CTA properly classified requester as recurrent under FOIA for insufficient news media proof

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-

This determination is issued pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2023 Supp.)). For the reasons explained below, this office has determined that no further action is warranted in this matter.

On August 20, 2024, you submitted a FOIA request to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) seeking bus dispatch records, guidance on best practices for bus dispatch, and a copy of "Chicago Transit Authority Service Standards and Policies." Your request stated that it should be exempt from the recurrent requester provisions of FOIA because you are "a regular contributor to the Chicago Tribune Opinions section and the intent of this FOIA is to contribute to an article of opinion. "1 You provided CTA with a redacted e-mail stating "[ w ]e only need regular contributors" with the sender's name disclosed, but that did not otherwise identify the sender's affiliation. On August 27, 2024, CTA notified you that it was treating you as a recurrent requester pursuant to sections 2(g) and 3.2 of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/2(g) (West 2023 Supp.); 5 ILCS 140/3.2 (West 2022)) and would respond to your request within 21 business days. On that same date, you submitted the above-referenced Request for Review contesting the CT A's treatment of your request as one from a recurrent requester.

As an initial matter, you do not contest CT A's assertion that you submitted a minimum of 7 FOIA requests to CTA in a 7-day period earlier this year. Rather, you allege that because your FOIA request stated that you are a regular contributor to the Chicago Tribune Opinions section and that the intent of your request is to contribute to an opinion article, you should be excepted from the recurrent requester designation for this FOIA request. Your FOIA request included what appears to be a redacted version of a screen shot of a message you received from the Chicago Tribune that refers to regular contributors.

Section 2(f) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/2(£) (West 2023 Supp.)) 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[.]" This office has reviewed the materials you provided with your Request for Review. Although the Chicago Tribune is undoubtedly news media, your FOIA request did not provide a sufficient basis for CT A to conclude that it was made on behalf of the Chicago Tribune and therefore "by news media." The partial e-mail included in your request did not clearly show that you are a regular contributor or explain what that designation means, including whether it would entitle you to take an action such as submitting a FOIA request on behalf of the Chicago Tribune. It is important to note that individuals who contribute content to news media publications do so for a variety of reasons and in a variety of capacities, including as journalists, marketing professionals, public officials, and advocates for special interests or particular causes. Seeking public records for use in a potential contribution to a news media entity does not necessarily transform the requester into a member or representative of the news media who would be excluded from the definition of recurrent requester. Accordingly, CTA did not improperly treat your FOIA request as a request submitted by a recurrent requester in accordance with section 2(g) of FOIA, and this office concludes that no further action is warranted in this matter.

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 (773) 590-7878 or [email protected].

BENJAMIN J. SIL VER Assistant Attorney General Public Access Bureau 82787 f no fi war reg auth cc: Via electronic mail Ms. Brigett R. Bevan Managing Attorney Compliance, Policy and Risk Chicago Transit Authority 567 West Lake Street Chicago, Illinois 60661 FO [email protected]