with certain portions provided confidentially pursuant to section 9.5(d) of FOIA.3 On May 6, 2024, this office forwarded a redacted copy of the Village' s answer to ; she did not submit a reply.
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 2022); see also Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Dep't of Public Health, 218 Ill. 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 2022).
Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA exempts from disclosure:
Communications between a public body and an attorney or auditor representing the public body that would not be subject to discovery in litigation, and materials prepared or compiled by or for a public body in anticipation of a criminal, civil or administrative proceeding upon the request of an attorney advising the public body, and materials prepared or compiled with respect to internal audits of public bodies.
Communications protected by the attorney- client privilege are within the scope of section 7(1)(m). People ex rel. Ulrich v. Stukel, 294 Ill. App. 3d 193, 201 (1st Dist. 1997). A party asserting that a confidential communication is protected by the attorney- client privilege must show that: "(1) a statement originated in confidence that it would not be disclosed; (2) it Because the Village provided a mostly confidential explanation for how the withheld e-mails constitute privileged attorney-client communications, this office is precluded from detailing that explanation in this determination. See 5 ILCS 140/ 9.5(d) (West 2022). This office has considered that explanation and reviewed the withheld e-mails, and determined that all but two of them reflect communications between Village employees and the attorney representing the Village, in which legal advice was sought or provided. Accordingly, this office concludes that those e-mails are exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 7(1)(m).
Section 7(1)( s) of FOIA With respect to the remaining two e-mails, section 7(1)(s) of FOIA exempts from inspection and copying:
Any and all proprietary information and records related to the operation of an intergovernmental risk management association or self-insurance pool or jointly self- administered health and accident cooperative or pool. Insurance or self insurance including any intergovernmental risk management association or self insurance pool) claims, loss or risk management information, records, data, advice or communications. Emphasis added.)
Again, the Village provided a mostly confidential explanation for the applicability of section 7(1)( s). This office' s review determined that the two e-mails that did not directly involve the Village's attorney instead reflected communications concerning the management of a claim that were exchanged by a Village employee and representatives of an entity that processes its insurance claims. This office has previously determined that similar claims management communications fall within the scope of section 7(1)(s). See, e.g., Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 38449, issued May 31, 2016 (communications between fire district and its insurance company concerning management of an insurance claim fell within the scope of the 7(1)(s) exemption); Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 56329, issued May 13, 2019 (notes and The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of this matter does not require the issuance of a binding opinion. This file is closed. If you have any questions, you may contact me at michael. knight@ilag. gov.
Very truly yours, MICHAEL J. KNIGHT Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 80023 f 71m proper 71s proper mun
Notes from the original PDF (2)
- 25 ILCS 140/7(1)(a), (1)(m), (1)(s) (West 2022), as amended by Public Acts 103-154, effective June 30, 2023; 103-423, effective January 1, 2024; 103-462, effective August 4, 2023; 103-446, effective August 4, 2023; 103-540, effective January 1, 2024; 103-554, effective January 1, 2024. 35 ILCS 140/9.5(d) (West 2022), as amended by Public Act 103-069, effective January 1, 2024) The Public Access Counselor shall forward a copy of the answer to the person submitting the request for review, with any alleged confidential information to which the request pertains redacted from the copy.").
- 4Because this office has determined that e-mails at issue are exempt from disclosure under either section 7(1)(m) or 7(1)(s), it is not necessary to address the applicability of the other exemptions raised in the Village's response.