<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Illinois FOIA &amp; OMA Reference: University of Illinois</title>
  <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/public-bodies/university-of-illinois/feed.xml" rel="self"/>
  <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/public-bodies/university-of-illinois/"/>
  <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/public-bodies/university-of-illinois/</id>
  <updated>2025-10-07T00:00:00Z</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois properly withheld police training curriculum as educational records under 7(1)(j)(iv)</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-88300/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-88300/</id>
    <updated>2025-10-07T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester asked the University of Illinois for police training curriculum and lesson plans. The University refused to release them, claiming they were protected educational records. The Attorney General's office agreed with the University, concluding that the records are exempt from disclosure because they are used by faculty for educational purposes.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois properly withheld lecture recording under 7(1)(j)(iv)</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-85864/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-85864/</id>
    <updated>2025-10-02T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester asked the University of Illinois for a recording of a specific virtual lecture. The University refused to provide it, arguing that the recording was a teaching material exempt from disclosure. The Attorney General's office agreed with the University, finding that the lecture recording is protected under FOIA as material prepared for teaching purposes.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois properly charged voluminous-request fee for electronic PDF file</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-81922/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-81922/</id>
    <updated>2024-07-15T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>This determination addresses whether a public body properly charged fees under FOIA's voluminous-request provisions. The Public Access Bureau held that the University of Illinois properly designated the request as voluminous under 5 ILCS 140/2(h) and 3.6(a), because the requester had submitted more than five categories of records requests within twenty business days, and that the $20 fee charged under 5 ILCS 140/6(a-5) for the resulting electronic file was proper. The reasoning establishes that </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois not required to create records to explain staffing limits</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-81942/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-81942/</id>
    <updated>2024-07-01T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester asked the University of Illinois for data and calculations to prove their claim that they lacked the resources to fulfill a previous FOIA request. The Attorney General's office closed the case, explaining that FOIA only requires agencies to provide existing documents, not to create new reports, perform calculations, or explain their internal staffing decisions.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois not required to create aggregated survey data under FOIA</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-78934/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-78934/</id>
    <updated>2024-05-07T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester asked the University of Illinois for specific statistical summaries of student survey results. The University denied parts of the request, and the PAC found that since the University did not already have the data in the requested format, they were not legally required to create it. The case was closed without a formal violation finding.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois FOIA extension not ripe for PAC review because request not yet denied</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-57623/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-57623/</id>
    <updated>2019-04-15T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester complained to the Attorney General because the University of Illinois used a legal extension to delay answering their FOIA request. The Attorney General's office closed the case, explaining that they can only review complaints where a request has been formally denied, not just delayed.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois improperly withheld IRB research investigation records under multiple exemptions</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-53007/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-53007/</id>
    <updated>2019-02-01T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A reporter requested records from the University of Illinois regarding an investigation into a professor's research. The University redacted or withheld portions of the records, citing exemptions under state and federal law. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the University improperly denied portions of the records responsive to the requests.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois did not violate FOIA by withholding professor's personal emails on public email account</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-50347/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-50347/</id>
    <updated>2018-02-15T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The question was whether emails sent to and from a University of Illinois professor's university email account, concerning his outside consulting work for a cryptocurrency venture, were &quot;public records&quot; subject to FOIA under 5 ILCS 140/2(c). The Public Access Bureau concluded the University did not improperly deny the request because the emails were not public records at all -- they related to the professor's personal consulting activities, not the transaction of public business. The reasoning a</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>PAC cannot review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-36229/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-36229/</id>
    <updated>2015-07-30T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>A requester asked the University of Illinois for training materials to help his company win a government contract. The Attorney General's office decided it could not help him challenge the University's refusal to provide the records because the law prohibits the PAC from reviewing requests made for commercial purposes. The requester must now file a lawsuit in court if he wishes to pursue the records further.</summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois properly withheld animal medical records but improperly redacted protocol names</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-35091/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/letter-35091/</id>
    <updated>2015-07-14T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The requester sought an animal's medical and research records from a public university, which withheld the animal's medical records entirely and redacted portions of the related research protocol. The PAC determined the medical records were properly exempt as research materials, but that the university had not shown that the names of individuals, departments, companies, and buildings in the protocol, or the sponsor's identity and the drug or device name, met any claimed exemption, and that only </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>University of Illinois must disclose travel and search-firm fee records</title>
    <link href="https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2011-pac-12170/"/>
    <id>https://illinoisfoia.org/opinions/2011-pac-12170/</id>
    <updated>2011-04-01T00:00:00Z</updated>
    <summary>The requesters, several news organizations, sought records concerning a university's presidential search, including departure airports, travel-agency names, and a search firm's fee, which the university withheld as personal information or proprietary commercial information. The Public Access Counselor held that the university had shown only that unsuccessful applicants' identities and current employers were exempt, while the airport, flight, and travel-agency details related to the expenditure o</summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
