<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Illinois FOIA &amp; OMA Reference: City of Chicago Office of the Mayor</title>
  <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/public-bodies/city-of-chicago-office-of-the-mayor/feed.xml" rel="self"/>
  <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/public-bodies/city-of-chicago-office-of-the-mayor/"/>
  <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/public-bodies/city-of-chicago-office-of-the-mayor/</id>
  <updated>2025-03-11T00:00:00Z</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>City of Chicago Office of the Mayor complied with duty to narrow unduly burdensome FOIA request</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-84210/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-84210/</id>
    <updated>2025-03-11T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester asked for text messages from the Mayor's personal phone, but the City claimed the request was too broad and burdensome. The Attorney General's office decided not to take further action because the City followed the law by inviting the requester to discuss how to narrow the request to a manageable size. This means the PAC is not forcing the City to produce the records at this time.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>City of Chicago Mayor’s Office properly withheld deliberative emails under 7(1)(f)</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-81969/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-81969/</id>
    <updated>2024-08-02T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>This determination addresses whether the City of the requester Office of the Mayor properly withheld portions of e-mails under section 7(1)(f) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(f)) as predecisional, deliberative material. The Public Access Bureau held that the Mayor's Office did not improperly deny the request, because its confidential review confirmed the withheld draft presentation and meeting notes concerning a redevelopment project were predecisional and deliberative when created. The Bureau explaine</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>City of Chicago Office of the Mayor did not violate FOIA after offering opportunity to narrow burdensome request</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-77169/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-77169/</id>
    <updated>2023-10-10T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A citizen requested records from the City of Chicago regarding the removal of homeless individuals from O'Hare Airport. The City denied the request as unduly burdensome after finding over 3,000 emails and offered the requester a chance to discuss narrowing the request via email. The requester did not respond to that offer before filing a complaint. The Illinois Public Access Bureau determined that because the City provided an opportunity to confer, it did not violate FOIA, and closed the case.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>PAC closes case after requester filed FOIA complaint against City of Chicago too early</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76927/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-76927/</id>
    <updated>2023-07-03T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester complained to the Attorney General that the City of Chicago was late in responding to a FOIA request. The Attorney General found that the City had correctly calculated its legal deadline, including a holiday, and that the requester had filed the complaint too early. Because the City still had time to respond when the complaint was filed, the PAC closed the case without taking further action.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>City of Chicago Mayor's Office properly withheld investment bank pitchbooks under 7(1)(g)</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-56600/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-56600/</id>
    <updated>2020-06-30T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The requester sought investment-bank marketing materials (pitchbooks) submitted to the mayor's office about potential municipal bond sales, which the office withheld as confidential commercial information. The PAC determined that the pitchbooks contained commercial information furnished under a claim of confidentiality and that disclosure would cause competitive harm to the firms that submitted them by revealing their unique marketing approaches and methods. The office's withholding did not viol</summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
