Statute Text, Explained

(from Ch. 116, par. 201)

Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them as public officials and public employees consistent with the terms of this Act. Such access is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties of discussing public issues fully and freely, making informed political judgments and monitoring government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interest. The General Assembly hereby declares that it is the public policy of the State of Illinois that access by all persons to public records promotes the transparency and accountability of public bodies at all levels of government. It is a fundamental obligation of government to operate openly and provide public records as expediently and efficiently as possible in compliance with this Act. This Act is not intended to cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, nor to allow the requests of a commercial enterprise to unduly burden public resources, or to disrupt the duly-undertaken work of any public body independent of the fulfillment of any of the fore-mentioned rights of the people to access to information. This Act is not intended to create an obligation on the part of any public body to maintain or prepare any public record which was not maintained or prepared by such public body at the time when this Act becomes effective, except as otherwise required by applicable local, State or federal law. Restraints on access to information, to the extent permitted by this Act, are limited exceptions to the principle that the people of this State have a right to full disclosure of information relating to the decisions, policies, procedures, rules, standards, and other aspects of government activity that affect the conduct of government and the lives of any or all of the people. The provisions of this Act shall be construed in accordance with this principle. This Act shall be construed to require disclosure of requested information as expediently and efficiently as possible and adherence to the deadlines established in this Act. The General Assembly recognizes that this Act imposes fiscal obligations on public bodies to provide adequate staff and equipment to comply with its requirements. The General Assembly declares that providing records in compliance with the requirements of this Act is a primary duty of public bodies to the people of this State, and this Act should be construed to this end, fiscal obligations notwithstanding. The General Assembly further recognizes that technology may advance at a rate that outpaces its ability to address those advances legislatively. To the extent that this Act may not expressly apply to those technological advances, this Act should nonetheless be interpreted to further the declared policy of this Act that public records shall be made available upon request except when denial of access furthers the public policy underlying a specific exemption. This Act shall be the exclusive State statute on freedom of information, except to the extent that other State statutes might create additional restrictions on disclosure of information or other laws in Illinois might create additional obligations for disclosure of information to the public. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Under Section 3(d) of FOIA, Public Bodies Must Respond to a Request for Records Within Five Business Days After Receipt of the Request
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of school-level statistics on student discipline and police involvement from a school district, which acknowledged the request but never issued a proper written response within the required five business days, instead only partially replying weeks later after the requester escalated to the Public Access Counselor. The Attorney General held that the school district's delay amounted to a denial by operation of law, and that because it failed to properly extend the response time or assert an undue-burden objection, it could not later charge fees or treat the request as unduly burdensome. The school district was directed to fully comply with the original request.

Production of Records to the Public Access Counselor
The requester sought a state licensing agency's complete investigative file on a real estate licensee, after the agency had previously been directed, in response to an earlier related request, to release the same file for failing to prove it was exempt, but did not comply. The agency again refused to respond to the new request, refused to provide the Public Access Counselor with copies of the records for review, and continued to assert without adequate support that the file was exempt as an investigative, confidential, or law-enforcement record. The Public Access Counselor held that the agency violated FOIA's response deadlines, notice requirements, and its duty to cooperate with review, and again directed it to produce the file, redacting only genuinely private third-party information.

Judicial Inquiry Board is Not a "Public Body" to which FOIA is Applicable
The requester sought records from a state judicial oversight board concerning the circumstances of a former judge's removal from the bench, and the board declined to respond, asserting it was not subject to FOIA at all because it operates as part of the judicial branch. The Public Access Counselor agreed, holding that FOIA's definition of "public body" covers only legislative, executive, and administrative bodies and specifically excludes the judiciary, and that the board's investigatory role in judicial discipline places it squarely within the judicial branch. Because the board is not subject to FOIA in the first place, no violation occurred and the request for review was denied.

‘ Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought a school district's emergency management plans and related records, and the school district never responded at all, either to comply, deny, or extend the deadline within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the school district's total failure to respond constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The school district was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue timely responses to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought village hall surveillance footage, police department records, meeting minutes, and building access logs, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor over several months. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a village government's financial records, including its checkbook register, treasurer's reports, and attorney invoices, and the village never responded at all, despite the Public Access Counselor's follow-up inquiry going unanswered as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, also finding the village appeared to lack a properly designated FOIA officer as the law requires. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, designate and identify a FOIA officer, and post the required public notice of its request procedures.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of travel and credit-card expense records for a public university's board members and president, later amending the request to broaden its scope, and the university never responded to either version despite repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's silence on the amended request constituted a denial under FOIA, since the requester had explicitly superseded his original request with the amended one. The university was directed to produce all records responsive to the amended request, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Disclose Public Records in the Possession of a Public Body
The requester sought records showing how much money was collected during a university's homecoming dance and how those funds were handled. The university denied the request, arguing the records belonged to its Student Government Association, which it claimed was not a "public body" subject to FOIA. The PAC held that this argument was irrelevant, because the records were in the university's possession and control—held in a university-controlled account and overseen by university staff—and therefore pertained to the transaction of public business by the university itself. The PAC ruled that the university violated FOIA and ordered it to release the records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a newspaper reporter, submitted a records request to the city government seeking permit, licensing, and inspection records related to a specific business entity. The city government never responded—did not comply with, extend the time for, or deny the request within five business days, and did not even respond to the Public Access Bureau's inquiries during the review process. The PAC held that under the Freedom of Information Act, a public body's failure to timely respond is itself treated as a denial, and ordered the city government to produce the responsive records (with only permissible redactions) and to respond promptly to future requests. Because the city government failed to respond within the required timeframe, it was also barred from charging copying fees or claiming the request was unduly burdensome.

Failure to Respond to FOIA Request; Extension of the Response Period
The requester, a labor union representative, sought records concerning which employment positions were included in or excluded from collective bargaining agreements, and the university neither complied with, denied, nor properly extended the deadline for the request within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's eventual partial response, sent only after the requester followed up for months, did not cure its initial failure to timely respond, and that a public body cannot unilaterally and indefinitely extend its response time even where the requester agreed to one extension. The university was directed to produce the remaining responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions of private information.

Failure to Respond to FOIA Requests Robert E. Bionaz, Ph.D. 8720 South Utica Avenue Evergreen Park, [Hinois 60805
The requester, a university professor, sought certain records the university is required to maintain, and the university never responded at all, ignoring the Public Access Bureau's follow-up letters as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's total silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating the requirement to comply, extend, or deny within five business days. The university was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions of private information, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought worksheets and communications concerning police intelligence-gathering on First Amendment-related activities and groups including Black Lives Matter and Ferguson-related protests, and the police department never substantively responded, telling the Public Access Bureau months later only that the request remained "open." The Public Access Counselor held that the police department's prolonged silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating the requirement to comply, extend, or deny within five business days. The police department was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a range of personnel-related records, including a principal and social worker's emails and phone/text records, hiring-system data, and old interview reports, and the school district properly notified him it was extending its response time but then never actually responded, even after two follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Bureau. The Public Access Counselor held that failing to respond within the extended period, like failing to respond at all, constitutes a denial under FOIA. The school district was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a range of village financial records, including employee and elected officials' salaries, contractor payments, legal fees, and money owed to the village by elected officials, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring two follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Bureau. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's total silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating the requirement to comply, extend, or deny within five business days. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Disclosure of E-Mails from Public Employees’ Personal E-Mail Accounts Pertaining to Transaction of Public Business; Duty to Conduct Reasonable Search for Responsive Records
The requester, a news organization, sought emails from named police officers' work and personal accounts relating to a fatal police shooting, and the police department produced dozens of official-account emails but never sought records from officers' personal accounts and searched using only a single term. The Public Access Counselor held that personal-account emails documenting public business are public records the department cannot decline to search for, and that limiting the search to one proper name was not reasonably calculated to locate all responsive records given other likely references to the incident. The police department was directed to search personal accounts and expand its search terms, then produce any additional responsive records.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought invoices, payment records, and a contract concerning a specific consulting firm, and the school district's automated system acknowledged the request and claimed a short extension but the district then never substantively responded. The Public Access Counselor held that failing to comply, deny, or reach a further written extension agreement within the extended period constituted a denial under FOIA. The school district was directed to produce the requested records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Disclosure of Public Employees' Compensation
The requester sought the names, titles, and dollar amounts of employee bonuses funded by a reallocation of a raise the housing authority's board had approved, and the housing authority denied the request in full, citing personal-privacy and personnel-record exemptions and arguing the requester's past FOIA use amounted to harassment. The Public Access Counselor held that bonus compensation paid from public funds is expressly subject to disclosure regardless of privacy or personnel-record concerns, and that FOIA does not allow a public body to withhold records based on its view of why the requester wants them. The housing authority was directed to disclose records showing the bonuses paid to each employee.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a reporter, sought a police report concerning a vehicle pursuit that ended in a crash, and the city never responded to the request or to the Public Access Bureau's repeated inquiries, despite a city official's assurance that the matter would be handled. The Public Access Counselor held that the city's prolonged silence constituted a denial in violation of FOIA's response requirements. The city was directed to produce the requested report, subject only to permissible redactions.

Statistical Data is Not Exempt from ° Disclosure under Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA
The requester sought raw traffic-count data collected during roadway monitoring, and the village withheld its entire preliminary traffic study as predecisional and deliberative. The Public Access Counselor held that purely factual data, such as vehicle counts, is not exempt as deliberative material unless it is inextricably intertwined with a public body's decision-making process, and the village had not shown that the counts revealed anything about its reasoning. The village was directed to disclose the specific pages of the study containing the requested traffic counts.

Financial Terms of Contracts, Billing Invoices, and Budget Documents Related to a Public Body's Use of Public Funds Are Not Exempt under Section 7(1)(g) of FOIA
The requester, a city clerk, sought contracts, invoices, and annual budgets involving the sanitary district's private wastewater-management contractor, and the district redacted substantial financial terms, invoice amounts, and budget figures, citing a confidentiality clause in its contract and the commercial-information exemption. The Public Access Counselor held that the confidentiality clause did not apply because none of the information had been marked confidential as the clause required and the clause itself excluded information required to be disclosed by law, and that because the records concerned the district's receipt and use of public funds, they were independently subject to disclosure under FOIA's public-funds provision and the Illinois Constitution. The sanitary district was directed to disclose the redacted and withheld records, including its budget ordinances.

Disclosure of Information Related to State Employees Designated as Essential
The requester, a wire-service reporter, sought records showing the job titles, locations, and numbers of employees the department deems essential during a pay interruption, and the department denied the request without acknowledging whether responsive records existed, first asserting attorney-client and deliberative-process exemptions and then withdrawing and reasserting different grounds. The Public Access Counselor held that a denial must state whether records exist and provide a detailed factual basis for any claimed exemption, and that the department's shifting, conclusory assertions did not establish that the requested staffing list was privileged or predecisional. The department of corrections was directed to disclose the requested records.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a business journal reporter, sought a deputy governor's emails and a forward-looking schedule, and the governor's office acknowledged the request by phone but never provided a substantive response despite nearly two months of follow-up emails. The Public Access Counselor held that the office's failure to comply, deny, or extend the response period in writing violated FOIA. The governor's office was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought city credit-card and cell-phone statements and proof of officials' Open Meetings Act and FOIA training, and although the city's attorney told the Public Access Bureau that records had been mailed to the requester, the city never confirmed this in writing and the requester repeatedly reported receiving nothing. The Public Access Counselor held that, on the record presented, the city had not shown it complied with, denied, or properly extended the request within the statutory period, violating FOIA. The city was directed to produce the requested records, subject only to limited private-information redactions.

Disclosure of Contractor's Employees’ Names in Certified Payroll Records
The requester, a construction-industry monitoring organization, sought certified payroll records for a public works contractor, and the city disclosed the records but redacted the contractor employees' names along with the addresses and identification numbers the certified-payroll statute specifically requires be redacted. The Public Access Counselor held that names are not among the categories of information the statute allows a public body to redact from certified payroll records, and that the city had not separately shown disclosure of the names would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy given the strong public interest in payroll compliance. The city was directed to disclose the contractor employees' names.

Disclosure of 9-1-1 Cali Recordings
The requester, a radio reporter, sought two 9-1-1 call recordings connected to a widely reported child's death, and the sheriff's office withheld both as containing exempt biometric identifiers and withheld one further as likely to interfere with its active investigation. The Public Access Counselor held that an ordinary voice recording is not a "biometric identifier" absent some measurement or analysis of the voice itself, and that the sheriff's office's conclusory assertion of investigative interference, without any specific explanation, did not meet its burden. The sheriff's office was directed to disclose both 9-1-1 recordings.

Disclosure of Recordings of Public Meetings
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought audio recordings of the housing authority board's open meetings from a given year, and the housing authority withheld them as preliminary, deliberative material. The Public Access Counselor held that a verbatim recording of a meeting that was open to the public is inherently subject to public scrutiny and is not the kind of predecisional record the deliberative-process exemption protects, regardless of the purpose for which the recording was made. The housing authority was directed to disclose the requested meeting recordings.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought an electronic log of the FOIA requests the governor's office had received over roughly two months, including requester names, dates, and statuses, and the office never responded despite two follow-up letters from the Public Access Bureau. The Public Access Counselor held that the office's total silence violated FOIA's requirement to comply, deny, or extend the response period in writing. The governor's office was directed to produce the requested log, subject only to permissible redactions.

Purpose of Request Invalid Basis On Which to Withhold Public Records
The requester, a local news outlet, sought a log of FOIA requests filed with the county clerk's office and the county's responses over an eight-week period, and the county denied the request in its entirety, arguing it did not serve FOIA's purpose because it sought information about other requesters rather than about government conduct. The Public Access Counselor held that FOIA does not allow a public body to deny a request based on its view of the requester's purpose, apart from fee-waiver or commercial-purpose determinations, though the county could redact other requesters' identifying information to protect their privacy. The county was directed to produce the requested log.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought records of a city official's meeting schedule over a four-month period, and although the city clerk forwarded the request to the city attorney and later to a new city attorney, the city never provided a substantive response despite months of calls and letters from the Public Access Bureau. The Public Access Counselor held that this prolonged failure to respond violated FOIA's requirement to comply, deny, or extend within five business days. The city was directed to produce the requested records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Disclosure of Names of Municipal Water Account Holders
The requester, a school district checking who lived at a particular address, sought a copy of a specific water bill, and the city provided it but redacted the customer's name along with the mailing address and account number as private information. The Public Access Counselor held that a person's name is not among the "unique identifiers" that make information private under FOIA, and that because water bills document the city's receipt of public funds for utility services, the customer's name was independently subject to disclosure under FOIA's public-funds provision. The city was directed to disclose a copy of the bill showing the customer's name.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

(from Ch. 116, par. 201.1)

This Act may be cited as the Freedom of Information Act. (Source: P.A. 86-1475.)

Presumption. All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Determination letters

Illinois Department of Human Rights not required to answer questions or create new records
Mr. Hunley asked the Illinois Department of Human Rights to explain abbreviations found in a document created by a different agency. The Attorney General's office concluded that FOIA is for requesting existing public records, not for asking government agencies to answer questions or create new documents. Therefore, the agency acted properly in denying the request.

Markham Police Department not required to provide destroyed body camera footage
A citizen requested police body camera footage from a specific incident, but the police department said they no longer had the video. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the police were not legally required to keep the video because the incident did not meet the criteria for mandatory preservation under the Body Camera Act. Therefore, the police did not improperly withhold any records.

(from Ch. 116, par. 202)

Definitions. As used in this Act: (a) "Public body" means all legislative, executive, administrative, or advisory bodies of the State, state universities and colleges, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees, or commissions of this State, any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees thereof, and a School Finance Authority created under Article 1E of the School Code. "Public body" does not include a child death review team or the Illinois Child Death Review Teams Executive Council established under the Child Death Review Team Act, or a regional youth advisory board or the Statewide Youth Advisory Board established under the Department of Children and Family Services Statewide Youth Advisory Board Act. (b) "Person" means any individual or any individual acting as an agent of a corporation, partnership, firm, organization or association, acting individually or as a group. (c) "Public records" means all records, reports, forms, writings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs, microfilms, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records, electronic communications, recorded information and all other documentary materials pertaining to the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared by or for, or having been or being used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of any public body. "Public records" does not include junk mail. (c-5) "Private information" means unique identifiers, including a person's social security number, driver's license number, employee identification number, biometric identifiers, personal financial information, passwords or other access codes, medical records, home or personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses. Private information also includes home address and personal license plates, except as otherwise provided by law or when compiled without possibility of attribution to any person. For a public body that is a HIPAA-covered entity, "private information" includes electronic medical records and all information, including demographic information, contained within or extracted from an electronic medical records system operated or maintained by the public body in compliance with State and federal medical privacy laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its regulations, 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164. As used in this subsection, "HIPAA-covered entity" has the meaning given to the term "covered entity" in 45 CFR 160.103. (c-10) "Commercial purpose" means the use of any part of a public record or records, or information derived from public records, in any form for sale, resale, or solicitation or advertisement for sales or services. For purposes of this definition, requests made by news media and non-profit, scientific, or academic organizations shall not be considered to be made for a "commercial purpose" when the principal purpose of the request 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. (d) "Copying" means the reproduction of any public record by means of any photographic, electronic, mechanical or other process, device or means now known or hereafter developed and available to the public body. (e) "Head of the public body" means the president, mayor, chairman, presiding officer, director, superintendent, manager, supervisor or individual otherwise holding primary executive and administrative authority for the public body, or such person's duly authorized designee. (f) "News media" means a newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format, a news service whether in print or electronic format, a radio station, a television station, a television network, a community antenna television service, or a person or corporation engaged in making news reels or other motion picture news for public showing. (g) "Recurrent requester", as used in Section 3.2 of this Act, means 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 education. For the purposes of this subsection (g), "request" means a written document (or oral request, if the public body chooses to honor oral requests) that is submitted to a public body via personal delivery, mail, telefax, electronic mail, or other means available to the public body and that identifies the particular public record the requester seeks. One request may identify multiple records to be inspected or copied. (h) "Voluminous request" means a request that: (i) includes more than 5 individual requests for more than 5 different categories of records or a combination of individual requests that total requests for more than 5 different categories of records in a period of 20 business days; or (ii) requires the compilation of more than 500 letter or legal-sized pages of public records unless a single requested record exceeds 500 pages. "Single requested record" may include, but is not limited to, one report, form, e-mail, letter, memorandum, book, map, microfilm, tape, or recording. "Voluminous request" does not include a request made by news media and non-profit, scientific, or academic organizations if the principal purpose of the request is: (1) to access and disseminate information concerning news and current or passing events; (2) for articles of opinion or features of interest to the public; or (3) for the purpose of academic, scientific, or public research or education. For the purposes of this subsection (h), "request" means a written document, or oral request, if the public body chooses to honor oral requests, that is submitted to a public body via personal delivery, mail, telefax, electronic mail, or other means available to the public body and that identifies the particular public record or records the requester seeks. One request may identify multiple individual records to be inspected or copied. (i) "Severance agreement" means a mutual agreement between any public body and its employee for the employee's resignation in exchange for payment by the public body. (j) "Junk mail" means (i) any unsolicited commercial mail sent to a public body and not responded to by an official, employee, or agent of the public body or (ii) any unsolicited commercial electronic communication sent to a public body and not responded to by an official, employee, or agent of the public body. (Source: P.A. 103-554, eff. 1-1-24; 104-438, eff. 1-1-26.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 2: 33 · 2(g): 7 · 2(c): 6 · 2(a): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Classification as a "Recurrent Requester" under Section 2(g) of FOIA
A village government classified the requester and her spouse as "recurrent requesters" under FOIA's newly enacted volume-based thresholds, based on the combined number of records requests the two had submitted, and responded on a 21-business-day timeline instead of the standard five days. The Public Access Counselor held that the village improperly aggregated the requester's and her spouse's separate requests into a single count, that neither individually nor combined did their submissions meet any of the statutory recurrent-requester thresholds, and that the village further violated FOIA's notice requirements by failing to explain its reasoning within the required timeframe. The village government was directed to stop treating the requester's future submissions as recurrent-requester requests absent a proper statutory basis.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of legal invoices reflecting a school district's expenses in several lawsuits, and the school district withheld the invoices in full, asserting attorney-client privilege. The Public Access Counselor held that while some invoice descriptions could reveal privileged communications and could be redacted, generic descriptions of the work performed, attorneys' initials, time spent, and billed amounts are not privileged and must be disclosed. The school district was directed to release the non-exempt portions of the invoices, since withholding the records in their entirety violated FOIA's requirement to redact only the exempt information and produce the rest.

Production of Records to the Public Access Counselor
The requester sought a state licensing agency's complete investigative file on a real estate licensee, after the agency had previously been directed, in response to an earlier related request, to release the same file for failing to prove it was exempt, but did not comply. The agency again refused to respond to the new request, refused to provide the Public Access Counselor with copies of the records for review, and continued to assert without adequate support that the file was exempt as an investigative, confidential, or law-enforcement record. The Public Access Counselor held that the agency violated FOIA's response deadlines, notice requirements, and its duty to cooperate with review, and again directed it to produce the file, redacting only genuinely private third-party information.

Judicial Inquiry Board is Not a "Public Body" to which FOIA is Applicable
The requester sought records from a state judicial oversight board concerning the circumstances of a former judge's removal from the bench, and the board declined to respond, asserting it was not subject to FOIA at all because it operates as part of the judicial branch. The Public Access Counselor agreed, holding that FOIA's definition of "public body" covers only legislative, executive, and administrative bodies and specifically excludes the judiciary, and that the board's investigatory role in judicial discipline places it squarely within the judicial branch. Because the board is not subject to FOIA in the first place, no violation occurred and the request for review was denied.

Duty to Disclose Public Records in the Possession of a Public Body
The requester sought records showing how much money was collected during a university's homecoming dance and how those funds were handled. The university denied the request, arguing the records belonged to its Student Government Association, which it claimed was not a "public body" subject to FOIA. The PAC held that this argument was irrelevant, because the records were in the university's possession and control—held in a university-controlled account and overseen by university staff—and therefore pertained to the transaction of public business by the university itself. The PAC ruled that the university violated FOIA and ordered it to release the records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Failure to Respond to FOIA Request; Extension of the Response Period
The requester, a labor union representative, sought records concerning which employment positions were included in or excluded from collective bargaining agreements, and the university neither complied with, denied, nor properly extended the deadline for the request within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's eventual partial response, sent only after the requester followed up for months, did not cure its initial failure to timely respond, and that a public body cannot unilaterally and indefinitely extend its response time even where the requester agreed to one extension. The university was directed to produce the remaining responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions of private information.

Disclosure of E-Mails from Public Employees’ Personal E-Mail Accounts Pertaining to Transaction of Public Business; Duty to Conduct Reasonable Search for Responsive Records
The requester, a news organization, sought emails from named police officers' work and personal accounts relating to a fatal police shooting, and the police department produced dozens of official-account emails but never sought records from officers' personal accounts and searched using only a single term. The Public Access Counselor held that personal-account emails documenting public business are public records the department cannot decline to search for, and that limiting the search to one proper name was not reasonably calculated to locate all responsive records given other likely references to the incident. The police department was directed to search personal accounts and expand its search terms, then produce any additional responsive records.

Disclosure of Public Employees' Compensation
The requester sought the names, titles, and dollar amounts of employee bonuses funded by a reallocation of a raise the housing authority's board had approved, and the housing authority denied the request in full, citing personal-privacy and personnel-record exemptions and arguing the requester's past FOIA use amounted to harassment. The Public Access Counselor held that bonus compensation paid from public funds is expressly subject to disclosure regardless of privacy or personnel-record concerns, and that FOIA does not allow a public body to withhold records based on its view of why the requester wants them. The housing authority was directed to disclose records showing the bonuses paid to each employee.

Basis for Withholding Police Investigatory Records
The requester sought a copy of a specific field report, and the state police agency withheld it in full, asserting that disclosure would interfere with a pending or contemplated law-enforcement proceeding. The Public Access Counselor held that a bare assertion that an investigation remains open, without any factual explanation of how disclosure would interfere with a proceeding, does not meet the agency's burden under that exemption. The state police agency was directed to disclose the field report, redacting only private information and dates of birth.

Financial Terms of Contracts, Billing Invoices, and Budget Documents Related to a Public Body's Use of Public Funds Are Not Exempt under Section 7(1)(g) of FOIA
The requester, a city clerk, sought contracts, invoices, and annual budgets involving the sanitary district's private wastewater-management contractor, and the district redacted substantial financial terms, invoice amounts, and budget figures, citing a confidentiality clause in its contract and the commercial-information exemption. The Public Access Counselor held that the confidentiality clause did not apply because none of the information had been marked confidential as the clause required and the clause itself excluded information required to be disclosed by law, and that because the records concerned the district's receipt and use of public funds, they were independently subject to disclosure under FOIA's public-funds provision and the Illinois Constitution. The sanitary district was directed to disclose the redacted and withheld records, including its budget ordinances.

Disclosure of Contractor's Employees’ Names in Certified Payroll Records
The requester, a construction-industry monitoring organization, sought certified payroll records for a public works contractor, and the city disclosed the records but redacted the contractor employees' names along with the addresses and identification numbers the certified-payroll statute specifically requires be redacted. The Public Access Counselor held that names are not among the categories of information the statute allows a public body to redact from certified payroll records, and that the city had not separately shown disclosure of the names would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy given the strong public interest in payroll compliance. The city was directed to disclose the contractor employees' names.

Disclosure of 9-1-1 Cali Recordings
The requester, a radio reporter, sought two 9-1-1 call recordings connected to a widely reported child's death, and the sheriff's office withheld both as containing exempt biometric identifiers and withheld one further as likely to interfere with its active investigation. The Public Access Counselor held that an ordinary voice recording is not a "biometric identifier" absent some measurement or analysis of the voice itself, and that the sheriff's office's conclusory assertion of investigative interference, without any specific explanation, did not meet its burden. The sheriff's office was directed to disclose both 9-1-1 recordings.

Purpose of Request Invalid Basis On Which to Withhold Public Records
The requester, a local news outlet, sought a log of FOIA requests filed with the county clerk's office and the county's responses over an eight-week period, and the county denied the request in its entirety, arguing it did not serve FOIA's purpose because it sought information about other requesters rather than about government conduct. The Public Access Counselor held that FOIA does not allow a public body to deny a request based on its view of the requester's purpose, apart from fee-waiver or commercial-purpose determinations, though the county could redact other requesters' identifying information to protect their privacy. The county was directed to produce the requested log.

Disclosure of Names of Municipal Water Account Holders
The requester, a school district checking who lived at a particular address, sought a copy of a specific water bill, and the city provided it but redacted the customer's name along with the mailing address and account number as private information. The Public Access Counselor held that a person's name is not among the "unique identifiers" that make information private under FOIA, and that because water bills document the city's receipt of public funds for utility services, the customer's name was independently subject to disclosure under FOIA's public-funds provision. The city was directed to disclose a copy of the bill showing the customer's name.

Disclosure of Public Employees’ Compensation
The requester, an attorney, sought a complete list of city employees' names, titles, wages, and salaries for two years, and the city denied the request in its entirety, arguing disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion of employee privacy. The Public Access Counselor held that records showing the use of public funds -- including individual public employees' compensation -- are expressly subject to disclosure under FOIA's public-funds provision, and that the public interest in wage and salary transparency outweighs any privacy interest employees have in that information. The city was directed to disclose the requested wage and salary records.

Disclosure of General Allegations Against Public Body in a Settlement Agreement
The requester, a union representative, sought a settlement agreement between a school district and a former principal, and the district redacted the description of the underlying claims as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Public Access Counselor held that settlement agreements are public records under FOIA, that the redacted language described the claims only in general terms that were not highly personal, and that the information bore on the public duties of a public employee, so the privacy exemption did not apply. The district was directed to provide an unredacted copy of the settlement agreement.

Improper Denial of a Request for Records as an Unduly Burdensome Repeated Request; Financial Terms Related to a Public Body's Use of Public Funds Are Not Exempt under Section 7(1)(g) of FOIA
The requester, a physician, sought a contract amendment showing the fixed monthly rate a county health system paid a mental health provider per enrollee, records she had previously been given in redacted form; the county system denied her renewed request as an unduly burdensome repeated request. The Public Access Counselor held that a repeated-request denial requires the agency to have already properly provided or denied the same records, which the county system had not done, and separately held that the payment rate was a public-funds record not shown to qualify as exempt trade secret or commercial information. The county system was directed to provide the requester with the amendment showing the rate.

Basis for Withholding Police Report Narratives
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought police reports concerning two arrests, and the police department redacted nearly all of the narrative sections citing exemptions for private information, personal privacy, fair-trial interference, and confidential sources. The Public Access Counselor held that most of the redactions were improper because arrests are matters of legitimate public interest and the department did not show a specific fair-trial risk, but agreed that the department could redact private information such as phone numbers and addresses, dates of birth, unarrested suspects' identifying details, and the names of two witnesses. The department was directed to disclose the narrative sections subject only to those narrower, authorized redactions.

Disclosure ofArrest Reports and Corresponding Police Records
The requester, a watchdog organization, sought police and incident reports about a man's arrest and death, which a police department withheld in full on the theory that disclosure could interfere with the pending prosecution of two other people arrested from the same vehicle. The Public Access Counselor held that FOIA requires disclosure of basic arrest information within 72 hours regardless of a pending case, and that the department's bare assertion of interference did not meet its burden to withhold the reports in their entirety. The department was directed to provide the arrest reports and field case report, redacting only private information such as dates of birth.

Police Records Concerning Sexual Offenses Against Minors Allegedly Perpetrated by Adults
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought police records concerning an alleged sexual-offense complaint against a named adult connected to a church, and a police department withheld the records in full, initially citing the Juvenile Court Act. The Public Access Counselor held that the Act did not apply because the accused was an adult, but that a separate personal-privacy exemption did apply because the alleged victim was a minor and the accused was never arrested or charged, so the significant privacy interests of both outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The department's denial was upheld and no violation was found.

Duty to Confer Before Denying Request as Unduly Burdensome
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought copies of federal subpoenas and search warrants served on a city police department in a given month, which the department denied as unduly burdensome without ever engaging with the requester's repeated attempts to confer about narrowing the request. The Public Access Counselor held that the department violated FOIA's mandatory duty to offer and follow through on conferring before denying a request as unduly burdensome, and separately failed to prove either that the request was actually unduly burdensome or that the subpoenas were exempt. The department was directed to provide the requester with copies of the responsive subpoenas.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester sought invoices and documents underlying township payments to its law firm, and the township withheld a related settlement agreement based on a mutual nondisparagement clause it read as barring disclosure. The Public Access Counselor held that settlement agreements are expressly public records under FOIA and that a nondisparagement clause does not create an enforceable confidentiality obligation that can override that requirement. The township was directed to provide the requester a copy of the settlement agreement.

Disclosure ofVideo Footage
The requester sought video footage of an incident at a county animal control facility, which a sheriff's office withheld, first suggesting the investigation would soon close and then, on a renewed request, as records of an employee disciplinary adjudication. The Public Access Counselor held that the footage was investigatory material predating and existing independently of any adjudication, so the sheriff's office failed to prove the adjudication exemption applied. The sheriff's office was directed to disclose the video footage.

Basis for Withholding Police Reports Related to Death of Missing Person
The requester, an investigative reporter, sought police reports concerning a man who went missing and was later found dead, which a sheriff's office withheld in full as an unwarranted invasion of privacy and, for one report, as interfering with a law enforcement proceeding. The Public Access Counselor held that the reports lacked graphic content warranting privacy protection given the substantial public interest in the case, and that the sheriff's office's law-enforcement-proceeding claims were conclusory and unsupported. The sheriff's office was directed to disclose the remaining reports, subject to limited redactions such as private information and witness-identifying details.

Public Body Must Prove How Disclosure of All Records Withheld Under Section 7(1)(d)(i) of FOIA Would Interfere With a Pending Law Enforcement Investigation
The requester sought the police report and related records from an incident in which he was stopped, searched, and released while photographing nearby police activity, which the police department withheld in full as interfering with a pending law enforcement proceeding. The Public Access Counselor held that the case had been administratively closed and the department's claim of an ongoing multi-agency investigation was unsupported by specific facts, so the department failed to prove the records were exempt in their entirety. The department was directed to disclose the case report and stop card, subject to redaction of witness and suspect identifying details and other private information.

Home or Personal Telephone Numbers of Witnesses to Traffic Crashes
The requester, a law firm legal assistant, sought 911 call recordings related to a traffic crash and disputed a dispatch center's redaction of the callers' home or personal telephone numbers after it had already disclosed their names. The Public Access Counselor held that home and personal telephone numbers are private information exempt from disclosure without exception, and that the FOIA provision requiring disclosure of traffic-crash witnesses' identities does not extend to their phone numbers. No violation was found.

Basis for Withholding Records Related to Settlement Agreement
The requester sought records showing an $87,500 city payment toward a settlement in a lawsuit against a named alderman, which a city department withheld in part as an attorney-client communication not subject to discovery. The Public Access Counselor held that the record was a settlement document signed by the alderman and a city attorney rather than a confidential communication seeking or giving legal advice, and that records showing the use of public funds are subject to FOIA and the state constitution's public-funds disclosure guarantee. The department was directed to disclose the withheld record.

Records Relating to the Resignation or Termination of a Government Employee Are Subject to Disclosure
The requester, a journalism student working with a nonprofit newsroom, sought records concerning a police officer's separation from the department, which a city public safety office withheld in full as private information and an invasion of personal privacy. The Public Access Counselor held that a public employee's separation records are not "private information" in their entirety and that disclosure of records bearing on a public employee's duties does not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The office was directed to disclose the separation records, subject only to redaction of the employee identification number and signatures.

Public Records -- Electronic records relating to the transaction of public business are "public records" subject to disclosure under section 2(c) of FOIA notwithstanding that they are generated on public officials’ private equipment and/or maintained on personal electronic accounts.
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought electronic communications sent and received by city council members and the mayor during meetings, and the city withheld all messages generated on officials' privately owned phones and email accounts as not being in the city's possession. The Public Access Counselor held that electronic communications pertaining to the transaction of public business are public records subject to FOIA regardless of whether they are stored on an official's personal device, though purely personal communications remain outside the Act's scope. The city was directed to furnish the withheld communications relating to public business.

Names of State University Students and Graduation Information Are Not Exempt from Disclosure under Sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(6), or 7(1)(C
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought the names of an incoming freshman class and of students who graduated or had not yet graduated years later, and a university withheld the names as protected by federal student-privacy law and as personal information. The Public Access Counselor held that the requested directory-type information was not shielded by federal privacy law, did not qualify as private or personal information under FOIA, and that the university could not treat the reporter's request differently because of past unfavorable coverage. The university was directed to furnish the requested student names and related information.

Determination letters

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District improperly applied recurrent requester provisions retroactively
The requester's employer submitted a FOIA request that the public body treated as coming from a "recurrent requester," counting requests submitted before the recurrent-requester provision took effect. The PAC determined that applying the recurrent-requester classification retroactively was improper because it imposed new legal consequences on requests made before the amendment's effective date. Because the public body had already disclosed the requested records, no further action was required.

City of Collinsville properly classified online publisher as recurrent requester, not news media
A citizen requested public records from the City of Collinsville, but the City treated them as a 'recurrent requester,' which allows for longer response times. The citizen argued they should be exempt from this status because they act as 'news media.' The Attorney General's office reviewed the evidence and decided the citizen did not qualify as news media, meaning the City's original decision was appropriate.

Elgin Police Department properly designated requester as recurrent requester
A requester challenged the Elgin Police Department for labeling him a 'recurrent requester,' which allows a public body more time to respond to FOIA requests. The Attorney General's office found that the police department acted correctly because the requester did not claim to be a member of the news media when he submitted his requests. Consequently, the PAC closed the files without finding a violation.

University of Illinois did not violate FOIA by withholding professor's personal emails on public email account
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 "public records" 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 applied is that a communication must first pertain to public business, as opposed to private affairs, before the further analysis of whether it was prepared, used, received, or controlled by a public body is even reached; use of a university email address alone does not convert personal communications into public records. Because the withheld emails concerned the professor's private outside consulting relationship rather than University business, they fell outside FOIA's scope.

Personal political Facebook page not a public record under FOIA, Will County
A citizen requested social media data from a Will County Board member's Facebook page, believing it to be a public record. The Attorney General's office determined that because the page is used for personal political purposes rather than official County business, it is not subject to FOIA. Consequently, the office closed the case without requiring the County to provide the records.

City of Chicago Mayor's Office did not violate FOIA by redacting personal text messages under 7(1)(c)
A reporter requested text messages between the Mayor and other officials. The City provided the messages but redacted parts they claimed were private. The Attorney General's office reviewed the messages and agreed that the redacted portions were personal in nature and not subject to FOIA disclosure.

City of Streator Police Department properly designated requester as recurrent requester
A requester complained that the police department didn't answer his records request on time. The Attorney General's office found that the department correctly labeled him a 'recurrent requester,' which legally allows them more time to process his requests. Because the department followed the law in this designation, the PAC closed the case.

Mahomet Township improperly designated requester as recurrent requester
An individual requested public records from Mahomet Township, but the Township refused to process the requests normally by labeling the individual a 'recurrent requester.' The Attorney General's office found that the Township did not have enough requests to justify that label. The office requested that the Township refrain from treating the individual as a recurrent requester unless the legal requirements are actually met.

Chicago Transit Authority not required to retroactively amend requester identity to avoid recurrent designation
A requester asked the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to change their status as a 'recurrent requester' by claiming one of their previous requests was actually made on behalf of a non-profit group. The Attorney General's office ruled that the CTA was not required to accept this change after the fact. Consequently, the CTA's original designation stands, and the agency did not violate the law.

Chicago Police Department FOIA request asking questions deemed invalid
A citizen asked the Chicago Police Department questions about background searches performed on them, but the department and another agency referred the requester back and forth. The Attorney General's office closed the case, explaining that FOIA is for requesting copies of existing documents, not for asking government agencies questions or demanding they create new records.

PAC closes case because U.S. Department of the Interior is not a public body under Illinois FOIA
A requester asked the Illinois Attorney General to intervene after the U.S. Department of the Interior refused to accept a FOIA request. The Attorney General's office explained that Illinois FOIA laws only apply to Illinois state and local government agencies, not federal agencies. Because the federal government is not subject to Illinois FOIA, the PAC closed the case without taking further action.

Peoria Police Department did not violate FOIA for nonexistent records
A citizen asked the Peoria Police Department for a specific count of officers using body cameras on a date two years ago. The Department stated it had no such records, and the PAC agreed, noting that FOIA does not require a public body to create new data or perform calculations to answer a request. Consequently, the PAC closed the file with no further action required.

DeKalb District 428 properly classified FOIA request as voluminous
A requester asked a school district for a wide range of documents related to busing problems. The school district classified the request as 'voluminous' because it covered many different categories of records, and the Attorney General's office agreed that the district followed the law in doing so. This means the district is allowed to follow the specific, more restrictive procedures that apply to voluminous FOIA requests.

Animal Protective League of Springfield and Sangamon County not a public body under FOIA
A citizen filed a FOIA request with the Animal Protective League, arguing that because the organization claims to make documents public in its tax filings, it should be subject to FOIA. The Attorney General's office explained that being a private non-profit does not make an organization a 'public body' under the law. Consequently, the PAC closed the case because the organization is not required to comply with FOIA requests.

Knox County Circuit Clerk not subject to FOIA; PAC closes case
A citizen requested juror information from Knox County, but the county denied the request. The Attorney General's office explained that the Circuit Clerk is part of the judicial branch, not the executive branch, and therefore is not required to follow FOIA laws. Because the office is exempt from FOIA, the PAC closed the case without further action.

Village of Orland Park partly misapplied recurrent requester threshold to FOIA requests
A requester challenged the Village of Orland Park for labeling him a 'recurrent requester,' which allows a public body more time to respond to FOIA requests. The Attorney General's office found that the Village did not have enough evidence to support the label for the first request, but did have enough for the second request. This means the Village must follow standard FOIA timelines for the first request but can use the extended recurrent requester timeline for the second.

Madison County State's Attorney - Private law firm compensation records not public records
A citizen asked the Public Access Bureau to review a response from the Madison County State's Attorney's Office regarding a FOIA request for records of how a private law firm compensates its attorneys for work done for the County. The Bureau determined that the request was unfounded because the internal compensation and timekeeping records of the private law firm are not 'directly related' to the governmental function the firm performs for the County, as required by section 7(2) of FOIA. The Bureau concluded that these records pertain to the private affairs of the firm and its attorneys, not to the substance of the government function, and therefore are not public records subject to disclosure.

Records of funds. All records relating to the obligation, receipt, and use of public funds of the State, units of local government, and school districts are public records subject to inspection and copying by the public. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Determination letters

South Suburban College employee bereavement acknowledgments not public records under FOIA
A requester asked South Suburban College for sympathy cards and memorial announcements acknowledging employee family member deaths. The college denied the request, saying these were personal matters. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau agreed, determining that the records pertain to private affairs rather than the transaction of public business, and therefore are not public records subject to FOIA disclosure. The Bureau also noted that the records do not directly document the use of public funds under a separate FOIA provision.

Payrolls. Certified payroll records submitted to a public body under Section 5(a)(2) of the Prevailing Wage Act are public records subject to inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of this Act; except that contractors' employees' addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers must be redacted by the public body prior to disclosure. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Failure to Timely Respond to FOIA Request Precludes Denial as Unduly Burdensome; Disclosure of Certified Payroll Records
The requester sought certified payroll records for state highway construction projects in a county, and the state transportation department denied the request as unduly burdensome, citing the labor involved in redacting the hundreds of pages of records. The Public Access Counselor held that the department's denial came after FOIA's five-business-day response deadline had already passed, which by itself barred it from claiming undue burden, and separately concluded that because the legislature specifically made certified payroll records public and defined exactly what information must be redacted from them, the burden of that redaction did not outweigh the strong public interest in disclosure. The state transportation department was directed to produce the certified payroll records, redacting only the specific categories of information the statute allows.

Arrest reports and criminal history records. (a) Arrest reports. The following chronologically maintained arrest and criminal history information maintained by State or local criminal justice agencies shall be furnished as soon as practical, but in no event later than 72 hours after the arrest, notwithstanding the time limits otherwise provided for in Section 3 of this Act: (i) information that identifies the individual, including the name, age, address, and photograph, when and if available; (ii) information detailing any charges relating to the arrest; (iii) the time and location of the arrest; (iv) the name of the investigating or arresting law enforcement agency; (v) (blank); and (vi) if the individual is incarcerated, the time and date that the individual was received into, discharged from, or transferred from the arresting agency's custody. (b) Criminal history records. The following documents maintained by a public body pertaining to criminal history record information are public records subject to inspection and copying by the public pursuant to this Act: (i) court records that are public; (ii) records that are otherwise available under State or local law; and (iii) records in which the requesting party is the individual identified, except as provided under Section 7(1)(d)(vi). (c) Information described in items (iii) through (vi) of subsection (a) may be withheld if it is determined that disclosure would: (i) interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by any law enforcement agency; (ii) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement or correctional personnel or any other person; or (iii) compromise the security of any correctional facility. (d) The provisions of this Section do not supersede the confidentiality provisions for law enforcement or arrest records of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (e) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (a), a law enforcement agency may not publish booking photographs, commonly known as "mugshots", on its social networking website in connection with civil offenses, petty offenses, business offenses, Class C misdemeanors, and Class B misdemeanors unless the booking photograph is posted to the social networking website to assist in the search for a missing person or to assist in the search for a fugitive, person of interest, or individual wanted in relation to a crime other than a petty offense, business offense, Class C misdemeanor, or Class B misdemeanor. As used in this subsection, "social networking website" has the meaning provided in Section 10 of the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act. (Source: P.A. 101-433, eff. 8-20-19; 101-652, eff. 1-1-23; 102-1104, eff. 1-1-23.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 2.15: 1 · 2.15(c) (Arrest-report details may be withheld if disclosure would interfere with law enforcement, endanger safety, or compromise facility security): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Section 2.15 of FOIA Requires Disclosure of Arrest Reports.
The requester, a member of the public, sought the arrest records of four named individuals and a gunshot residue test report, which a police department denied in full as protected criminal history information and an invasion of privacy. The Public Access Counselor held that section 2.15(a) of FOIA affirmatively requires disclosure of specified arrest and criminal history information, that neither cited state law prohibited disclosure, and that the strong public interest in arrest information outweighed any privacy interest. The department was directed to disclose the required arrest information, subject to permitted redactions of other private information; its denial of the gunshot residue report it did not possess was upheld.

Determination letters

Winnebago County Sheriff's Office improperly denied dashcam footage under FOIA exemption 2.15(c)
A reporter requested dashcam footage and police records from the Winnebago County Sheriff's Office regarding a fatal crash. The Sheriff's Office denied the request, citing a pending post-sentencing motion. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau determined the denial was improper because the Sheriff's Office did not show how disclosure would interfere with the pending proceeding at this post-conviction stage, and much of the requested records were not among the types of arrest report information that could be withheld under section 2.15(c). The Attorney General requested the Sheriff's Office to release the records subject to redactions for private information.

Settlement and severance agreements. All settlement and severance agreements entered into by or on behalf of a public body are public records subject to inspection and copying by the public, provided that information exempt from disclosure under Section 7 of this Act may be redacted. (Source: P.A. 99-478, eff. 6-1-16 .)

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

City of Des Plaines must disclose unredacted settlement agreements under FOIA
The requester, a newspaper editor, sought copies of settlement agreements resolving two employee lawsuits against a city, and the city disclosed the agreements but redacted the specific settlement dollar amounts as risk-management claims information. The Public Access Counselor held that the exemption protects only an insurance pool's proprietary claims-management policies and procedures, not the amount paid to settle an individual claim, and that settlement agreements must otherwise be disclosed in full under FOIA's settlement-agreement provision. The city was directed to furnish unredacted copies of the settlement agreements.

Demolition, repair, enclosure, or remediation records. Demolition, repair, enclosure, or remediation records submitted to a county under Section 5-1121 of the Counties Code or a municipality under Section 11-31-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code are public records subject to inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of this Act; except that contractors' employees' addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers must be redacted by the public body prior to disclosure. (Source: P.A. 102-847, eff. 5-13-22.)

(from Ch. 116, par. 203)

(a) Each public body shall make available to any person for inspection or copying all public records, except as otherwise provided in Sections 7 and 8.5 of this Act. Notwithstanding any other law, a public body may not grant to any person or entity, whether by contract, license, or otherwise, the exclusive right to access and disseminate any public record as defined in this Act. (b) Subject to the fee provisions of Section 6 of this Act, each public body shall promptly provide, to any person who submits a request, a copy of any public record required to be disclosed by subsection (a) of this Section and shall certify such copy if so requested. (c) Requests for inspection or copies shall be made in writing and directed to the public body. Written requests may be submitted to a public body via personal delivery, mail, telefax, or other means available to the public body. Electronic requests under this Section must appear in their entirety within the body of the electronic submission. As a cybersecurity measure, no public body shall be required to open electronically attached files or hyperlinks to view or access details of a request. A public body that receives a request that would require the public body to open hyperlinks or attached files shall, within 5 business days, notify the requester of the requirement that the entirety of an electronic request must appear within the body of the electronic submission. A public body may honor oral requests for inspection or copying. A public body may not require that a request be submitted on a standard form or require the requester to specify the purpose for a request, except to determine whether the records are requested for a commercial purpose or whether to grant a request for a fee waiver. All requests for inspection and copying received by a public body shall immediately be forwarded to its Freedom of Information officer or designee. (d) Each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section. Denial shall be in writing as provided in Section 9 of this Act. Failure to comply with a written request, extend the time for response, or deny a request within 5 business days after its receipt shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the requisite periods in this Section but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for such copies. A public body that fails to respond to a request received may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g). (e) The time for response under this Section may be extended by the public body for not more than 5 business days from the original due date for any of the following reasons: (i) the requested records are stored in whole or in part at other locations than the office having charge of the requested records; (ii) the request requires the collection of a substantial number of specified records; (iii) the request is couched in categorical terms and requires an extensive search for the records responsive to it; (iv) the requested records have not been located in the course of routine search and additional efforts are being made to locate them; (v) the requested records require examination and evaluation by personnel having the necessary competence and discretion to determine if they are exempt from disclosure under Section 7 of this Act or should be revealed only with appropriate deletions; (vi) the request for records cannot be complied with by the public body within the time limits prescribed by subsection (d) of this Section without unduly burdening or interfering with the operations of the public body; (vii) there is a need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another public body or among 2 or more components of a public body having a substantial interest in the determination or in the subject matter of the request. The person making a request and the public body may agree in writing to extend the time for compliance for a period to be determined by the parties. If the requester and the public body agree to extend the period for compliance, a failure by the public body to comply with any previous deadlines shall not be treated as a denial of the request for the records. (f) When additional time is required for any of the above reasons, the public body shall, within 5 business days after receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of the reasons for the extension and the date by which the response will be forthcoming. Failure to respond within the time permitted for extension shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the time permitted for extension but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for those copies. A public body that requests an extension and subsequently fails to respond to the request may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g). (g) Requests calling for all records falling within a category shall be complied with unless compliance with the request would be unduly burdensome for the complying public body and there is no way to narrow the request and the burden on the public body outweighs the public interest in the information. Before invoking this exemption, the public body shall extend to the person making the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions. If any public body responds to a categorical request by stating that compliance would unduly burden its operation and the conditions described above are met, it shall do so in writing, specifying the reasons why it would be unduly burdensome and the extent to which compliance will so burden the operations of the public body. Such a response shall be treated as a denial of the request for information. Repeated requests from the same person for the same records that are unchanged or identical to records previously provided or properly denied under this Act shall be deemed unduly burdensome under this provision. (h) Each public body may promulgate rules and regulations in conformity with the provisions of this Section pertaining to the availability of records and procedures to be followed, including: (i) the times and places where such records will be made available, and (ii) the persons from whom such records may be obtained. (i) The time periods for compliance or denial of a request to inspect or copy records set out in this Section shall not apply to requests for records made for a commercial purpose, requests by a recurrent requester, or voluminous requests. Such requests shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.6 of this Act, as applicable. (j) Within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, a public body that has a reasonable belief that a request was not submitted by a person may require the requester to verify orally or in writing that the requester is a person. The deadline for the public body to respond to the request shall be tolled until the requester verifies that he or she is a person. If the requester fails to verify that he or she is a person within 30 days after the public body requests such a verification, then the public body may deny the request. For purposes of this subsection (j), a public body may not require the requester to submit personal information, private information, or identifying information to verify that the requester is a person. (Source: P.A. 104-438, eff. 1-1-26.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 3: 183 · 3(d): 36 · 3(a): 19 · 3(g) (Unduly burdensome categorical request (may be denied if it can't be narrowed and the burden outweighs the public interest)): 11 · 3(e): 6 · 3(b): 4 · 3(f): 1 · 3(c): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Under Section 3(d) of FOIA, Public Bodies Must Respond to a Request for Records Within Five Business Days After Receipt of the Request
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of school-level statistics on student discipline and police involvement from a school district, which acknowledged the request but never issued a proper written response within the required five business days, instead only partially replying weeks later after the requester escalated to the Public Access Counselor. The Attorney General held that the school district's delay amounted to a denial by operation of law, and that because it failed to properly extend the response time or assert an undue-burden objection, it could not later charge fees or treat the request as unduly burdensome. The school district was directed to fully comply with the original request.

Classification as a "Recurrent Requester" under Section 2(g) of FOIA
A village government classified the requester and her spouse as "recurrent requesters" under FOIA's newly enacted volume-based thresholds, based on the combined number of records requests the two had submitted, and responded on a 21-business-day timeline instead of the standard five days. The Public Access Counselor held that the village improperly aggregated the requester's and her spouse's separate requests into a single count, that neither individually nor combined did their submissions meet any of the statutory recurrent-requester thresholds, and that the village further violated FOIA's notice requirements by failing to explain its reasoning within the required timeframe. The village government was directed to stop treating the requester's future submissions as recurrent-requester requests absent a proper statutory basis.

Disclosure of Records Pertaining to Arrests and Police Reports
The requester, a journalist, sought police incident reports and related records concerning an arrest of a local public official, which a police department withheld entirely, citing a personal-privacy exemption and denying that an arrest had actually occurred. The Public Access Counselor's own review of the records showed that an arrest had in fact taken place, triggering FOIA's specific arrest-disclosure provisions, and found that the subject's privacy interest was outweighed by the strong public interest in arrest information generally and in how law enforcement handled the incident. The police department was directed to release the records, subject only to redaction of statutorily defined private information, since it failed to prove the withheld material was otherwise exempt.

Disclosure of All Non-Exempt Portions of Requested Records
The requester sought copies of FOIA denial letters that a forest preserve district had issued citing a particular law-enforcement exemption, and the district produced heavily redacted copies, withholding not only private information but also material it deemed unrelated to the request. The Public Access Counselor held that because the request sought entire letters rather than specific information within them, the district could withhold only genuinely exempt content, properly redacting personal identifiers, but could not redact other material simply because it viewed that material as outside the scope of the request. The forest preserve district was directed to release the letters in full except for the properly redacted private information.

Production of Records to the Public Access Counselor
The requester sought a state licensing agency's complete investigative file on a real estate licensee, after the agency had previously been directed, in response to an earlier related request, to release the same file for failing to prove it was exempt, but did not comply. The agency again refused to respond to the new request, refused to provide the Public Access Counselor with copies of the records for review, and continued to assert without adequate support that the file was exempt as an investigative, confidential, or law-enforcement record. The Public Access Counselor held that the agency violated FOIA's response deadlines, notice requirements, and its duty to cooperate with review, and again directed it to produce the file, redacting only genuinely private third-party information.

Disclosure of Records Relating to the Death of a Minor
The requester, a journalist, sought investigative records concerning the police shooting of a minor, which a state agency withheld in full, primarily citing juvenile-confidentiality provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. The Public Access Counselor held that those provisions apply only to arrested or court-involved juveniles, not to a minor who died during the encounter and was never taken into custody, and found the agency's broader privacy objections unsupported, though it allowed redaction of unique identifiers, identifying information about surviving family members, and post-mortem photographs. The state agency was directed to release the remaining records, including the substantive investigative, autopsy, and toxicology materials, since the public interest in a full accounting of the shooting outweighed the narrower privacy interests actually established.

Judicial Inquiry Board is Not a "Public Body" to which FOIA is Applicable
The requester sought records from a state judicial oversight board concerning the circumstances of a former judge's removal from the bench, and the board declined to respond, asserting it was not subject to FOIA at all because it operates as part of the judicial branch. The Public Access Counselor agreed, holding that FOIA's definition of "public body" covers only legislative, executive, and administrative bodies and specifically excludes the judiciary, and that the board's investigatory role in judicial discipline places it squarely within the judicial branch. Because the board is not subject to FOIA in the first place, no violation occurred and the request for review was denied.

‘ Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought a school district's emergency management plans and related records, and the school district never responded at all, either to comply, deny, or extend the deadline within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the school district's total failure to respond constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The school district was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue timely responses to future requests.

Disclosure of Student Test Scores and the Illinois School Student Records Act
The requester sought de-identified fourth-grade math test scores from a school district, and the school district refused, first claiming the underlying student-privacy law made the data exempt entirely, then claiming that redacting and scrambling the scores so no student could be identified would amount to creating a new record it wasn't required to produce. The Public Access Counselor rejected both arguments, holding that a record with individually identifying information removed is no longer covered by student-records confidentiality law, and that redacting or reordering existing data does not create a new record under settled Illinois case law, even when the school district's own reporting software could not do so electronically. The school district was directed to provide the de-identified scores in the format requested or another format the requester had agreed to accept.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought village hall surveillance footage, police department records, meeting minutes, and building access logs, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor over several months. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a village government's financial records, including its checkbook register, treasurer's reports, and attorney invoices, and the village never responded at all, despite the Public Access Counselor's follow-up inquiry going unanswered as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, also finding the village appeared to lack a properly designated FOIA officer as the law requires. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, designate and identify a FOIA officer, and post the required public notice of its request procedures.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of travel and credit-card expense records for a public university's board members and president, later amending the request to broaden its scope, and the university never responded to either version despite repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's silence on the amended request constituted a denial under FOIA, since the requester had explicitly superseded his original request with the amended one. The university was directed to produce all records responsive to the amended request, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Records Relating to a Public Body's Internal Investigation into an Employee's Conduct
The requester, a journalist, sought police and internal-investigation records concerning an off-duty car accident involving a police department's assistant chief, and the city government withheld the underlying investigative materials, arguing they related to an "adjudication" of a disciplinary case and were therefore exempt. The Public Access Counselor held that an informal internal inquiry that never proceeded to a formal adjudicatory hearing does not qualify as an "adjudication" under the narrow exemption the city invoked, and that related records such as the traffic citation and witness accounts were independently public regardless of the investigation. The city government was directed to release the withheld investigative and citation records, subject only to permissible redactions for private information.

Duty to Furnish Non-Exempt Records and to Issue a Written Denial For Any Records Not Provided
The requester, a journalist, submitted five detailed requests to a city government for records concerning a defunct development project, including financial records, contracts, and loan documents, and the city produced only a small fraction of what was sought without formally denying the rest or negotiating any extension. The Public Access Counselor held that the city's partial, unexplained response constituted a denial under FOIA, since it neither complied fully, properly extended its deadline, nor issued the required written denial identifying which records were being withheld and why. The city government was directed to produce all remaining non-exempt records and to provide a proper written explanation for any records it withholds.

Records in the Possession of the Governing Body of a Charter School that Pertain to Public Business Are Public Records
A requester with a news organization asked a charter school network for records about school construction contracts, invoices, and board minutes, including some records held by the network's closely related nonprofit parent organization. The charter school network turned over some records but claimed it had no other responsive records, arguing it was legally separate from its parent organization and did not possess or control the rest. The Attorney General's office found that the two organizations shared the same leadership, offices, and recordkeeping systems and operated as essentially the same entity for purposes of running the charter schools, so records held by the parent organization (and by contractors hired to build the schools) counted as public records of the charter school network. Because these records related to the use of public funds to build public schools, the PAC ordered the charter school network to produce all responsive records held by itself, its parent organization, and their vendors.

Statistical Data is Not Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)() of FOIA
The requester sought monthly Uniform Crime Report statistics that a city's police department had submitted to a state police agency for 2012 and 2013. The state police agency withheld the records entirely, arguing they were "preliminary" because the underlying numbers had not yet been verified and could later be revised, and that this made them exempt as deliberative material under the FOIA exemption for preliminary drafts, notes, and records in which opinions are expressed or policies are formulated. The PAC held that this exemption protects the deliberative process, not purely factual or statistical data, and that the crime statistics did not reveal any agency decision-making or reasoning—only numbers reported by the local police department. Because the possibility that data might later be corrected does not make it "preliminary" or deliberative in the legal sense, the PAC found the withholding improper and ordered the records released, noting the agency could simply flag the data as unverified.

Duty to Provide "Clear and Convincing" Evidence to Support Assertion of Exemptions; Possibility of Obtaining Public Records through Discovery Does Not Preclude FOIA Requests
The requester asked the police department for a copy of a specific police report, but the department denied the request, claiming disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and could deprive someone of a fair trial. The department also argued the requester should instead obtain the report through court discovery procedures. The PAC held that the department's justifications were vague and conclusory, failing to show by clear and convincing evidence that either exemption applied, and further explained that the availability of records through discovery does not eliminate a person's separate right to obtain records under FOIA. As a result, the PAC directed the department to release the report, subject only to limited redactions for private information and confidential source information.

Public Records in the Possession of a Contractor Performing a Governmental Function for a Public Body Are Public Records of the Public Body; A Public Body May Not Charge a Requester Fees for the Contractor to Locate and Retrieve Such Public Records in a Non-Commercial Request
The requester sought records related to a sidewalk/curb improvement project from the village government, including bid documents, payroll reports, and correspondence with the project's engineering firm. The village government said it did not possess many of these records because they were held by its private engineering contractor, and demanded payment of over $1,100 in estimated labor costs before it would obtain and release them. The PAC held that because the engineering firm was performing a governmental function on the village government's behalf, the records it held were legally public records of the village government, and that state law bars public bodies from charging non-commercial requesters for search, review, or other personnel costs, even when those costs are incurred through a contractor. As a result, the PAC found the village government improperly denied the request and ordered it to provide the withheld records without conditioning release on payment of those fees.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of a law firm's legal billing invoices from the city government for the past calendar year, but the city withheld them entirely, citing exemptions for attorney-client privileged communications, collective bargaining matters, and (later) records related to employee disciplinary adjudications. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau held that the city violated FOIA by withholding the invoices in full, finding that only specific descriptive entries revealing privileged legal advice or specific collective-bargaining strategy could be redacted, while general billing information—dates, attorney initials, hours, amounts billed, and general task descriptions—was not exempt and had to be disclosed. The PAC also rejected the disciplinary-adjudication exemption, reasoning that billing invoices exist independently of any disciplinary proceeding and are not themselves part of an adjudicatory process. The city government was directed to release the invoices with only narrowly tailored redactions.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester sought copies of settlement agreements from the county board, but the county board withheld some of them, citing confidentiality provisions within the agreements and arguing that release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA because the agreements resolved sexual harassment complaints. The Public Access Counselor held that settlement agreements are public records under FOIA and that confidentiality clauses within them are unenforceable because they conflict with the statute's plain language and legislative intent favoring disclosure. The PAC also found the privacy exemption inapplicable because the withheld documents did not describe the underlying allegations, and because the public's constitutional and statutory interest in knowing how public funds are spent outweighed any privacy interest the complainants had. As a result, the county board was directed to release the settlement agreements, subject only to redaction of private information under section 7(1)(b).

Duty to Disclose Public Records in the Possession of a Public Body
The requester sought records showing how much money was collected during a university's homecoming dance and how those funds were handled. The university denied the request, arguing the records belonged to its Student Government Association, which it claimed was not a "public body" subject to FOIA. The PAC held that this argument was irrelevant, because the records were in the university's possession and control—held in a university-controlled account and overseen by university staff—and therefore pertained to the transaction of public business by the university itself. The PAC ruled that the university violated FOIA and ordered it to release the records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Records Documenting Public Funds Paid to Entities Pursuant to Contracts For Performance of A Governmental Function Are Subject to Disclosure
The requester sought copies of the state lottery agency's marketing and advertising contracts, specifically the pricing structure and hourly rates, but the agency's private lottery manager redacted the financial terms, citing exemptions for information barred by other state law and for confidential commercial/financial information that could cause competitive harm. The PAC held that neither exemption applied: the financial terms did not qualify as "confidential data" under the Lottery Law's narrow exception, and because the figures represented the cost of publicly funded services, they were expressly subject to disclosure as records relating to the use of public funds, with no adequate showing of competitive harm to support withholding them as trade secrets. The PAC also found that confidentiality agreements between the manager and its contractors could not override this public disclosure duty, since those agreements themselves allowed for disclosure under a binding governmental order. The agency was directed to release the full financial terms, including contract totals, hourly rates, and any commissions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests; Duty to Conduct Reasonable Search for Responsive Records; Duty to Disclose Public Records; A Public Body That Fails to Respond Within the Requisite Period May Not Treat Request as Unduly Burdensome
The requester sought records from the school district showing proceeds from ticket sales at athletic events during the 2013-2014 school year, along with contracts and eligibility sheets that were resolved separately. The school district failed to respond within the statutory deadline, then claimed it had no uniform way to track ticket revenue and that producing individual schools' paper records would be unduly burdensome. The Illinois Public Access Counselor held that the school district violated FOIA by failing to respond on time, by failing to conduct an adequate search (including checking records maintained by individual schools and its internal accounts system), and by withholding records it acknowledged existed. Because the school district did not respond promptly or offer the requester a chance to narrow the request, it was barred from later claiming the request was unduly burdensome, and it was directed to search all relevant recordkeeping systems and turn over the responsive records.

Disclosure of Photographs of a Former Auxiliary Deputy Sheriff
The requester sought photographs of a former auxiliary deputy from the sheriff's department. The sheriff's department denied the request, arguing the photographs were exempt "private information" because they contained "biometric identifiers." The Public Access Counselor found that the photographs were general in nature and did not focus on any unique physical attribute used to identify a person, so they did not qualify as biometric identifiers under the common meaning of that term. Because FOIA's definition of "public records" specifically includes photographs, and the exemption for "private information" did not, the PAC concluded the sheriff's department violated FOIA and ordered the photographs to be disclosed.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester submitted four separate FOIA requests to the city government seeking records about contracts, permits, payments, and licenses connected to certain individuals and businesses, as well as records about a nightclub and a federal subpoena matter. The Attorney General's office found that the city government failed to respond to any of the four requests within the required five business days, did not properly extend the deadlines, and did not issue written denials, all in violation of the law's response requirements. Because the city government never provided an explanation despite repeated inquiries, the PAC issued a binding opinion ordering it to turn over the records (with only lawful redactions) and to respond properly to future requests, noting that its failure to respond also barred it from charging copying fees or calling the requests unduly burdensome.

Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Search for Responsive Records; Repeat Requests Under Section 3(g)
The requester sought records concerning a village clerk's participation in a conference, including communications, billing records, contribution documentation, and expense records. The village government responded that it had no responsive records and also claimed part of the request was unduly burdensome under section 3(g) because it was a repeat of an earlier request that had allegedly been "properly denied." The PAC found that the village government violated FOIA in multiple ways: it failed to show it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, especially since it had previously been directed to search for similar records and never complied; its section 3(g) burden claim failed because the prior request had not actually been "properly denied" (the earlier denial itself had been found improper); and it improperly withheld responsive records it later disclosed to the PAC without showing any exemption applied. The village government was ordered to conduct a proper search and disclose all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Photocopies of Records Deemed Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)(e-5)
An incarcerated requester asked the corrections department for photocopies of certain administrative directives that were already available for inspection in the correctional facility's library. The corrections department denied the request under a FOIA exemption covering records requested by inmates that are available in the facility library, and the requester argued this exemption shouldn't apply because inmates weren't allowed to photocopy the library materials themselves. The Public Access Counselor upheld the denial, finding that the exemption only requires that inmates have access to inspect the records in the library, not that they be permitted to make or receive photocopies, based on the legislative history showing the exemption was meant to relieve the department of the burden of copying records already available to inmates through the library.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a newspaper reporter, submitted a records request to the city government seeking permit, licensing, and inspection records related to a specific business entity. The city government never responded—did not comply with, extend the time for, or deny the request within five business days, and did not even respond to the Public Access Bureau's inquiries during the review process. The PAC held that under the Freedom of Information Act, a public body's failure to timely respond is itself treated as a denial, and ordered the city government to produce the responsive records (with only permissible redactions) and to respond promptly to future requests. Because the city government failed to respond within the required timeframe, it was also barred from charging copying fees or claiming the request was unduly burdensome.

Disclosure of Résumé and Job Application of Public Employee
The requester sought a copy of an employee's résumé and job application from the village government, which denied the request by claiming the records were exempt as private personal information, as material prohibited from disclosure under the Personnel Record Review Act, and as deliberative material. The PAC held that the records were not exempt: they bear on the employee's qualifications and public duties, the public has a strong interest in verifying that hiring complied with applicable laws, and this interest outweighed the employee's privacy concerns, since the information was factual and presented favorably rather than embarrassing. The PAC also found the Personnel Record Review Act only bars disclosure of performance evaluations (not résumés or applications), and that the records were purely factual rather than deliberative, so the village government was ordered to release the records, redacting only truly private identifying details like a signature, home address, and phone numbers.

Disclosure of Terms of Lease Agreements for the Rental of Public Property
The requester asked a public authority that operates a large convention center for copies of lease agreements covering convention and trade show space, including the rental prices and square footage for each deal. The authority refused, arguing the records were confidential commercial or financial information that would cause competitive harm if disclosed, that they were exempt as valuable formulae, and that compiling and redacting hundreds of leases would be unduly burdensome. The Attorney General's office held that the pricing and square footage terms did not qualify for these exemptions—partly because the authority itself, not an outside business, generated the terms through negotiation, and partly because such financial information relates to the public body's receipt of public funds, which is specifically made subject to disclosure under the Illinois Constitution and FOIA. Because the withheld information wasn't legally exempt, the claimed burden of redacting it didn't justify denying the request, and the authority was ordered to let the requester review the unredacted lease terms.

Determination letters

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 fee for DVD under administrative rule
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department could not charge this fee because it was based on an administrative rule rather than a specific state law. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the cost of the DVD.

Chicago Transit Authority improperly withheld Bombardier component percentages in Buy America audit
A requester sought detailed audit information about the manufacturing origins of railcar components for a Chicago Transit Authority project. The Attorney General's office determined that the CTA properly withheld the percentages of components from suppliers other than Bombardier, but improperly withheld the percentages of components supplied by Bombardier. The CTA also properly withheld the percentages and subcomponents in the Buy America Compliance Certificates, but improperly withheld the Description of Work in the Post-Delivery Audit.

Madison County Treasurer's Office not required to create website usage report
The requester sought the number of page views and time spent on two websites by computers in the treasurer's office. The PAC determined that the request sought general data scattered across computers rather than an identifiable existing record, and FOIA does not require a public body to compile data it does not already keep in that form. The department's denial did not violate FOIA.

PAC cannot review Illinois Department of Revenue's commercial-purpose FOIA denial
Mr. Vertin requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue for his business. Because the request was for a commercial purpose, the Attorney General's office stated it does not have the legal authority to review the Department's denial. The requester must instead pursue the matter through a lawsuit in court.

PAC lacks authority to review commercial-purpose FOIA denial by IL Dept of Revenue
A business owner requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue, but the Department denied the request. When the requester asked the Attorney General's office to intervene, the office declined because the request was for a commercial purpose. Under Illinois law, the Public Access Counselor does not have the authority to resolve disputes involving commercial FOIA requests.

First Fire Protection District improperly withheld budget documents under 7(1)(f)
A citizen requested a budget document that was presented during a public fire district meeting. The district refused to release it, claiming it was a 'preliminary draft' that might confuse the public. The Attorney General's office disagreed, ruling that the district did not provide enough evidence to justify keeping the document secret and ordered them to release it.

Illinois Department of Corrections must disclose contractor-held prescription drug records
A reporter requested records of prescription drug orders made by the Illinois Department of Corrections through private vendors. The Attorney General's office ruled that the Department must get these records from its vendor and provide them to the reporter. The Department is allowed to remove personal information that would identify specific inmates to protect their medical privacy.

University of Illinois properly withheld animal medical records but improperly redacted protocol names
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 signatures and personal emergency-contact numbers were properly redacted. The university was directed to disclose the remaining redacted information.

Park Ridge-Niles SD 64 improperly redacted teacher disciplinary settlement records
A reporter requested records regarding a teacher's disciplinary settlement, but the school district blacked out too much information. The Attorney General's office ruled that the district must release the records, only redacting the names of students to protect their privacy. This ensures the public can understand the reasons for the settlement while keeping student identities private.

Proper University properly withheld internal audit report under exemption 7(1)(c)
The requester sought a copy of an internal audit report about a contractor's compliance with contract-timeline requirements, which a public college withheld as an internal-audit record. The requester argued that because the college had previously furnished the audit to its accreditation commission, the college improperly granted the commission an exclusive right to the record and waived the internal-audit exemption. The PAC determined the record was properly exempt as an internal audit, that the college's compulsory, confidentiality-protected disclosure to the accreditation commission did not give it any right to disseminate the record, and that no waiver occurred; the college's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Elmhurst SD 205 improperly withheld some emails under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(f)
The requester sought emails between the school district superintendent and a high school principal, and between the district and a parent, concerning complaints about morning announcements, which the district withheld under the deliberative-process and personal-privacy exemptions. The PAC determined that most Superintendent-Principal emails were properly withheld as predecisional, but two reflecting a final decision were not, and that the parent's emails were not inter- or intra-agency communications and must be released with only the parent's name, contact information, and references to her children redacted. The district was directed to release the improperly withheld and redacted materials accordingly.

Village of Lemont violated FOIA by directing requester to website for records not reasonably accessible online
A requester asked the Village of Lemont for a large volume of property records, but the Village only provided a website link and claimed the rest of the request was too burdensome. The Attorney General's office ruled that the Village could not simply point to a website for records that were not actually available online. The Village was required to provide copies of the specific documents that were not reasonably accessible through their website.

City of Bloomington improperly withheld police disciplinary records under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c)
A requester asked for 10 years of disciplinary records and citizen complaints for three specific police officers. The City of Bloomington refused to provide some of these records, claiming they were either too old or protected by privacy laws. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the City's refusal to release the records was improper.

Cook County Sheriff's Office violated FOIA by retroactively calling request voluminous
A requester sought reports and security-camera footage relating to numerous grievances from a county sheriff's office. The PAC determined that the office properly treated the request as voluminous because it involved more than 500 pages, but violated FOIA by waiting too long to notify the requester that it was doing so. Because the office later provided the first 50 pages without charge and FOIA provides no specific remedy for a late voluminous-request notice, no further remedial action was required.

Lake County Sheriff's Office properly treated colleague FOIA requests as same-person repeated requests
Mr. John Kraft argued that he should not be considered the same person as his colleague when submitting FOIA requests, which would have prevented the Sheriff's Office from denying his request as a 'repeated' one. The Attorney General's office disagreed, finding that because both men work for the same organization, they count as the same 'person' under the law. Consequently, the Sheriff's Office was allowed to deny the request as a repeated, unduly burdensome submission.

Illinois AG's Office conducted reasonable search, properly applied 7(1)(f) exemption
Two legal groups, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, jointly requested emails and correspondence between the Illinois and New York Attorney General offices. The Public Access Bureau (PAC) reviewed the request and concluded that the Illinois Attorney General's Office conducted a reasonable search for the records and did not improperly withhold records that it asserted were exempt under FOIA.

Illinois State Board of Investment improperly redacted consultant report shared at open meeting
A journalist requested nine categories of investment records from a public pension investment board, three of which he sought review of after the board denied or redacted them. The PAC found the board's refusal to answer a vague question about a specific investment did not violate FOIA, but that most of the board's trade-secret and privacy redactions to a consultant's report were improper given the report had already been shared at an open meeting, and that a private accounting firm's audit report did not qualify as an internal-audit record exempt from disclosure. The board was directed to release the improperly withheld and redacted records.

Village of Pingree Grove properly denied unduly burdensome calendar request
A citizen requested three years of calendar records from a village official. The village argued that reviewing nearly 7,000 appointments was too burdensome, and the Attorney General's office agreed, closing the case without requiring the village to provide the records.

Village of Cambridge violated FOIA by not providing electronic copies of records
A citizen requested several years of financial and administrative documents from the Village of Cambridge. The Attorney General's office found that the Village violated FOIA by failing to provide electronic copies of records it maintained electronically, but its response was proper for records kept only in hardcopy. The Village's fee schedule—first 50 pages free, then $0.15 per page—was found to comply with FOIA. The Village was directed to provide the electronic records and to inform the requester of the cost for hardcopy records.

Perry County Sheriff's Office did not violate FOIA over former employee's personal records
A citizen requested records about a former deputy, including private text messages and emails. The Attorney General's office found that the Sheriff's Office did not break the law because they provided all the records they actually had and tried to ask the former employee for the personal records, even though they lacked the legal power to force him to turn them over.

Central School District No. 104 improperly withheld notice to remedy for teacher performance
A newspaper requested a notice to remedy that was attached to a school board resolution, but the district withheld it, claiming it was a confidential performance evaluation. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau ruled that the notice to remedy is not a 'performance evaluation' under the School Code or the Personnel Record Review Act because it addresses specific instances of misconduct rather than a comprehensive periodic evaluation. Therefore, the district improperly denied the request.

Chicago Public Schools improperly redacted student cell size data under privacy exemptions
A reporter asked Chicago Public Schools for data showing which grammar schools students came from to attend selective high schools. The school district hid some of the numbers, claiming that showing small groups of students might reveal their identities. The Attorney General's office concluded that the district improperly redacted that information.

Village of Skokie improperly withheld police records and 9-1-1 recordings under 7(1)(b) etc
A reporter requested police records and 9-1-1 calls related to a high-profile crime, but the Village of Skokie denied the request entirely, citing exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the case and concluded that the Village did not meet its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records were exempt from disclosure. The Bureau determined that the Village improperly denied the requested records in their entireties.

Macoupin County Sheriff's Department properly denied jail security records under 7(1)(d)(vi)
A former employee of the Macoupin County Sheriff's Department requested copies of the department's annual jail inspection report for 2017 and electronic records of security rounds from 2015 to support a potential legal claim. The Sheriff's Department initially denied the request for the round records under section 2.15(c) of FOIA and stated that the 2017 inspection report had not yet been created. After review, the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the round records were exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA, because releasing the detailed staffing and location information could endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person. The Bureau also noted that FOIA does not require public bodies to answer questions or create records in response to a request.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources improperly conditioned FOIA release on data license agreement
A requester asked the Illinois Department of Natural Resources for records about the gating of Griffith Cave from 2013 to 2014. The Department provided some records but withheld others, and offered the requester a chance to view certain withheld information if he signed a Data License Agreement. The Public Access Bureau found that the Department did not meet its burden to justify withholding records under sections 7.5(aa) and 7(1)(i) of FOIA, and noted that FOIA does not allow a public body to decline to provide copies when copies are requested. The source document does not state a final ruling on the Data License Agreement issue.

Algonquin Township not required to respond to FOIA request sent to personal email
A citizen sent a public records request to a Township Clerk's personal email address instead of using the official Township email. The Attorney General's office ruled that because the request wasn't sent to the public body through an official channel, the Township was not legally required to respond. This means FOIA requests must be directed to the public body's official contact methods to be valid.

City of Chicago Department of Public Health improperly denied FOIA request as unduly burdensome
A requester asked the Chicago Department of Public Health for records about mental health center operations, but the City claimed the request was too broad and burdensome to fulfill. The Attorney General's office found that the City did not follow the correct legal steps to prove the request was burdensome. Consequently, the City was ordered to provide the requested records, subject to any appropriate redactions.

Chicago Police Department partially violated FOIA by not providing database reports
A requester asked the Chicago Police Department for case reports and a copy of the AIRA user manual. The Attorney General's office found that the police department improperly responded to the request for the case reports, concluding that the requester sought existing data from a database, not a new record. The determination does not address whether the police department properly withheld the AIRA manual; it only describes the department's claim of an exemption and the requester's dispute, without reaching a final conclusion on that item.

Village of East Dundee violated FOIA by improperly aggregating burden to deny request
A state representative asked the Village of East Dundee for emails from the Finance Director to the Village Administrator during a specific month. The Village denied the request, claiming it was unduly burdensome, and cited the burden of multiple related requests from other individuals. The Attorney General's office found that the Village violated FOIA because it improperly combined the burden of separate requests and failed to show that the burden of complying with the representative's individual request outweighed the public interest. The Village was asked to provide the responsive emails, subject to permissible redactions.

Illinois State Police improperly withheld investigation records under 7(1)(d)(iii)
A citizen requested records from the Illinois State Police about an investigation into local police officers. The State Police refused to release any of the documents, claiming it would prevent a fair trial. The Attorney General's office disagreed, ruling that the agency must release the records while redacting sensitive private information.

Court cases

Heinrich v. White (2012 IL App (2d) 110564)
The court reversed the dismissal of a FOIA request for administrative license revocation notices, holding that the trial court should have considered whether the plaintiff wanted the records with exempt information redacted and whether compliance would be unduly burdensome under 5 ILCS 140/3(g). The court affirmed that the public body is not required to create new documents, but remanded for further proceedings regarding the production of existing, redactable records.

Shehadeh v. Madigan (2013 IL App (4th) 120742)
The court affirmed summary judgment for the Attorney General, holding that a FOIA request requiring the review of 9,200 records was unduly burdensome under section 3(g). The court found that the Attorney General sufficiently explained the burden and that the requester's refusal to narrow the request did not preclude the agency from asserting the exemption.

Hites v. Waubonsee Community College (2018 IL App (2d) 170617)
The court held that the circuit court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the FOIA undue-burden exemption. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to meet the evidentiary requirements to prove that the burden of compliance outweighed the public interest in the requested electronic data.

Kraft v. Chicago Police Department (2022 IL App (1st) 211194-U)
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chicago Police Department. The court held that the department sufficiently established that the plaintiffs' FOIA requests were unduly burdensome under section 3(g) of the Act.

Trent Jacob Warren v. The Department of Corrections (2022 IL App (4th) 210667-U)
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the Department of Corrections properly denied the requests as unduly burdensome under section 3(g) because the records had already been provided to the plaintiff. The court concluded the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for a FOIA violation.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Requests for commercial purposes. (a) A public body shall respond to a request for records to be used for a commercial purpose within 21 working days after receipt. The response shall (i) provide to the requester an estimate of the time required by the public body to provide the records requested and an estimate of the fees to be charged, which the public body may require the person to pay in full before copying the requested documents, (ii) deny the request pursuant to one or more of the exemptions set out in this Act, (iii) notify the requester that the request is unduly burdensome and extend an opportunity to the requester to attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions, or (iv) provide the records requested. (b) Unless the records are exempt from disclosure, a public body shall comply with a request within a reasonable period considering the size and complexity of the request, and giving priority to records requested for non-commercial purposes. (c) It is a violation of this Act for a person to knowingly obtain a public record for a commercial purpose without disclosing that it is for a commercial purpose, if requested to do so by the public body. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Determination letters

Cook County Sheriff's Office did not violate FOIA by classifying SpotCrime.com as commercial requester
SpotCrime.com requested daily crime data from the Cook County Sheriff's Office, which the Sheriff's Office denied by classifying the requester as 'commercial and recurrent.' The Attorney General's office agreed with the Sheriff, finding that SpotCrime does not qualify as 'news media' under the law. This means the Sheriff's Office is allowed to follow the specific, more restrictive procedures for handling requests from commercial entities.

Recurrent requesters. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act to the contrary, a public body shall respond to a request from a recurrent requester, as defined in subsection (g) of Section 2, within 21 business days after receipt. The response shall (i) provide to the requester an estimate of the time required by the public body to provide the records requested and an estimate of the fees to be charged, which the public body may require the person to pay in full before copying the requested documents, (ii) deny the request pursuant to one or more of the exemptions set out in this Act, (iii) notify the requester that the request is unduly burdensome and extend an opportunity to the requester to attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions, or (iv) provide the records requested. (b) Within 5 business days after receiving a request from a recurrent requester, as defined in subsection (g) of Section 2, the public body shall notify the requester (i) that the public body is treating the request as a request under subsection (g) of Section 2, (ii) of the reasons why the public body is treating the request as a request under subsection (g) of Section 2, and (iii) that the public body will send an initial response within 21 business days after receipt in accordance with subsection (a) of this Section. The public body shall also notify the requester of the proposed responses that can be asserted pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section. (c) Unless the records are exempt from disclosure, a public body shall comply with a request within a reasonable period considering the size and complexity of the request. (Source: P.A. 97-579, eff. 8-26-11; 98-756, eff. 7-16-14.)

Determination letters

Cook County Sheriff's Office did not violate FOIA by classifying SpotCrime.com as commercial requester
SpotCrime.com requested daily crime data from the Cook County Sheriff's Office, which the Sheriff's Office denied by classifying the requester as 'commercial and recurrent.' The Attorney General's office agreed with the Sheriff, finding that SpotCrime does not qualify as 'news media' under the law. This means the Sheriff's Office is allowed to follow the specific, more restrictive procedures for handling requests from commercial entities.

City of Collinsville properly classified online publisher as recurrent requester, not news media
A citizen requested public records from the City of Collinsville, but the City treated them as a 'recurrent requester,' which allows for longer response times. The citizen argued they should be exempt from this status because they act as 'news media.' The Attorney General's office reviewed the evidence and decided the citizen did not qualify as news media, meaning the City's original decision was appropriate.

Mahomet Township improperly designated requester as recurrent requester
An individual requested public records from Mahomet Township, but the Township refused to process the requests normally by labeling the individual a 'recurrent requester.' The Attorney General's office found that the Township did not have enough requests to justify that label. The office requested that the Township refrain from treating the individual as a recurrent requester unless the legal requirements are actually met.

PAC closes case on Village of Woodridge recurrent requester response timeline
A requester complained that the Village of Woodridge took too long to respond to their FOIA request. The Attorney General's office explained that because the requester is classified as a 'recurrent requester' under Illinois law, the standard five-day response deadline does not apply. Therefore, the PAC closed the case without taking further action against the Village.

Chicago Transit Authority not required to retroactively amend requester identity to avoid recurrent designation
A requester asked the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to change their status as a 'recurrent requester' by claiming one of their previous requests was actually made on behalf of a non-profit group. The Attorney General's office ruled that the CTA was not required to accept this change after the fact. Consequently, the CTA's original designation stands, and the agency did not violate the law.

PAC takes no further action on journalist's challenge to recurrent requester status at IDHS and IDVA
A journalist requested records from two state agencies and challenged the agencies' decision to label them a 'recurrent requester,' which allows agencies more time to respond. The journalist argued that their professional status should exempt them from this classification. The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and decided not to take any further action, meaning the agencies' original handling of the requests stands.

Village of Orland Park partly misapplied recurrent requester threshold to FOIA requests
A requester challenged the Village of Orland Park for labeling him a 'recurrent requester,' which allows a public body more time to respond to FOIA requests. The Attorney General's office found that the Village did not have enough evidence to support the label for the first request, but did have enough for the second request. This means the Village must follow standard FOIA timelines for the first request but can use the extended recurrent requester timeline for the second.

This Act is not intended to compel public bodies to interpret or advise requesters as to the meaning or significance of the public records. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Determination letters

Quincy School District did not violate FOIA for not producing nonexistent documents
A requester asked a school district for copies of specific complaints and investigation reports mentioned in an old letter. The Attorney General's office found that the district did not have these records and was not required to explain or interpret the meaning of the old letter for the requester. Consequently, the district's refusal to provide the documents was not a violation of the law.

Freedom of Information officers. (a) Each public body shall designate one or more officials or employees to act as its Freedom of Information officer or officers. Except in instances when records are furnished immediately, Freedom of Information officers, or their designees, shall receive requests submitted to the public body under this Act, ensure that the public body responds to requests in a timely fashion, and issue responses under this Act. Freedom of Information officers shall develop a list of documents or categories of records that the public body shall immediately disclose upon request. Upon receiving a request for a public record, the Freedom of Information officer shall: (1) note the date the public body receives the written request; (2) compute the day on which the period for response will expire and make a notation of that date on the written request; (3) maintain an electronic or paper copy of a written request, including all documents submitted with the request until the request has been complied with or denied; and (4) create a file for the retention of the original request, a copy of the response, a record of written communications with the requester, and a copy of other communications. (b) All Freedom of Information officers shall, within 6 months after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly, successfully complete an electronic training curriculum to be developed by the Public Access Counselor and thereafter successfully complete an annual training program. Thereafter, whenever a new Freedom of Information officer is designated by a public body, that person shall successfully complete the electronic training curriculum within 30 days after assuming the position. Successful completion of the required training curriculum within the periods provided shall be a prerequisite to continue serving as a Freedom of Information officer. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Voluminous requests. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act to the contrary, a public body shall respond to a voluminous request within 5 business days after receipt. The response shall notify the requester: (i) that the public body is treating the request as a voluminous request; (ii) the reasons why the public body is treating the request as a voluminous request; (iii) that the requester must respond to the public body within 10 business days after the public body's response was sent and specify whether the requester would like to amend the request in such a way that the public body will no longer treat the request as a voluminous request; (iv) that if the requester does not respond within 10 business days or if the request continues to be a voluminous request following the requester's response, the public body will respond to the request and assess any fees the public body charges pursuant to Section 6 of this Act; (v) that the public body has 5 business days after receipt of the requester's response or 5 business days from the last day for the requester to amend his or her request, whichever is sooner, to respond to the request; (vi) that the public body may request an additional 10 business days to comply with the request; (vii) of the requester's right to review of the public body's determination by the Public Access Counselor and provide the address and phone number for the Public Access Counselor; and (viii) that if the requester fails to accept or collect the responsive records, the public body may still charge the requester for its response pursuant to Section 6 of this Act and the requester's failure to pay will be considered a debt due and owing to the public body and may be collected in accordance with applicable law. (b) A public body shall provide a person making a voluminous request 10 business days from the date the public body's response pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section is sent to amend the request in such a way that the public body will no longer treat the request as a voluminous request. (c) If a request continues to be a voluminous request following the requester's response under subsection (b) of this Section or the requester fails to respond, the public body shall respond within the earlier of 5 business days after it receives the response from the requester or 5 business days after the final day for the requester to respond to the public body's notification under this subsection. The response shall: (i) provide an estimate of the fees to be charged, which the public body may require the person to pay in full before copying the requested documents; (ii) deny the request pursuant to one or more of the exemptions set out in this Act; (iii) notify the requester that the request is unduly burdensome and extend an opportunity to the requester to attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions; or (iv) provide the records requested. (d) The time for response by the public body under subsection (c) of this Section may be extended by the public body for not more than 10 business days from the final day for the requester to respond to the public body's notification under subsection (c) of this Section for any of the reasons provided in subsection (e) of Section 3 of this Act. The person making a request and the public body may agree in writing to extend the time for compliance for a period to be determined by the parties. If the requester and the public body agree to extend the period for compliance, a failure by the public body to comply with any previous deadlines shall not be treated as a denial of the request for the records. (e) If a requester does not pay a fee charged pursuant to Section 6 of this Act for a voluminous request, the debt shall be considered a debt due and owing to the public body and may be collected in accordance with applicable law. This fee may be charged by the public body even if the requester fails to accept or collect records the public body has prepared in response to a voluminous request. (Source: P.A. 98-1129, eff. 12-3-14.)

Determination letters

Cook County Sheriff's Office violated FOIA by retroactively calling request voluminous
A requester sought reports and security-camera footage relating to numerous grievances from a county sheriff's office. The PAC determined that the office properly treated the request as voluminous because it involved more than 500 pages, but violated FOIA by waiting too long to notify the requester that it was doing so. Because the office later provided the first 50 pages without charge and FOIA provides no specific remedy for a late voluminous-request notice, no further remedial action was required.

Village of Matteson closed no further action on voluminous financial records request
A citizen requested detailed financial and contract records from the Village of Matteson. The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and decided that no further action was necessary, effectively closing the case without finding a violation.

Summit Hill SD 161 properly designated requests as voluminous under FOIA section 3.6
Two requesters asked Summit Hill School District 161 for emails between the Board President and Superintendent during specific time periods. The District designated them as recurrent requesters and their requests as voluminous, then denied the requests as unduly burdensome. The Illinois Attorney General's office issued a formal determination under FOIA section 9.5(f), concluding that the District properly designated the requests as voluminous because the 32 requests submitted by a group of individuals over five days constituted a combination of requests for more than five different categories of records within 20 business days. The office also found that the requesters met the definition of recurrent requesters, as they submitted 32 requests within a five-day period.

University of Illinois properly charged voluminous-request fee for electronic PDF file
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 once a request qualifies as voluminous, a public body may charge the statutory fee for the data size of the responsive electronic file regardless of whether it is produced in PDF or another format, since the fee schedule applies similarly to both. The Bureau found the Request for Review unfounded and closed the matter without ordering any relief.

Region 1 Planning Council properly classified multiple FOIA submissions as voluminous request
A requester challenged a government agency's decision to label their multiple information requests as a 'voluminous request,' which changes the timeline and fees for processing. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and found that the agency followed the law in its classification. Consequently, the case is closed with no finding of a violation.

Region 1 Planning Council properly classified FOIA requests as voluminous
The requester asked the Attorney General to review whether a government agency correctly labeled their information requests as 'voluminous.' The PAC found that the agency followed the law in how it grouped the requests and handled the process. Consequently, the PAC closed the file and took no further action against the agency.

(from Ch. 116, par. 204)

Each public body shall prominently display on its website, make available for inspection and copying, and send through the mail if requested, each of the following: (a) A brief description of itself, which will include, but not be limited to, a short summary of its purpose, a block diagram giving its functional subdivisions, the total amount of its operating budget, the number and location of all of its separate offices, the approximate number of full and part-time employees, and the identification and membership of any board, commission, committee, or council which operates in an advisory capacity relative to the operation of the public body, or which exercises control over its policies or procedures, or to which the public body is required to report and be answerable for its operations; and (b) A brief description of the methods whereby the public may request information and public records, a directory designating the Freedom of Information officer or officers, the address where requests for public records should be directed, and any fees allowable under Section 6 of this Act. If a public body does not maintain a website, it shall also post this information at each of its administrative or regional offices. (Source: P.A. 104-438, eff. 1-1-26.)

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a village government's financial records, including its checkbook register, treasurer's reports, and attorney invoices, and the village never responded at all, despite the Public Access Counselor's follow-up inquiry going unanswered as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, also finding the village appeared to lack a properly designated FOIA officer as the law requires. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, designate and identify a FOIA officer, and post the required public notice of its request procedures.

(from Ch. 116, par. 205)

As to public records prepared or received after the effective date of this Act, each public body shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying a reasonably current list of all types or categories of records under its control. The list shall be reasonably detailed in order to aid persons in obtaining access to public records pursuant to this Act. Each public body shall furnish upon request a description of the manner in which public records stored by means of electronic data processing may be obtained in a form comprehensible to persons lacking knowledge of computer language or printout format. (Source: P.A. 83-1013.)

(from Ch. 116, par. 206)

Authority to charge fees. (a) When a person requests a copy of a record maintained in an electronic format, the public body shall furnish it in the electronic format specified by the requester, if feasible. If it is not feasible to furnish the public records in the specified electronic format, then the public body shall furnish it in the format in which it is maintained by the public body, or in paper format at the option of the requester. A public body may charge the requester for the actual cost of purchasing the recording medium, whether disc, diskette, tape, or other medium. If a request is not a request for a commercial purpose or a voluminous request, a public body may not charge the requester for the costs of any search for and review of the records or other personnel costs associated with reproducing the records. Except to the extent that the General Assembly expressly provides, statutory fees applicable to copies of public records when furnished in a paper format shall not be applicable to those records when furnished in an electronic format. (a-5) If a voluminous request is for electronic records and those records are not in a portable document format (PDF), the public body may charge up to $20 for not more than 2 megabytes of data, up to $40 for more than 2 but not more than 4 megabytes of data, and up to $100 for more than 4 megabytes of data. If a voluminous request is for electronic records and those records are in a portable document format, the public body may charge up to $20 for not more than 80 megabytes of data, up to $40 for more than 80 megabytes but not more than 160 megabytes of data, and up to $100 for more than 160 megabytes of data. If the responsive electronic records are in both a portable document format and not in a portable document format, the public body may separate the fees and charge the requester under both fee scales. If a public body imposes a fee pursuant to this subsection (a-5), it must provide the requester with an accounting of all fees, costs, and personnel hours in connection with the request for public records. (b) Except when a fee is otherwise fixed by statute, each public body may charge fees reasonably calculated to reimburse its actual cost for reproducing and certifying public records and for the use, by any person, of the equipment of the public body to copy records. No fees shall be charged for the first 50 pages of black and white, letter or legal sized copies requested by a requester. The fee for black and white, letter or legal sized copies shall not exceed 15 cents per page. If a public body provides copies in color or in a size other than letter or legal, the public body may not charge more than its actual cost for reproducing the records. In calculating its actual cost for reproducing records or for the use of the equipment of the public body to reproduce records, a public body shall not include the costs of any search for and review of the records or other personnel costs associated with reproducing the records, except for commercial requests as provided in subsection (f) of this Section. Such fees shall be imposed according to a standard scale of fees, established and made public by the body imposing them. The cost for certifying a record shall not exceed $1. (c) Documents shall be furnished without charge or at a reduced charge, as determined by the public body, if the person requesting the documents states the specific purpose for the request and indicates that a waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest. Waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest if the principal purpose of the request is to access and disseminate information regarding the health, safety and welfare or the legal rights of the general public and is not for the principal purpose of personal or commercial benefit. For purposes of this subsection, "commercial benefit" shall not apply to requests made by news media when the principal purpose of the request is to access and disseminate information regarding the health, safety, and welfare or the legal rights of the general public. In setting the amount of the waiver or reduction, the public body may take into consideration the amount of materials requested and the cost of copying them. (d) The imposition of a fee not consistent with subsections (6)(a) and (b) of this Act constitutes a denial of access to public records for the purposes of judicial review. (e) The fee for each abstract of a driver's record shall be as provided in Section 6-118 of "The Illinois Vehicle Code", approved September 29, 1969, as amended, whether furnished as a paper copy or as an electronic copy. (f) A public body may charge up to $10 for each hour spent by personnel in searching for and retrieving a requested record or examining the record for necessary redactions. No fees shall be charged for the first 8 hours spent by personnel in searching for or retrieving a requested record. A public body may charge the actual cost of retrieving and transporting public records from an off-site storage facility when the public records are maintained by a third-party storage company under contract with the public body. If a public body imposes a fee pursuant to this subsection (f), it must provide the requester with an accounting of all fees, costs, and personnel hours in connection with the request for public records. The provisions of this subsection (f) apply only to commercial requests. (Source: P.A. 97-579, eff. 8-26-11; 98-1129, eff. 12-3-14.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 6: 21 · 6(b): 2 · 6(a): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Improper Treatment of FOIA Request as Request for Commercial Purpose and Improper Assessment of Fee
The requester, an attorney for a nonprofit environmental organization, sought records about a flood-related home buyout program and was charged search-and-review fees applicable only to commercial requests, after a county treated the request as having a commercial purpose. The Public Access Counselor held that the nonprofit's stated purpose of assisting vulnerable communities with public research and education did not meet the definition of a commercial purpose, so the county improperly imposed those fees. The county was directed to provide the responsive records subject only to permissible copying fees.

Duty to Furnish Records in the Electronic Format Specified by the Requester if Feasible
The requester sought Excel workbooks containing a housing authority's budget data, and the authority provided only password-protected, locked versions that hid formulas and prevented the unhiding of columns. The Public Access Counselor held that when nonexempt records are requested in a specified electronic format, section 6(a) of FOIA requires a public body to provide an unlocked version allowing full use of the software's functions unless it demonstrates that doing so is not feasible. The authority was directed to provide the requester with unlocked copies of the Excel workbooks.

Improper Basis for Assessing Fees for Copies of Records Maintained in an Electronic Format
The requester sought an emailed copy of his own police report, and a city charged him a flat per-report fee based on residency rather than providing the electronic copy at no cost. The Public Access Counselor held that because the city could furnish the report electronically without any recording medium, and the city identified no statute authorizing the flat fee for electronic copies, the fee violated section 6(a) of FOIA. The city was directed to provide the report without assessing a fee.

Improper Basis for Assessing Fees for Copies of Video Footage Maintained in an Electronic Format
The requester sought body-worn and dashboard camera footage of an incident involving himself, and a police department demanded pre-payment of a per-minute redaction fee before releasing the video. The Public Access Counselor held that FOIA authorizes a public body to charge only the actual cost of the recording medium for electronic copies, and that the cost of performing redactions is not a chargeable fee under the Act. The department was directed to provide the video footage subject to appropriate redactions and a fee no greater than the actual cost of the recording medium.

No Authority for Public Body to Charge for Copies for Its Files
The requester sought copies of certified payroll and contract records for numerous city contractors, and the city charged him for a second, duplicate set of copies it said it needed to retain in its own FOIA files. The Public Access Counselor held that FOIA requires a public body to bear the cost of maintaining its own recordkeeping copies and does not authorize shifting that cost to the requester as a copying fee. The city was directed to provide the records for a single copying fee or refund the portion of fees attributable to the city's retained duplicate.

A Public Body's Offer to Allow the Inspection of Public Records in Response to a Request for Copies Constitutes a Violation of Section 3(b) of FOIA.
The requester sought paper and electronic copies of a mine reclamation plan, and a state agency responded only by offering to let him inspect the microfiche records at its office rather than providing copies. The Public Access Counselor held that FOIA requires a public body to provide copies of nonexempt records upon request and does not permit a public body to limit a requester to on-site inspection alone. The agency was directed to furnish copies of the requested records.

Determination letters

City of Rockford Fire Department improperly imposed fee for non-commercial request
A requester asked the City of Rockford Fire Department for a fire report, marking the request as not for a commercial purpose. The City charged a $10 fee for one hour of staff time, claiming the request was commercial. The Illinois Attorney General's office found the City improperly treated the request as commercial because using information from public records to provide analysis services does not constitute a commercial purpose under FOIA. The City was asked to refund the $10 fee.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 DVD fee under FOIA
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD copy. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department improperly assessed the fee because it failed to respond to the request within the required time limits under FOIA. Alternatively, even if the response had been timely, the fee was set by an administrative rule, not by a statute, and therefore could not be charged under FOIA. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the $20 fee.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 fee for DVD under administrative rule
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department could not charge this fee because it was based on an administrative rule rather than a specific state law. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the cost of the DVD.

Cook County Medical Examiner's Office allowed to charge $5 per page fee for photographs of inquest files
A requester asked to inspect old inquest files at the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office and wanted to photograph them without paying a fee. The Public Access Bureau concluded that the Medical Examiner's Office did not improperly respond to the FOIA request. The Bureau found that the $5.00 per page fee for copies, including photographs, is authorized by section 4-7001 of the Counties Code, which applies to FOIA requests for records from a coroner or medical examiner's office.

Chicago Police Department lawfully charged copying fee after initially deeming request unduly burdensome
A requester asked the Chicago Police Department for numerous complaint records and crime scene photos. The Department initially denied the request as too large but later offered to provide the photos for a $334 copying fee, which the requester challenged. The Attorney General's office found that the Department followed the law and was permitted to charge the actual cost of reproducing the requested photographs.

City of Peru did not violate FOIA by charging copying fee for paper records
A requester challenged the fees charged by the City of Peru for paper copies of public records. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the City did not violate FOIA by charging a copying fee for paper copies in response to the request. The Bureau found that the City's response was timely because the requester agreed to an extension, and that the City was not required to provide electronic copies of records maintained solely in paper format.

Peoria County Coroner's Office properly charged statutory fees for autopsy and toxicology reports
A reporter requested autopsy and toxicology reports and was charged specific fees by the Coroner's Office. She argued these fees were too high under FOIA rules. The Attorney General's office explained that because a separate state law specifically sets the prices for these coroner reports, those prices apply instead of the general FOIA fee limits.

Secretary of State FOIA fee for paper copies upheld when requester did not specify electronic format
The requester's FOIA request to the agency sought correspondence, and the agency provided some records for a fee, charging for paper copies of the remainder. When the requester later argued that any electronically maintained records should have been provided electronically at no charge, the PAC determined that a requester must specify a preferred electronic format at the time of the request, and because this requester did not, the agency's fee for paper copies was consistent with FOIA. (Note: the letter's opening paragraph states the response "violated FOIA," which conflicts with this reasoned conclusion and appears to be a drafting error in the original letter.)

Will County Sheriff's Office did not violate FOIA by denying fee waiver to indigent requester
A requester asked for copies of their own medical and classification records from the Will County Sheriff's Office and requested that the copying fees be waived due to financial hardship. The Attorney General's office found that while FOIA allows for free copies of the first 50 pages, public bodies have the legal choice to decide whether to waive fees for additional pages. Because the Sheriff's Office followed the law regarding standard fees and was not required to grant a waiver, the PAC closed the case.

Village of Waterman properly charged copying fees and proposed redactions permissible under 7(1)(m)
A resident requested records from the Village of Waterman and was charged a copying fee, which he disputed. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the Village did not improperly charge the fee and did not improperly redact records. The Village also proposed furnishing redacted copies of previously withheld records, and the Bureau found those proposed redactions permissible.

Secretary of State properly charged corporate law fees for records, overriding FOIA
A requester asked for corporate records from the Secretary of State and was charged a fee based on specific corporate laws. The requester argued these fees were too high under FOIA rules. The Attorney General's office ruled that because specific laws set the prices for these corporate documents, those laws override FOIA, and the fees were appropriate.

City of The City's $20 fee for voluminous PDF records did not violate FOIA
The requester challenged a $20 fee a city charged in response to a request the city had already determined was voluminous under FOIA's fee provisions for large requests. The PAC determined that because the responsive records were maintained electronically in PDF format totaling no more than 80 megabytes, the fee schedule for voluminous electronic PDF requests permitted the city to charge up to $20 for that volume of data. The city's fee did not violate FOIA.

Village of Wayne did not violate FOIA by refusing to provide electronic copies of paper records
A citizen asked the Village of Wayne for electronic copies of election documents. The Village refused, stating they only keep these records on paper. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Village, explaining that FOIA only requires public bodies to provide electronic copies if the records are already kept in an electronic format.

Village of Hillside improperly charged FOIA fees for non-responsive records
A citizen requested government documents regarding a specific property, and the Village of Hillside charged a fee to provide them. The Attorney General's office found that the Village incorrectly charged the requester for documents that were not actually part of the original request. The matter was closed after the PAC provided this guidance to the parties.

Illinois State Police improperly required form and fees for body camera footage
A citizen requested squad camera and body worn camera footage of a traffic stop from the Illinois State Police. The police placed the request on a waitlist, required the requester to fill out a form, and assessed fees to provide the footage. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's office concluded that the police improperly required the form and fees, and that FOIA does not permit charging fees for the video recordings.

University of Illinois properly charged voluminous-request fee for electronic PDF file
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 once a request qualifies as voluminous, a public body may charge the statutory fee for the data size of the responsive electronic file regardless of whether it is produced in PDF or another format, since the fee schedule applies similarly to both. The Bureau found the Request for Review unfounded and closed the matter without ordering any relief.

Peoria County Sheriff's Office complied with flash drive format request
This determination letter addresses whether a county sheriff's office violated FOIA's electronic-format requirement under 5 ILCS 140/6(a) by failing to provide a video recording on a flash drive as requested. The Public Access Bureau held that the Request for Review was unfounded because the sheriff's office had already converted and provided the video on a flash drive, satisfying the requester's specified format. The reasoning clarifies that while FOIA requires production in a requester-specified electronic format where feasible, a request for a particular storage medium (like a flash drive) is not itself an 'electronic format' under the statute, but here the public body complied regardless. The Peoria County Sheriff's Office was the public body reviewed, and the records at issue were video footage of an incident.

Village of Minier may charge fee for paper copies when records not in electronic format
A citizen requested bank statements from the Village of Minier and asked for them in electronic format to avoid fees. The Village stated they only keep these records on paper and charged a fee to copy them, which the citizen challenged. The Attorney General's office ruled that the Village is allowed to charge for paper copies because they are not required to scan paper documents into an electronic format for a FOIA request.

(Text of Section from P.A. 104-300)

Exemptions. (1) When a request is made to inspect or copy a public record that contains information that is exempt from disclosure under this Section, but also contains information that is not exempt from disclosure, the public body may elect to redact the information that is exempt. The public body shall make the remaining information available for inspection and copying. Subject to this requirement, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) Records created or compiled by a State public defender agency or commission subject to the State Public Defender Act that contain: individual client identity; individual case file information; individual investigation records and other records that are otherwise subject to attorney-client privilege; records that would not be discoverable in litigation; records under Section 2.15; training materials; records related to attorney consultation and representation strategy; or any of the above concerning clients of county public defenders or other defender agencies and firms. This exclusion does not apply to deidentified, aggregated, administrative records, such as general case processing and workload information. (a-5) Information specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or rules and regulations implementing federal or State law. (b) Private information, unless disclosure is required by another provision of this Act, a State or federal law, or a court order. (b-5) Files, documents, and other data or databases maintained by one or more law enforcement agencies and specifically designed to provide information to one or more law enforcement agencies regarding the physical or mental status of one or more individual subjects. (c) Personal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information. "Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" means the disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject's right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information. The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy. (d) Records in the possession of any public body created in the course of administrative enforcement proceedings, and any law enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure would: (i) interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by any law enforcement or correctional agency that is the recipient of the request; (ii) interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings conducted by the public body that is the recipient of the request; (iii) create a substantial likelihood that a person will be deprived of a fair trial or an impartial hearing; (iv) unavoidably disclose the identity of a confidential source, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, or persons who file complaints with or provide information to administrative, investigative, law enforcement, or penal agencies; except that the identities of witnesses to traffic crashes, traffic crash reports, and rescue reports shall be provided by agencies of local government, except when disclosure would interfere with an active criminal investigation conducted by the agency that is the recipient of the request; (v) disclose unique or specialized investigative techniques other than those generally used and known or disclose internal documents of correctional agencies related to detection, observation, or investigation of incidents of crime or misconduct, and disclosure would result in demonstrable harm to the agency or public body that is the recipient of the request; (vi) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person; or (vii) obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation by the agency that is the recipient of the request. (d-5) A law enforcement record created for law enforcement purposes and contained in a shared electronic record management system if the law enforcement agency that is the recipient of the request did not create the record, did not participate in or have a role in any of the events which are the subject of the record, and only has access to the record through the shared electronic record management system. (d-6) Records contained in the Officer Professional Conduct Database under Section 9.2 of the Illinois Police Training Act, except to the extent authorized under that Section. This includes the documents supplied to the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board from the Illinois State Police and Illinois State Police Merit Board. (d-7) Information gathered or records created from the use of automatic license plate readers in connection with Section 2-130 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (e) Records that relate to or affect the security of correctional institutions and detention facilities. (e-5) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail if those materials are available in the library of the correctional institution or facility or jail where the inmate is confined. (e-6) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail if those materials include records from staff members' personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information. (e-7) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health if those materials are available through an administrative request to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health. (e-8) Records requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, the disclosure of which would result in the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from a jail or correctional institution or facility. (e-9) Records requested by a person in a county jail or committed to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, containing personal information pertaining to the person's victim or the victim's family, including, but not limited to, a victim's home address, home telephone number, work or school address, work telephone number, social security number, or any other identifying information, except as may be relevant to a requester's current or potential case or claim. (e-10) Law enforcement records of other persons requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, including, but not limited to, arrest and booking records, mug shots, and crime scene photographs, except as these records may be relevant to the requester's current or potential case or claim. (f) Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda, and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated, except that a specific record or relevant portion of a record shall not be exempt when the record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body. The exemption provided in this paragraph (f) extends to all those records of officers and agencies of the General Assembly that pertain to the preparation of legislative documents. (g) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person or business where the trade secrets or commercial or financial information are furnished under a claim that they are proprietary, privileged, or confidential, and that disclosure of the trade secrets or commercial or financial information would cause competitive harm to the person or business, and only insofar as the claim directly applies to the records requested. The information included under this exemption includes all trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained by a public body, including a public pension fund, from a private equity fund or a privately held company within the investment portfolio of a private equity fund as a result of either investing or evaluating a potential investment of public funds in a private equity fund. The exemption contained in this item does not apply to the aggregate financial performance information of a private equity fund, nor to the identity of the fund's managers or general partners. The exemption contained in this item does not apply to the identity of a privately held company within the investment portfolio of a private equity fund, unless the disclosure of the identity of a privately held company may cause competitive harm. Nothing contained in this paragraph (g) shall be construed to prevent a person or business from consenting to disclosure. (h) Proposals and bids for any contract, grant, or agreement, including information which if it were disclosed would frustrate procurement or give an advantage to any person proposing to enter into a contractor agreement with the body, until an award or final selection is made. Information prepared by or for the body in preparation of a bid solicitation shall be exempt until an award or final selection is made. (i) Valuable formulae, computer geographic systems, designs, drawings, and research data obtained or produced by any public body when disclosure could reasonably be expected to produce private gain or public loss. The exemption for "computer geographic systems" provided in this paragraph (i) does not extend to requests made by news media as defined in Section 2 of this Act when the requested information is not otherwise exempt and the only purpose of the request is to access and disseminate information regarding the health, safety, welfare, or legal rights of the general public. (j) The following information pertaining to educational matters: (i) test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer an academic examination; (ii) information received by a primary or secondary school, college, or university under its procedures for the evaluation of faculty members by their academic peers; (iii) information concerning a school or university's adjudication of student disciplinary cases, but only to the extent that disclosure would unavoidably reveal the identity of the student; and (iv) course materials or research materials used by faculty members. (k) Architects' plans, engineers' technical submissions, and other construction related technical documents for projects not constructed or developed in whole or in part with public funds and the same for projects constructed or developed with public funds, including, but not limited to, power generating and distribution stations and other transmission and distribution facilities, water treatment facilities, airport facilities, sport stadiums, convention centers, and all government owned, operated, or occupied buildings, but only to the extent that disclosure would compromise security. (l) Minutes of meetings of public bodies closed to the public as provided in the Open Meetings Act until the public body makes the minutes available to the public under Section 2.06 of the Open Meetings Act. (m) 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. (n) Records relating to a public body's adjudication of employee grievances or disciplinary cases; however, this exemption shall not extend to the final outcome of cases in which discipline is imposed. (o) Administrative or technical information associated with automated data processing operations, including, but not limited to, software, operating protocols, computer program abstracts, file layouts, source listings, object modules, load modules, user guides, documentation pertaining to all logical and physical design of computerized systems, employee manuals, and any other information that, if disclosed, would jeopardize the security of the system or its data or the security of materials exempt under this Section. (p) Records relating to collective negotiating matters between public bodies and their employees or representatives, except that any final contract or agreement shall be subject to inspection and copying. (q) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to determine the qualifications of an applicant for a license or employment. (r) The records, documents, and information relating to real estate purchase negotiations until those negotiations have been completed or otherwise terminated. With regard to a parcel involved in a pending or actually and reasonably contemplated eminent domain proceeding under the Eminent Domain Act, records, documents, and information relating to that parcel shall be exempt except as may be allowed under discovery rules adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court. The records, documents, and information relating to a real estate sale shall be exempt until a sale is consummated. (s) 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. (t) Information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public body responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions, insurance companies, or pharmacy benefit managers, unless disclosure is otherwise required by State law. (u) Information that would disclose or might lead to the disclosure of secret or confidential information, codes, algorithms, programs, or private keys intended to be used to create electronic signatures under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (v) Vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent, or respond to potential attacks upon a community's population or systems, facilities, or installations, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose the vulnerability or jeopardize the effectiveness of the measures, policies, or plans, or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public. Information exempt under this item may include such things as details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of personnel or equipment, to the operation of communication systems or protocols, to cybersecurity vulnerabilities, or to tactical operations. (w) (Blank). (x) Maps and other records regarding the location or security of generation, transmission, distribution, storage, gathering, treatment, or switching facilities owned by a utility, by a power generator, or by the Illinois Power Agency. (y) Information contained in or related to proposals, bids, or negotiations related to electric power procurement under Section 1-75 of the Illinois Power Agency Act and Section 16-111.5 of the Public Utilities Act that is determined to be confidential and proprietary by the Illinois Power Agency or by the Illinois Commerce Commission. (z) Information about students exempted from disclosure under Section 10-20.38 or 34-18.29 of the School Code, and information about undergraduate students enrolled at an institution of higher education exempted from disclosure under Section 25 of the Illinois Credit Card Marketing Act of 2009. (aa) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the Viatical Settlements Act of 2009. (bb) Records and information provided to a mortality review team and records maintained by a mortality review team appointed under the Department of Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team Act. (cc) Information regarding interments, entombments, or inurnments of human remains that are submitted to the Cemetery Oversight Database under the Cemetery Care Act or the Cemetery Oversight Act, whichever is applicable. (dd) Correspondence and records (i) that may not be disclosed under Section 11-9 of the Illinois Public Aid Code or (ii) that pertain to appeals under Section 11-8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ee) The names, addresses, or other personal information of persons who are minors and are also participants and registrants in programs of park districts, forest preserve districts, conservation districts, recreation agencies, and special recreation associations. (ff) The names, addresses, or other personal information of participants and registrants in programs of park districts, forest preserve districts, conservation districts, recreation agencies, and special recreation associations where such programs are targeted primarily to minors. (gg) Confidential information described in Section 1-100 of the Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal Act of 2012. (hh) The report submitted to the State Board of Education by the School Security and Standards Task Force under item (8) of subsection (d) of Section 2-3.160 of the School Code and any information contained in that report. (ii) Records requested by persons committed to or detained by the Department of Human Services under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act or committed to the Department of Corrections under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act if those materials: (i) are available in the library of the facility where the individual is confined; (ii) include records from staff members' personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information; or (iii) are available through an administrative request to the Department of Human Services or the Department of Corrections. (jj) Confidential information described in Section 5-535 of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (kk) The public body's credit card numbers, debit card numbers, bank account numbers, Federal Employer Identification Number, security code numbers, passwords, and similar account information, the disclosure of which could result in identity theft or impression or defrauding of a governmental entity or a person. (ll) Records concerning the work of the threat assessment team of a school district, including, but not limited to, any threat assessment procedure under the School Safety Drill Act and any information contained in the procedure. (mm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 15 of the Student Confidential Reporting Act. (nn) Proprietary information submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Drug Take-Back Act. (oo) Records described in subsection (f) of Section 3-5-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections. (pp) Any and all information regarding burials, interments, or entombments of human remains as required to be reported to the Department of Natural Resources pursuant either to the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Protection Act or the Human Remains Protection Act. (qq) Reports described in subsection (e) of Section 16-15 of the Abortion Care Clinical Training Program Act. (rr) Information obtained by a certified local health department under the Access to Public Health Data Act. (ss) For a request directed to a public body that is also a HIPAA-covered entity, all information that is protected health information, including demographic information, that may be contained within or extracted from any record held by the public body in compliance with State and federal medical privacy laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its regulations, 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164. As used in this paragraph, "HIPAA-covered entity" has the meaning given to the term "covered entity" in 45 CFR 160.103 and "protected health information" has the meaning given to that term in 45 CFR 160.103. (tt) Proposals or bids submitted by engineering consultants in response to requests for proposal or other competitive bidding requests by the Department of Transportation or the Illinois Toll Highway Authority. (1.5) Any information exempt from disclosure under the Judicial Privacy Act shall be redacted from public records prior to disclosure under this Act. (2) A public record that is not in the possession of a public body but is in the possession of a party with whom the agency has contracted to perform a governmental function on behalf of the public body, and that directly relates to the governmental function and is not otherwise exempt under this Act, shall be considered a public record of the public body, for purposes of this Act. (3) This Section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as stated in this Section or otherwise provided in this Act. (Source: P.A. 103-154, eff. 6-30-23; 103-423, eff. 1-1-24; 103-446, eff. 8-4-23; 103-462, eff. 8-4-23; 103-540, eff. 1-1-24; 103-554, eff. 1-1-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-865, eff. 1-1-25; 104-300, eff. 1-1-27.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-438)

Breakdown by specific citation: 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy (records whose release would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy)): 73 · 7(1)(b) (Private information (defined in Sec. 2(c-5) -- e.g. SSNs, driver's license numbers, home addresses in some contexts)): 70 · 7(1)(a) (Federal/State-law confidentiality — or public defender case files, for documents issued under the other amendment version (see Sec. 7)): 65 · 7 (General exemptions provision (cites Sec. 7 as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 42 · 7(1)(f) (Preliminary drafts, notes, and deliberative materials (pre-decisional "draft" exemption)): 38 · 7(1)(m) (Attorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials (attorney-client-style privilege)): 16 · 7(1)(g) (Trade secrets and confidential commercial/financial information): 12 · 7(1)(d) (Law-enforcement/administrative-proceeding records (general)): 11 · 7(1)(d)(i) (Would interfere with pending/contemplated law-enforcement proceedings): 10 · 7(1)(v) (Security vulnerability assessments and response plans): 8 · 7(1)(n) (Employee grievance/discipline adjudication records (except final discipline outcomes)): 7 · 7(1)(k) (Architectural/engineering security-sensitive construction documents): 6 · 7(1) (General exemption list (cites the lettered exemptions in Sec. 7(1) without naming a specific one)): 6 · 7(1)(j)(iv) (Faculty course/research materials): 5 · 7(1)(e) (Correctional/detention facility security records): 5 · 7(1)(i) (Valuable formulae, designs, and research data): 3 · 7(1)(d)(ii) (Would interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings): 3 · 7(1)(e-10) (Other people's law-enforcement records requested by an inmate): 3 · 7(1)(e-5) (Records available to an inmate through the facility library): 2 · 7(1)(d)(vii) (Would obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation): 2 · 7(1)(s) (Intergovernmental risk-management/self-insurance pool records): 2 · 7(1)(h) (Bids and proposals, until a contract is awarded): 2 · 7(1)(t) (Financial institution/insurer regulatory examination reports): 2 · 7(1)(o) (Data-processing/IT security information): 2 · 7(1)(kk) (Public body's own financial account/security credentials): 2 · 7(1)(x) (Utility facility location/security maps): 2 · 7(1)(d)(iv) (Would disclose a confidential source or informant): 2 · 7(1)(p) (Collective bargaining negotiation records (final contracts stay public)): 1 · 7(1)(r) (Real estate purchase negotiation records, until completed): 1 · 7(1)(q) (Licensing/employment exam questions and scoring keys): 1 · 7(1)(d)(vi) (Would endanger the life or safety of law enforcement or others): 1 · 7(1)(d)(iii) (Would create a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial or hearing): 1 · 7(1)(d-7) (Automatic license plate reader data): 1 · 7(1)(l) (Closed-session meeting minutes not yet released under OMA Sec. 2.06): 1 · 7(1)(b)(ii): 1 · 7(1)(e-8) (Records whose release would risk harm or an escape): 1 · 7(b): 1 · 7(b)(v): 1 · 7(f): 1 · 7(1)(b)(i): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Master index of all PAC FOIA opinions issued since 2010
This document is not a legal decision, but rather a master list or index of all binding opinions issued by the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor since 2010. It is intended to help the public and legal professionals find specific past rulings on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) issues.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of legal invoices reflecting a school district's expenses in several lawsuits, and the school district withheld the invoices in full, asserting attorney-client privilege. The Public Access Counselor held that while some invoice descriptions could reveal privileged communications and could be redacted, generic descriptions of the work performed, attorneys' initials, time spent, and billed amounts are not privileged and must be disclosed. The school district was directed to release the non-exempt portions of the invoices, since withholding the records in their entirety violated FOIA's requirement to redact only the exempt information and produce the rest.

Disclosure of Records Pertaining to Arrests and Police Reports
The requester, a journalist, sought police incident reports and related records concerning an arrest of a local public official, which a police department withheld entirely, citing a personal-privacy exemption and denying that an arrest had actually occurred. The Public Access Counselor's own review of the records showed that an arrest had in fact taken place, triggering FOIA's specific arrest-disclosure provisions, and found that the subject's privacy interest was outweighed by the strong public interest in arrest information generally and in how law enforcement handled the incident. The police department was directed to release the records, subject only to redaction of statutorily defined private information, since it failed to prove the withheld material was otherwise exempt.

Disclosure of All Non-Exempt Portions of Requested Records
The requester sought copies of FOIA denial letters that a forest preserve district had issued citing a particular law-enforcement exemption, and the district produced heavily redacted copies, withholding not only private information but also material it deemed unrelated to the request. The Public Access Counselor held that because the request sought entire letters rather than specific information within them, the district could withhold only genuinely exempt content, properly redacting personal identifiers, but could not redact other material simply because it viewed that material as outside the scope of the request. The forest preserve district was directed to release the letters in full except for the properly redacted private information.

Production of Records to the Public Access Counselor
The requester sought a state licensing agency's complete investigative file on a real estate licensee, after the agency had previously been directed, in response to an earlier related request, to release the same file for failing to prove it was exempt, but did not comply. The agency again refused to respond to the new request, refused to provide the Public Access Counselor with copies of the records for review, and continued to assert without adequate support that the file was exempt as an investigative, confidential, or law-enforcement record. The Public Access Counselor held that the agency violated FOIA's response deadlines, notice requirements, and its duty to cooperate with review, and again directed it to produce the file, redacting only genuinely private third-party information.

Disclosure of Records Relating to the Death of a Minor
The requester, a journalist, sought investigative records concerning the police shooting of a minor, which a state agency withheld in full, primarily citing juvenile-confidentiality provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. The Public Access Counselor held that those provisions apply only to arrested or court-involved juveniles, not to a minor who died during the encounter and was never taken into custody, and found the agency's broader privacy objections unsupported, though it allowed redaction of unique identifiers, identifying information about surviving family members, and post-mortem photographs. The state agency was directed to release the remaining records, including the substantive investigative, autopsy, and toxicology materials, since the public interest in a full accounting of the shooting outweighed the narrower privacy interests actually established.

Judicial Inquiry Board is Not a "Public Body" to which FOIA is Applicable
The requester sought records from a state judicial oversight board concerning the circumstances of a former judge's removal from the bench, and the board declined to respond, asserting it was not subject to FOIA at all because it operates as part of the judicial branch. The Public Access Counselor agreed, holding that FOIA's definition of "public body" covers only legislative, executive, and administrative bodies and specifically excludes the judiciary, and that the board's investigatory role in judicial discipline places it squarely within the judicial branch. Because the board is not subject to FOIA in the first place, no violation occurred and the request for review was denied.

‘ Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought a school district's emergency management plans and related records, and the school district never responded at all, either to comply, deny, or extend the deadline within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the school district's total failure to respond constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The school district was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue timely responses to future requests.

Disclosure of Student Test Scores and the Illinois School Student Records Act
The requester sought de-identified fourth-grade math test scores from a school district, and the school district refused, first claiming the underlying student-privacy law made the data exempt entirely, then claiming that redacting and scrambling the scores so no student could be identified would amount to creating a new record it wasn't required to produce. The Public Access Counselor rejected both arguments, holding that a record with individually identifying information removed is no longer covered by student-records confidentiality law, and that redacting or reordering existing data does not create a new record under settled Illinois case law, even when the school district's own reporting software could not do so electronically. The school district was directed to provide the de-identified scores in the format requested or another format the requester had agreed to accept.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought village hall surveillance footage, police department records, meeting minutes, and building access logs, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor over several months. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a village government's financial records, including its checkbook register, treasurer's reports, and attorney invoices, and the village never responded at all, despite the Public Access Counselor's follow-up inquiry going unanswered as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, also finding the village appeared to lack a properly designated FOIA officer as the law requires. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, designate and identify a FOIA officer, and post the required public notice of its request procedures.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of travel and credit-card expense records for a public university's board members and president, later amending the request to broaden its scope, and the university never responded to either version despite repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's silence on the amended request constituted a denial under FOIA, since the requester had explicitly superseded his original request with the amended one. The university was directed to produce all records responsive to the amended request, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Records Relating to a Public Body's Internal Investigation into an Employee's Conduct
The requester, a journalist, sought police and internal-investigation records concerning an off-duty car accident involving a police department's assistant chief, and the city government withheld the underlying investigative materials, arguing they related to an "adjudication" of a disciplinary case and were therefore exempt. The Public Access Counselor held that an informal internal inquiry that never proceeded to a formal adjudicatory hearing does not qualify as an "adjudication" under the narrow exemption the city invoked, and that related records such as the traffic citation and witness accounts were independently public regardless of the investigation. The city government was directed to release the withheld investigative and citation records, subject only to permissible redactions for private information.

Statistical Data is Not Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)() of FOIA
The requester sought monthly Uniform Crime Report statistics that a city's police department had submitted to a state police agency for 2012 and 2013. The state police agency withheld the records entirely, arguing they were "preliminary" because the underlying numbers had not yet been verified and could later be revised, and that this made them exempt as deliberative material under the FOIA exemption for preliminary drafts, notes, and records in which opinions are expressed or policies are formulated. The PAC held that this exemption protects the deliberative process, not purely factual or statistical data, and that the crime statistics did not reveal any agency decision-making or reasoning—only numbers reported by the local police department. Because the possibility that data might later be corrected does not make it "preliminary" or deliberative in the legal sense, the PAC found the withholding improper and ordered the records released, noting the agency could simply flag the data as unverified.

Duty to Provide "Clear and Convincing" Evidence to Support Assertion of Exemptions; Possibility of Obtaining Public Records through Discovery Does Not Preclude FOIA Requests
The requester asked the police department for a copy of a specific police report, but the department denied the request, claiming disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and could deprive someone of a fair trial. The department also argued the requester should instead obtain the report through court discovery procedures. The PAC held that the department's justifications were vague and conclusory, failing to show by clear and convincing evidence that either exemption applied, and further explained that the availability of records through discovery does not eliminate a person's separate right to obtain records under FOIA. As a result, the PAC directed the department to release the report, subject only to limited redactions for private information and confidential source information.

Public Records in the Possession of a Contractor Performing a Governmental Function for a Public Body Are Public Records of the Public Body; A Public Body May Not Charge a Requester Fees for the Contractor to Locate and Retrieve Such Public Records in a Non-Commercial Request
The requester sought records related to a sidewalk/curb improvement project from the village government, including bid documents, payroll reports, and correspondence with the project's engineering firm. The village government said it did not possess many of these records because they were held by its private engineering contractor, and demanded payment of over $1,100 in estimated labor costs before it would obtain and release them. The PAC held that because the engineering firm was performing a governmental function on the village government's behalf, the records it held were legally public records of the village government, and that state law bars public bodies from charging non-commercial requesters for search, review, or other personnel costs, even when those costs are incurred through a contractor. As a result, the PAC found the village government improperly denied the request and ordered it to provide the withheld records without conditioning release on payment of those fees.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of a law firm's legal billing invoices from the city government for the past calendar year, but the city withheld them entirely, citing exemptions for attorney-client privileged communications, collective bargaining matters, and (later) records related to employee disciplinary adjudications. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau held that the city violated FOIA by withholding the invoices in full, finding that only specific descriptive entries revealing privileged legal advice or specific collective-bargaining strategy could be redacted, while general billing information—dates, attorney initials, hours, amounts billed, and general task descriptions—was not exempt and had to be disclosed. The PAC also rejected the disciplinary-adjudication exemption, reasoning that billing invoices exist independently of any disciplinary proceeding and are not themselves part of an adjudicatory process. The city government was directed to release the invoices with only narrowly tailored redactions.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester sought copies of settlement agreements from the county board, but the county board withheld some of them, citing confidentiality provisions within the agreements and arguing that release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA because the agreements resolved sexual harassment complaints. The Public Access Counselor held that settlement agreements are public records under FOIA and that confidentiality clauses within them are unenforceable because they conflict with the statute's plain language and legislative intent favoring disclosure. The PAC also found the privacy exemption inapplicable because the withheld documents did not describe the underlying allegations, and because the public's constitutional and statutory interest in knowing how public funds are spent outweighed any privacy interest the complainants had. As a result, the county board was directed to release the settlement agreements, subject only to redaction of private information under section 7(1)(b).

Duty to Disclose Public Records in the Possession of a Public Body
The requester sought records showing how much money was collected during a university's homecoming dance and how those funds were handled. The university denied the request, arguing the records belonged to its Student Government Association, which it claimed was not a "public body" subject to FOIA. The PAC held that this argument was irrelevant, because the records were in the university's possession and control—held in a university-controlled account and overseen by university staff—and therefore pertained to the transaction of public business by the university itself. The PAC ruled that the university violated FOIA and ordered it to release the records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Records Documenting Public Funds Paid to Entities Pursuant to Contracts For Performance of A Governmental Function Are Subject to Disclosure
The requester sought copies of the state lottery agency's marketing and advertising contracts, specifically the pricing structure and hourly rates, but the agency's private lottery manager redacted the financial terms, citing exemptions for information barred by other state law and for confidential commercial/financial information that could cause competitive harm. The PAC held that neither exemption applied: the financial terms did not qualify as "confidential data" under the Lottery Law's narrow exception, and because the figures represented the cost of publicly funded services, they were expressly subject to disclosure as records relating to the use of public funds, with no adequate showing of competitive harm to support withholding them as trade secrets. The PAC also found that confidentiality agreements between the manager and its contractors could not override this public disclosure duty, since those agreements themselves allowed for disclosure under a binding governmental order. The agency was directed to release the full financial terms, including contract totals, hourly rates, and any commissions.

Disclosure of Photographs of a Former Auxiliary Deputy Sheriff
The requester sought photographs of a former auxiliary deputy from the sheriff's department. The sheriff's department denied the request, arguing the photographs were exempt "private information" because they contained "biometric identifiers." The Public Access Counselor found that the photographs were general in nature and did not focus on any unique physical attribute used to identify a person, so they did not qualify as biometric identifiers under the common meaning of that term. Because FOIA's definition of "public records" specifically includes photographs, and the exemption for "private information" did not, the PAC concluded the sheriff's department violated FOIA and ordered the photographs to be disclosed.

Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Search for Responsive Records; Repeat Requests Under Section 3(g)
The requester sought records concerning a village clerk's participation in a conference, including communications, billing records, contribution documentation, and expense records. The village government responded that it had no responsive records and also claimed part of the request was unduly burdensome under section 3(g) because it was a repeat of an earlier request that had allegedly been "properly denied." The PAC found that the village government violated FOIA in multiple ways: it failed to show it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, especially since it had previously been directed to search for similar records and never complied; its section 3(g) burden claim failed because the prior request had not actually been "properly denied" (the earlier denial itself had been found improper); and it improperly withheld responsive records it later disclosed to the PAC without showing any exemption applied. The village government was ordered to conduct a proper search and disclose all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Photocopies of Records Deemed Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)(e-5)
An incarcerated requester asked the corrections department for photocopies of certain administrative directives that were already available for inspection in the correctional facility's library. The corrections department denied the request under a FOIA exemption covering records requested by inmates that are available in the facility library, and the requester argued this exemption shouldn't apply because inmates weren't allowed to photocopy the library materials themselves. The Public Access Counselor upheld the denial, finding that the exemption only requires that inmates have access to inspect the records in the library, not that they be permitted to make or receive photocopies, based on the legislative history showing the exemption was meant to relieve the department of the burden of copying records already available to inmates through the library.

Disclosure of Résumé and Job Application of Public Employee
The requester sought a copy of an employee's résumé and job application from the village government, which denied the request by claiming the records were exempt as private personal information, as material prohibited from disclosure under the Personnel Record Review Act, and as deliberative material. The PAC held that the records were not exempt: they bear on the employee's qualifications and public duties, the public has a strong interest in verifying that hiring complied with applicable laws, and this interest outweighed the employee's privacy concerns, since the information was factual and presented favorably rather than embarrassing. The PAC also found the Personnel Record Review Act only bars disclosure of performance evaluations (not résumés or applications), and that the records were purely factual rather than deliberative, so the village government was ordered to release the records, redacting only truly private identifying details like a signature, home address, and phone numbers.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester asked the city government for a copy of a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit against the city, along with related records and documents about the city council's vote to approve the settlement payment. The city government denied the request, citing a personal privacy exemption and pointing to a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement. The PAC held that settlement agreements are specifically made public records under FOIA, that confidentiality clauses in such agreements cannot override this rule, and that because the underlying claims related to the plaintiff's public employment, disclosure would not be an unwarranted invasion of privacy—especially given the strong public interest in how public funds are spent. The PAC also found the city government's response incomplete because it failed to address whether it searched for other related records, and ordered the city to disclose the settlement agreement and conduct a proper search for any additional responsive records.

Home Rule Ordinance Does Not Supersede FOIA; Negotiated Terms of Contracts with Public Bodies Do Not Constitute Trade Secrets; Correspondence With Third Parties Is Not Part of A Public Body's Deliberative Process
The requester, a journalist, sought records related to a touring musician's concerts at a village-owned entertainment venue, including contracts, correspondence, and financial terms with the concert promoter, and the village government withheld ticket-pricing emails and rental/revenue figures, citing the deliberative-process and trade-secret exemptions and, later, a home-rule ordinance it passed after the request was denied. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's ordinance could not override FOIA because regulating access to public records is a matter of statewide, not local, concern, that the financial terms of the venue's contracts were expressly subject to disclosure as records of the village's use of public funds, and that emails with the promoter did not qualify as deliberative because they were exchanged with an outside party representing independent interests. The village government was directed to produce the contracts, invoices, and emails, redacting only limited private information.

Disclosure of Public Employees' Compensation
The requester sought a hospital district's physician employment agreements, including compensation, incentive, and bonus information, and the hospital district redacted this financial information, arguing it was private and that physicians do not perform "public duties." The Public Access Counselor rejected both arguments, holding that records of physician compensation paid from the district's funds are public records concerning the use of public funds regardless of whether physicians have "public duties," that compensation amounts are not "private information" under the personal-privacy exemption, and that disclosure of pay tied to public employment is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The hospital district was directed to disclose the compensation information and a post-office-box address that had been improperly withheld as a home address.

Disclosure of Surveillance Video Recordings
The requester, a paralegal for the law firm representing a party in a fatal accident case, sought surveillance video from a state highway rest area showing the area near where a pedestrian was fatally struck by a truck, and the state transportation department withheld the video, arguing that disclosure would invade the privacy of the decedent's family. The Public Access Counselor held that while family members can have an independent privacy interest in graphic details of a relative's death, these videos did not depict the accident itself or contain graphic content, so the strong public interest in understanding the circumstances of a fatal traffic accident outweighed any privacy concern. The state transportation department was directed to provide the requester with copies of the videos.

Disclosure of the Governor's Calendar
The requester, a journalist, sought the governor's daily appointment calendar showing meetings and attendees, and the governor's office redacted the names of meeting attendees, arguing the calendar was a personal scheduling tool and that disclosure would reveal deliberative and privileged legal strategy. The Public Access Counselor held that because the calendar was maintained by staff, used to facilitate scheduling, and accessible to senior officials, it was a public record documenting the office's business rather than a private convenience, and that the governor's office had not shown with specific facts that disclosing attendees' identities would expose deliberative reasoning or privileged legal communications, distinguishing cases involving far more detailed or security-sensitive schedules. The governor's office was also found to have missed FOIA's response deadline and was directed to disclose the calendar entries, redacting only personal telephone numbers.

Failure to Timely Respond to FOIA Request Precludes Denial as Unduly Burdensome; Disclosure of Certified Payroll Records
The requester sought certified payroll records for state highway construction projects in a county, and the state transportation department denied the request as unduly burdensome, citing the labor involved in redacting the hundreds of pages of records. The Public Access Counselor held that the department's denial came after FOIA's five-business-day response deadline had already passed, which by itself barred it from claiming undue burden, and separately concluded that because the legislature specifically made certified payroll records public and defined exactly what information must be redacted from them, the burden of that redaction did not outweigh the strong public interest in disclosure. The state transportation department was directed to produce the certified payroll records, redacting only the specific categories of information the statute allows.

Determination letters

Illinois Department of Revenue did not violate FOIA by withholding audit manual sections
A law firm requested internal audit manuals from the Illinois Department of Revenue to understand how the state determines corporate income and sales taxes. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and concluded that the Department was legally allowed to keep these documents private to protect tax enforcement standards. This means the request for the records was denied and the case is now closed.

SIU School of Medicine properly withheld animal training emails under 7(1)(f)
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine requested records from the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine about animal use in medical training. The school withheld some emails, claiming they were internal drafts or deliberative communications. The Attorney General's office agreed that the school followed the law and was allowed to keep those specific documents private.

SIU School of Medicine properly applied 7(1)(f) to emails on animal use
A research group requested records from a medical school about its use of animals in training programs. The school withheld some emails, claiming they were internal drafts or deliberative communications. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school, finding that the records were protected from disclosure.

City of Elmhurst improperly withheld construction cost estimates under 7(1)(f)
A citizen requested documents from the City of Elmhurst regarding construction costs for city parking garages. The City refused to release the records, claiming they were internal drafts and opinions under section 7(1)(f) of FOIA. The Attorney General's office reviewed the documents and concluded that the general contractor's draft proposals were not exempt because the contractor had its own financial interest, and the City Manager's memorandum was factual, not deliberative. However, the office allowed the City to redact the Assistant City Manager's handwritten notes, which reflected pre-decisional opinions and were not publicly cited by the Mayor.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 DVD fee under FOIA
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD copy. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department improperly assessed the fee because it failed to respond to the request within the required time limits under FOIA. Alternatively, even if the response had been timely, the fee was set by an administrative rule, not by a statute, and therefore could not be charged under FOIA. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the $20 fee.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 fee for DVD under administrative rule
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department could not charge this fee because it was based on an administrative rule rather than a specific state law. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the cost of the DVD.

Chicago Transit Authority improperly withheld Bombardier component percentages in Buy America audit
A requester sought detailed audit information about the manufacturing origins of railcar components for a Chicago Transit Authority project. The Attorney General's office determined that the CTA properly withheld the percentages of components from suppliers other than Bombardier, but improperly withheld the percentages of components supplied by Bombardier. The CTA also properly withheld the percentages and subcomponents in the Buy America Compliance Certificates, but improperly withheld the Description of Work in the Post-Delivery Audit.

Village of Forest Park no violation for withholding police video under law enforcement exemptions
The question was whether the Village of Forest Park properly withheld surveillance videos of a hit-and-run under FOIA Section 7(1)(d) exemptions, including an unargued but implicated Section 7(1)(d)(iii) fair-trial exemption. The Public Access Bureau held that the Village did not improperly deny the request at the time it was submitted, because disclosure during the pendency of the criminal prosecution would have created a substantial likelihood of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The reasoning applied the federal analog under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B), requiring a showing that a trial is pending or imminent and that disclosure would more probably than not seriously interfere with the fairness of the proceedings. The Bureau noted that the videos contained witness and defendant statements whose disclosure could have influenced testimony, but suggested the same rationale might no longer apply if a new request were submitted later. No binding opinion was issued.

PAC cannot review Illinois Department of Revenue's commercial-purpose FOIA denial
Mr. Vertin requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue for his business. Because the request was for a commercial purpose, the Attorney General's office stated it does not have the legal authority to review the Department's denial. The requester must instead pursue the matter through a lawsuit in court.

PAC lacks authority to review commercial-purpose FOIA denial by IL Dept of Revenue
A business owner requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue, but the Department denied the request. When the requester asked the Attorney General's office to intervene, the office declined because the request was for a commercial purpose. Under Illinois law, the Public Access Counselor does not have the authority to resolve disputes involving commercial FOIA requests.

First Fire Protection District improperly withheld budget documents under 7(1)(f)
A citizen requested a budget document that was presented during a public fire district meeting. The district refused to release it, claiming it was a 'preliminary draft' that might confuse the public. The Attorney General's office disagreed, ruling that the district did not provide enough evidence to justify keeping the document secret and ordered them to release it.

Illinois Department of Corrections must disclose contractor-held prescription drug records
A reporter requested records of prescription drug orders made by the Illinois Department of Corrections through private vendors. The Attorney General's office ruled that the Department must get these records from its vendor and provide them to the reporter. The Department is allowed to remove personal information that would identify specific inmates to protect their medical privacy.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District properly withheld facility plans under 7(1)(k)
A requester asked for detailed facility plans from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, but the District refused to provide them, citing security concerns. The Attorney General's office reviewed the documents and agreed that releasing the technical details of the facility's systems could pose a security risk. Consequently, the PAC closed the case, finding that the District acted within the law.

University of Illinois properly withheld animal medical records but improperly redacted protocol names
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 signatures and personal emergency-contact numbers were properly redacted. The university was directed to disclose the remaining redacted information.

Governor's Office improperly withheld correspondence from former official under FOIA exemptions
The requester sought correspondence between the governor's office and a former state agency director, portions of which the office withheld as deliberative material, attorney-client communications, and personal information. The PAC determined that most of the pre-decisional emails and the personal emails were properly withheld, but that certain factual records and a legal-matter update did not qualify as deliberative or privileged and were improperly withheld. The governor's office was directed to release the improperly withheld records.

PAC cannot review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
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.

PAC declines to review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
A business owner requested training materials from the University of Illinois to help his company win a government contract. The Attorney General's office declined to review the University's refusal to provide these documents because the law prohibits the PAC from intervening in FOIA disputes involving commercial requests. The requester must now pursue the matter through the court system if they wish to challenge the denial.

Lake County State's Attorney's Office improperly withheld emails under 7(1)(f) and 7(1)(m)
The requester sought e-mails between a state's attorney's office investigator and a school district official concerning an investigation into the district's finances, which the office withheld as deliberative material and attorney work product. The PAC determined the e-mails merely requested and furnished factual information and did not reflect any deliberative process, legal theories, or litigation strategy, so neither exemption applied. The state's attorney's office was directed to provide the e-mails to the requester.

City of Monticello properly withheld preliminary drafts under section 7(1)(f)
This determination addressed whether the City of Monticello properly withheld wastewater treatment plant design specifications under FOIA's preliminary-drafts exemption, 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(f). The Public Access Bureau held that the City did not improperly withhold the records because they were preliminary, deliberative materials prepared by the City's engineering consultant and had not yet been presented to or reviewed by the City Council. The Bureau reasoned that section 7(1)(f) covers intra-agency deliberative material, including consultant work product where the consultant represents the public body's interests, and that the exception for records 'publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body' did not apply because the discussion at the relevant council meeting was led by the City superintendent and the consultant, not the Mayor (the head of the public body). The City of Monticello was the public body involved, and the records at issue were consultant-prepared plans and specifications for a wastewater treatment plant.

Illinois Department of Revenue improperly withheld personnel records under 7(1)(c), 7(1)(f), and 7(1)(m)
The requester sought communications the department's personnel office received regarding hiring and staffing matters, which the department withheld as deliberative material. The PAC determined that the records largely requested and conveyed factual and logistical information rather than opinions or recommendations, so the department did not meet its burden of showing they were exempt as deliberative. The department was directed to furnish the records to the requester.

Governor's Office of Management and Budget improperly withheld PowerPoint under 7(1)(f)
A reporter requested budget-related documents from the Governor's budget office, but the office refused to release a PowerPoint presentation, claiming it was part of internal policy discussions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the budget office did not prove the document was exempt from public view. Consequently, the office was ordered to release the PowerPoint to the reporter.

Park Ridge-Niles SD 64 improperly redacted teacher disciplinary settlement records
A reporter requested records regarding a teacher's disciplinary settlement, but the school district blacked out too much information. The Attorney General's office ruled that the district must release the records, only redacting the names of students to protect their privacy. This ensures the public can understand the reasons for the settlement while keeping student identities private.

Proper University properly withheld internal audit report under exemption 7(1)(c)
The requester sought a copy of an internal audit report about a contractor's compliance with contract-timeline requirements, which a public college withheld as an internal-audit record. The requester argued that because the college had previously furnished the audit to its accreditation commission, the college improperly granted the commission an exclusive right to the record and waived the internal-audit exemption. The PAC determined the record was properly exempt as an internal audit, that the college's compulsory, confidentiality-protected disclosure to the accreditation commission did not give it any right to disseminate the record, and that no waiver occurred; the college's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois Department of Human Services properly denied records under 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(dd)
A citizen requested their own public aid records from the Illinois Department of Human Services to verify that proper procedures were followed. The Department denied the request, citing laws that protect the confidentiality of public aid recipients. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the law prohibits the release of these records for the requester's stated purpose.

Village of Arlington Heights properly withheld blueprints under section 7(1)(k)
A resident requested building blueprints from the Village of Arlington Heights, but the Village refused to provide them, citing a law that protects construction documents for private projects. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and agreed with the Village, finding that the building was privately funded and therefore exempt from disclosure. This means the Village was legally allowed to keep the blueprints private.

Elmhurst SD 205 improperly withheld some emails under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(f)
The requester sought emails between the school district superintendent and a high school principal, and between the district and a parent, concerning complaints about morning announcements, which the district withheld under the deliberative-process and personal-privacy exemptions. The PAC determined that most Superintendent-Principal emails were properly withheld as predecisional, but two reflecting a final decision were not, and that the parent's emails were not inter- or intra-agency communications and must be released with only the parent's name, contact information, and references to her children redacted. The district was directed to release the improperly withheld and redacted materials accordingly.

City of Bloomington improperly withheld police disciplinary records under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c)
A requester asked for 10 years of disciplinary records and citizen complaints for three specific police officers. The City of Bloomington refused to provide some of these records, claiming they were either too old or protected by privacy laws. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the City's refusal to release the records was improper.

City of Chicago Department of Law improperly withheld factual email under 7(1)(m)
This determination addresses whether the City of Chicago Department of Law properly withheld the text of an email between two of its attorneys under FOIA's section 7(1)(m) exemption for attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product. The Public Access Bureau held that the Department improperly withheld the email, finding it did not meet its burden of showing either privilege applied. The email was a purely factual status update on two legal matters that disclosed no litigation theories, mental impressions, or strategy (defeating the work-product claim) and conveyed no legal advice, merely factual information later forwarded to clients with an 'FYI' note (defeating the attorney-client privilege claim). The rule for future disputes: a public body invoking 7(1)(m) must show objective indicia that a communication either reveals an attorney's conceptual litigation strategy or constitutes legal advice sought in confidence -- a factual status update, even if marked confidential and prepared by counsel, does not qualify. The body reviewed was the City of Chicago Department of Law regarding an email exchanged between two of its attorneys.

Village of Oak Park properly withheld employee survey as deliberative process material under 7(1)(f)
A reporter requested an employee survey from the Village of Oak Park, but the Village refused to release it, claiming it was part of their internal decision-making process. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and agreed with the Village, ruling that the document was exempt from disclosure because it was used for internal policy formulation. This means the public does not have a right to access this specific type of internal survey.

Southern Illinois University properly withheld termination and reinstatement records under 7(1)(n)
The requester sought an employee's termination and reinstatement records from the university, which withheld them as records relating to an employee disciplinary adjudication. Based on confidential information the university provided, the PAC determined that the final outcome of the adjudication did not itself impose discipline, so the exemption for disciplinary case records was not overridden by the final-outcome exception. The university's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Court cases

Kibort v. Westrom ()
The court held that the Du Page County Election Commission properly denied a FOIA request for election materials because the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/17-20, 17-22) specifically prohibited their disclosure. The court further found that the Commission's denial letter sufficiently complied with the requirements of section 9(b) of the FOIA by citing the relevant statutory exemptions.

Kopchar v. City of Chicago ()
The court held that the City of Chicago was not required under FOIA to disclose the specific criteria or standards used to evaluate firefighter physical abilities tests. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding the requested information exempt from disclosure.

Gekas v. Williamson ()
The court held that records concerning allegations of misconduct by a deputy sheriff in the performance of his public duties are not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA personnel file exemption. The court affirmed the production of internal-affairs files while remanding for the disclosure of additional files related to misconduct allegations, subject to redaction of exempt personal information.

Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200 ()
The Supreme Court held that a school superintendent's employment contract is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA as a personnel file, as it constitutes a contract dealing with the expenditure of public funds. The Court ordered the disclosure of the contract, subject only to the redaction of specific private information.

Watkins v. McCarthy (2012 IL App (1st) 100632)
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of an inmate's FOIA request for police misconduct records. The court remanded the case for an in camera inspection to determine the applicability of FOIA exemptions, specifically noting the potential relevance of section 7(1)(n) regarding disciplinary records.

Dumke v. City of Chicago (2013 IL App (1st) 121668)
The court held that the City of Chicago waived the FOIA exemption under section 7(1)(f) for a consultant's report when the mayor publicly cited and identified the report in a press conference and press release. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment for the city and granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that the public citation precluded the need for an in camera review.

The State Journal-Register and Bruce Rushton v. The University of Illinois Springfield and Harry Berman (2013 IL App (4th) 120881)
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' FOIA request for specific redacted documents, including an email string, internal communications, and witness statements, as they did not fall under the Educational Privacy Act. The remainder of the trial court's order, including the exemption of the student victim's name, was affirmed.

Kalven v. City of Chicago (2014 IL App (1st) 121846)
The appellate court held that police 'repeater lists' and complaint register files regarding officer misconduct are subject to disclosure under FOIA. The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff regarding the repeater lists and reversed the judgment for the defendant regarding the complaint files, remanding for consideration of redactions under the deliberative process exemption.

John Peter Gonigam and First Electric Newspaper, LLC v. Office of the Sheriff of McHenry County (2014 IL App (2d) 140159-U)
The court affirmed the trial court's order requiring the Sheriff's Office to release documents, holding that the records were not exempt under section 7(1)(n) of the FOIA. The court determined the documents were not related to an adjudication of a disciplinary case, as they were generated independently of and prior to the investigation and adjudication process.

Ward v. Weisbaum (2015 IL App (3d) 130852-U)
The circuit court properly dismissed the plaintiff's FOIA lawsuit for injunctive relief because the requested home addresses of two individuals constituted private information exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(b) of the FOIA. The court held that the Secretary of State was not required to disclose the private home addresses when employer addresses had already been provided.

Calvin Merritte v. Thomas Templeton and Troy Holland (2015 IL App (3d) 140014-U)
The court held that an inmate was not entitled to a correction officer's medical or disciplinary records under FOIA, but was entitled to a redacted photograph of the officer's injury. The court determined that the redacted photograph did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under section 7(1)(b).

For the Good of Illinois, Inc. v. Office of Comptroller (2016 IL App (1st) 143755-U)
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the Comptroller properly established that the request was unduly burdensome. The court further affirmed the denial of attorney fees, finding that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party because the court ruled against it on the merits.

Peoria Journal Star v. City of Peoria (2016 IL App (3d) 140838)
The court held that a police department report regarding an employee grievance was not exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(n). The court determined that because the report was created prior to and independent of any formal disciplinary adjudication, it did not qualify as a record of a disciplinary proceeding.

Ralph Mlaska v. The Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 150189-U)
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the documents requested by the plaintiff from the Illinois Department of Corrections were exempt from disclosure under sections 7(1)(a), (1)(e-7), and (1)(f) of the Freedom of Information Act. The court upheld the Department's refusal to provide the records based on these statutory exemptions.

Brian Dugan v. Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 150233-U)
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections regarding a FOIA request. The court held that the Department properly asserted a FOIA exemption and that the plaintiff's motions for sanctions were meritless.

Cebertowicz v. Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 151024)
The court held that the Illinois Department of Corrections did not violate FOIA by denying an inmate's request for copies of documents that were already available for inspection in the facility's library. Under section 7(1)(e-5), materials accessible to an inmate within their correctional facility are exempt from the requirement to provide copies.

City of Chicago v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2017 IL App (1st) 150870)
The court addressed a reverse-FOIA action where a pharmaceutical company sought to prevent the City of Chicago from disclosing documents provided under a protective order. The court affirmed the circuit court's order, finding that the parties maintained a legally cognizable interest in the declaratory relief sought regarding the applicability of FOIA exemptions 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(g).

In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor (2019 IL 122949)
The Supreme Court held that judicial protective orders take precedence over FOIA disclosure requirements. Consequently, the City did not improperly withhold documents under section 11(d) of FOIA because it was required to comply with existing court orders.

Better Government Association v. Village of Rosemont (2017 IL App (1st) 161957)
The court held that the Village of Rosemont could not redact financial terms from public contracts under FOIA, as the trade secrets exemption (section 7(1)(g)) does not apply to standard rental rates and incentives provided by a public body. Furthermore, the court ruled that home rule units lack the authority to create additional exemptions to FOIA disclosure requirements.

The Chicago Tribune v. The College of Du Page and The College of Du Page Foundation (2017 IL App (2d) 160274)
The court held that a federal grand jury subpoena served on the College of Du Page Foundation was subject to disclosure under FOIA, rejecting the argument that the subpoena was exempt as information prohibited from disclosure by federal law. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment requiring the production of the document.

McGee v. Kelley (2017 IL App (3d) 160324)
The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for police records, holding that the records were exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(c) as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court further noted that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to support his claim that the documents had previously been made public.

Chicago Tribune Co. v. Cook County Assessor’s Office (2018 IL App (1st) 170455)
The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the Cook County Assessor’s Office failed to justify withholding property valuation records under the FOIA deliberative process exemption. The appellate court also vacated the trial court's order sealing the case records, finding no compelling reason to maintain secrecy.

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2018 IL App (1st) 171846)
The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint, holding that the plaintiff's request was unduly burdensome under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA. The court determined that the burden of compliance outweighed the public interest because the request amounted to an unfocused 'fishing expedition' rather than a targeted inquiry.

Johnson v. Joliet Police Department (2018 IL App (3d) 170726)
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the requested disciplinary records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they were protected by the Personnel Record Review Act. The court concluded that section 7(1)(a) of FOIA, in conjunction with the Review Act, prohibited the disclosure of the requested disciplinary history.

City of Danville v. Madigan (2018 IL App (4th) 170182)
The court held that documents possessed by a public body are subject to FOIA disclosure if they pertain to public business, provided they do not fall under specific statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the Attorney General's binding opinion that the City of Danville was required to disclose records related to its Housing Task Force.

City of Danville v. Madigan and Flynn (2018 IL App (4th) 170182-U)
The court held that the Attorney General's binding opinion requiring the City of Danville to disclose records under FOIA was not clearly erroneous. The court clarified that while not all documents in a public body's possession are public records, the documents in question pertained to public business and were subject to disclosure.

Kelly v. Village of Kenilworth (2019 IL App (1st) 170780)
The court held that while the defendants demonstrated an ongoing investigation under FOIA section 7(1)(d), they failed to meet their burden of proving that the entirety of the withheld files were exempt. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow for proper compliance with FOIA procedures.

Timpone v. Illinois Student Assistance Comm’n (2019 IL App (1st) 181115)
The court held that the names of Monetary Award Program (MAP) grant recipients are exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(b) because their release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of the requester and the associated award of attorney fees.

NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. Chicago Police Department (2019 IL App (1st) 181426)
The court held that records concerning the police shooting of a minor are not exempt from FOIA disclosure under the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions. The court determined that the records did not relate to a minor who had been investigated, arrested, or taken into custody for a criminal offense, thus requiring their release.

Walker v. Bruscato (2019 IL App (2d) 170775)
The court affirmed summary judgment for the State's Attorney, holding that the plaintiff's FOIA request for grand jury materials was properly denied because the requested records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA as information prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law. The court further determined that additional discovery was unnecessary as the plaintiff had already received the requested grand jury transcript.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Exemptions. (1) When a request is made to inspect or copy a public record that contains information that is exempt from disclosure under this Section, but also contains information that is not exempt from disclosure, the public body may elect to redact the information that is exempt. The public body shall make the remaining information available for inspection and copying. Subject to this requirement, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) Information specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or rules and regulations implementing federal or State law. (b) Private information, unless disclosure is required by another provision of this Act, a State or federal law, or a court order. (b-5) Files, documents, and other data or databases maintained by one or more law enforcement agencies and specifically designed to provide information to one or more law enforcement agencies regarding the physical or mental status of one or more individual subjects. (c) Personal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information. "Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" means the disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject's right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information. The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy. (d) Records in the possession of any public body created in the course of administrative enforcement proceedings, and any law enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure would: (i) interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by any law enforcement or correctional agency that is the recipient of the request; (ii) interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings conducted by the public body that is the recipient of the request; (iii) create a substantial likelihood that a person will be deprived of a fair trial or an impartial hearing; (iv) unavoidably disclose the identity of a confidential source, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, or persons who file complaints with or provide information to administrative, investigative, law enforcement, or penal agencies; except that the identities of witnesses to traffic crashes, traffic crash reports, and rescue reports shall be provided by agencies of local government, except when disclosure would interfere with an active criminal investigation conducted by the agency that is the recipient of the request; (v) disclose unique or specialized investigative techniques other than those generally used and known or disclose internal documents of correctional agencies related to detection, observation, or investigation of incidents of crime or misconduct, and disclosure would result in demonstrable harm to the agency or public body that is the recipient of the request; (vi) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person; or (vii) obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation by the agency that is the recipient of the request. (d-5) A law enforcement record created for law enforcement purposes and contained in a shared electronic record management system if the law enforcement agency or criminal justice agency that is the recipient of the request did not create the record, did not participate in or have a role in any of the events which are the subject of the record, and only has access to the record through the shared electronic record management system. As used in this subsection (d-5), "criminal justice agency" means the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority or the Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council. (d-6) Records contained in the Officer Professional Conduct Database under Section 9.2 of the Illinois Police Training Act, except to the extent authorized under that Section. This includes the documents supplied to the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board from the Illinois State Police and Illinois State Police Merit Board. (d-7) Information gathered or records created from the use of automatic license plate readers in connection with Section 2-130 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (e) Records that relate to or affect the security of correctional institutions and detention facilities. (e-5) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail if those materials are available in the library of the correctional institution or facility or jail where the inmate is confined. (e-6) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail if those materials include records from staff members' personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information. (e-7) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health if those materials are available through an administrative request to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health. (e-8) Records requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, the disclosure of which would result in the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from a jail or correctional institution or facility. (e-9) Records requested by a person in a county jail or committed to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, containing personal information pertaining to the person's victim or the victim's family, including, but not limited to, a victim's home address, home telephone number, work or school address, work telephone number, social security number, or any other identifying information, except as may be relevant to a requester's current or potential case or claim. (e-10) Law enforcement records of other persons requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, including, but not limited to, arrest and booking records, mug shots, and crime scene photographs, except as these records may be relevant to the requester's current or potential case or claim. (f) Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda, and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated, except that a specific record or relevant portion of a record shall not be exempt when the record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body. The exemption provided in this paragraph (f) extends to all those records of officers and agencies of the General Assembly that pertain to the preparation of legislative documents. (g) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person or business where the trade secrets or commercial or financial information are furnished under a claim that they are proprietary, privileged, or confidential, and that disclosure of the trade secrets or commercial or financial information would cause competitive harm to the person or business, and only insofar as the claim directly applies to the records requested. The information included under this exemption includes all trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained by a public body, including a public pension fund, from a private equity fund or a privately held company within the investment portfolio of a private equity fund as a result of either investing or evaluating a potential investment of public funds in a private equity fund. The exemption contained in this item does not apply to the aggregate financial performance information of a private equity fund, nor to the identity of the fund's managers or general partners. The exemption contained in this item does not apply to the identity of a privately held company within the investment portfolio of a private equity fund, unless the disclosure of the identity of a privately held company may cause competitive harm. Nothing contained in this paragraph (g) shall be construed to prevent a person or business from consenting to disclosure. (h) Proposals and bids for any contract, grant, or agreement, including information which if it were disclosed would frustrate procurement or give an advantage to any person proposing to enter into a contractor agreement with the body, until an award or final selection is made. Information prepared by or for the body in preparation of a bid solicitation shall be exempt until an award or final selection is made. (i) Valuable formulae, computer geographic systems, designs, drawings, and research data obtained or produced by any public body when disclosure could reasonably be expected to produce private gain or public loss. The exemption for "computer geographic systems" provided in this paragraph (i) does not extend to requests made by news media as defined in Section 2 of this Act when the requested information is not otherwise exempt and the only purpose of the request is to access and disseminate information regarding the health, safety, welfare, or legal rights of the general public. (j) The following information pertaining to educational matters: (i) test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer an academic examination; (ii) information received by a primary or secondary school, college, or university under its procedures for the evaluation of faculty members by their academic peers; (iii) information concerning a school or university's adjudication of student disciplinary cases, but only to the extent that disclosure would unavoidably reveal the identity of the student; and (iv) course materials or research materials used by faculty members. (k) Architects' plans, engineers' technical submissions, and other construction related technical documents for projects not constructed or developed in whole or in part with public funds and the same for projects constructed or developed with public funds, including, but not limited to, power generating and distribution stations and other transmission and distribution facilities, water treatment facilities, airport facilities, sport stadiums, convention centers, and all government owned, operated, or occupied buildings, but only to the extent that disclosure would compromise security. (l) Minutes of meetings of public bodies closed to the public as provided in the Open Meetings Act until the public body makes the minutes available to the public under Section 2.06 of the Open Meetings Act. (m) 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. (n) Records relating to a public body's adjudication of employee grievances or disciplinary cases; however, this exemption shall not extend to the final outcome of cases in which discipline is imposed. (o) Administrative or technical information associated with automated data processing operations, including, but not limited to, software, operating protocols, computer program abstracts, file layouts, source listings, object modules, load modules, user guides, documentation pertaining to all logical and physical design of computerized systems, employee manuals, and any other information that, if disclosed, would jeopardize the security of the system or its data or the security of materials exempt under this Section. (p) Records relating to collective negotiating matters between public bodies and their employees or representatives, except that any final contract or agreement shall be subject to inspection and copying. (q) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to determine the qualifications of an applicant for a license or employment. (r) The records, documents, and information relating to real estate purchase negotiations until those negotiations have been completed or otherwise terminated. With regard to a parcel involved in a pending or actually and reasonably contemplated eminent domain proceeding under the Eminent Domain Act, records, documents, and information relating to that parcel shall be exempt except as may be allowed under discovery rules adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court. The records, documents, and information relating to a real estate sale shall be exempt until a sale is consummated. (s) 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. (t) Information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public body responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions, insurance companies, or pharmacy benefit managers, unless disclosure is otherwise required by State law. (u) Information that would disclose or might lead to the disclosure of secret or confidential information, codes, algorithms, programs, or private keys intended to be used to create electronic signatures under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (v) Vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent, or respond to potential attacks upon a community's population or systems, facilities, or installations, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose the vulnerability or jeopardize the effectiveness of the measures, policies, or plans, or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public. Information exempt under this item may include such things as details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of personnel or equipment, to the operation of communication systems or protocols, to cybersecurity vulnerabilities, or to tactical operations. (w) (Blank). (x) Maps and other records regarding the location or security of generation, transmission, distribution, storage, gathering, treatment, or switching facilities owned by a utility, by a power generator, or by the Illinois Power Agency. (y) Information contained in or related to proposals, bids, or negotiations related to electric power procurement under Section 1-75 of the Illinois Power Agency Act and Section 16-111.5 of the Public Utilities Act that is determined to be confidential and proprietary by the Illinois Power Agency or by the Illinois Commerce Commission. (z) Information about students exempted from disclosure under Section 10-20.38 or 34-18.29 of the School Code, and information about undergraduate students enrolled at an institution of higher education exempted from disclosure under Section 25 of the Illinois Credit Card Marketing Act of 2009. (aa) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the Viatical Settlements Act of 2009. (bb) Records and information provided to a mortality review team and records maintained by a mortality review team appointed under the Department of Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team Act. (cc) Information regarding interments, entombments, or inurnments of human remains that are submitted to the Cemetery Oversight Database under the Cemetery Care Act or the Cemetery Oversight Act, whichever is applicable. (dd) Correspondence and records (i) that may not be disclosed under Section 11-9 of the Illinois Public Aid Code or (ii) that pertain to appeals under Section 11-8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ee) The names, addresses, or other personal information of persons who are minors and are also participants and registrants in programs of park districts, forest preserve districts, conservation districts, recreation agencies, and special recreation associations. (ff) The names, addresses, or other personal information of participants and registrants in programs of park districts, forest preserve districts, conservation districts, recreation agencies, and special recreation associations where such programs are targeted primarily to minors. (gg) Confidential information described in Section 1-100 of the Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal Act of 2012. (hh) The report submitted to the State Board of Education by the School Security and Standards Task Force under item (8) of subsection (d) of Section 2-3.160 of the School Code and any information contained in that report. (ii) Records requested by persons committed to or detained by the Department of Human Services under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act or committed to the Department of Corrections under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act if those materials: (i) are available in the library of the facility where the individual is confined; (ii) include records from staff members' personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information; or (iii) are available through an administrative request to the Department of Human Services or the Department of Corrections. (jj) Confidential information described in Section 5-535 of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (kk) The public body's credit card numbers, debit card numbers, bank account numbers, Federal Employer Identification Number, security code numbers, passwords, and similar account information, the disclosure of which could result in identity theft or impression or defrauding of a governmental entity or a person. (ll) Records concerning the work of the threat assessment team of a school district, including, but not limited to, any threat assessment procedure under the School Safety Drill Act and any information contained in the procedure. (mm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 15 of the Student Confidential Reporting Act. (nn) Proprietary information submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Drug Take-Back Act. (oo) Records described in subsection (f) of Section 3-5-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections. (pp) Any and all information regarding burials, interments, or entombments of human remains as required to be reported to the Department of Natural Resources pursuant either to the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Protection Act or the Human Remains Protection Act. (qq) Reports described in subsection (e) of Section 16-15 of the Abortion Care Clinical Training Program Act. (rr) Information obtained by a certified local health department under the Access to Public Health Data Act. (ss) For a request directed to a public body that is also a HIPAA-covered entity, all information that is protected health information, including demographic information, that may be contained within or extracted from any record held by the public body in compliance with State and federal medical privacy laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its regulations, 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164. As used in this paragraph, "HIPAA-covered entity" has the meaning given to the term "covered entity" in 45 CFR 160.103 and "protected health information" has the meaning given to that term in 45 CFR 160.103. (tt) Proposals or bids submitted by engineering consultants in response to requests for proposal or other competitive bidding requests by the Department of Transportation or the Illinois Toll Highway Authority. (uu) Documents that, pursuant to the State of Illinois' 1987 Agreement with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the corresponding requirement to maintain compatibility with the National Materials Program, have been determined to be security sensitive. These documents include information classified as safeguards, safeguards-modified, and sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information, as identified in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulatory information summaries, security advisories, and other applicable communications or regulations related to the control and distribution of security sensitive information. (1.5) Any information exempt from disclosure under the Judicial Privacy Act shall be redacted from public records prior to disclosure under this Act. (2) A public record that is not in the possession of a public body but is in the possession of a party with whom the agency has contracted to perform a governmental function on behalf of the public body, and that directly relates to the governmental function and is not otherwise exempt under this Act, shall be considered a public record of the public body, for purposes of this Act. (3) This Section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as stated in this Section or otherwise provided in this Act. (Source: P.A. 103-154, eff. 6-30-23; 103-423, eff. 1-1-24; 103-446, eff. 8-4-23; 103-462, eff. 8-4-23; 103-540, eff. 1-1-24; 103-554, eff. 1-1-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-865, eff. 1-1-25; 104-438, eff. 1-1-26.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-443) (Text of Section before amendment by P.A. 104-300 )

Breakdown by specific citation: 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy (records whose release would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy)): 73 · 7(1)(b) (Private information (defined in Sec. 2(c-5) -- e.g. SSNs, driver's license numbers, home addresses in some contexts)): 70 · 7(1)(a) (Federal/State-law confidentiality — or public defender case files, for documents issued under the other amendment version (see Sec. 7)): 65 · 7 (General exemptions provision (cites Sec. 7 as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 42 · 7(1)(f) (Preliminary drafts, notes, and deliberative materials (pre-decisional "draft" exemption)): 38 · 7(1)(m) (Attorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials (attorney-client-style privilege)): 16 · 7(1)(g) (Trade secrets and confidential commercial/financial information): 12 · 7(1)(d) (Law-enforcement/administrative-proceeding records (general)): 11 · 7(1)(d)(i) (Would interfere with pending/contemplated law-enforcement proceedings): 10 · 7(1)(v) (Security vulnerability assessments and response plans): 8 · 7(1)(n) (Employee grievance/discipline adjudication records (except final discipline outcomes)): 7 · 7(1)(k) (Architectural/engineering security-sensitive construction documents): 6 · 7(1) (General exemption list (cites the lettered exemptions in Sec. 7(1) without naming a specific one)): 6 · 7(1)(j)(iv) (Faculty course/research materials): 5 · 7(1)(e) (Correctional/detention facility security records): 5 · 7(1)(i) (Valuable formulae, designs, and research data): 3 · 7(1)(d)(ii) (Would interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings): 3 · 7(1)(e-10) (Other people's law-enforcement records requested by an inmate): 3 · 7(1)(e-5) (Records available to an inmate through the facility library): 2 · 7(1)(d)(vii) (Would obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation): 2 · 7(1)(s) (Intergovernmental risk-management/self-insurance pool records): 2 · 7(1)(h) (Bids and proposals, until a contract is awarded): 2 · 7(1)(t) (Financial institution/insurer regulatory examination reports): 2 · 7(1)(o) (Data-processing/IT security information): 2 · 7(1)(kk) (Public body's own financial account/security credentials): 2 · 7(1)(x) (Utility facility location/security maps): 2 · 7(1)(d)(iv) (Would disclose a confidential source or informant): 2 · 7(1)(p) (Collective bargaining negotiation records (final contracts stay public)): 1 · 7(1)(r) (Real estate purchase negotiation records, until completed): 1 · 7(1)(q) (Licensing/employment exam questions and scoring keys): 1 · 7(1)(d)(vi) (Would endanger the life or safety of law enforcement or others): 1 · 7(1)(d)(iii) (Would create a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial or hearing): 1 · 7(1)(d-7) (Automatic license plate reader data): 1 · 7(1)(l) (Closed-session meeting minutes not yet released under OMA Sec. 2.06): 1 · 7(1)(b)(ii): 1 · 7(1)(e-8) (Records whose release would risk harm or an escape): 1 · 7(b): 1 · 7(b)(v): 1 · 7(f): 1 · 7(1)(b)(i): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Master index of all PAC FOIA opinions issued since 2010
This document is not a legal decision, but rather a master list or index of all binding opinions issued by the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor since 2010. It is intended to help the public and legal professionals find specific past rulings on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) issues.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of legal invoices reflecting a school district's expenses in several lawsuits, and the school district withheld the invoices in full, asserting attorney-client privilege. The Public Access Counselor held that while some invoice descriptions could reveal privileged communications and could be redacted, generic descriptions of the work performed, attorneys' initials, time spent, and billed amounts are not privileged and must be disclosed. The school district was directed to release the non-exempt portions of the invoices, since withholding the records in their entirety violated FOIA's requirement to redact only the exempt information and produce the rest.

Disclosure of Records Pertaining to Arrests and Police Reports
The requester, a journalist, sought police incident reports and related records concerning an arrest of a local public official, which a police department withheld entirely, citing a personal-privacy exemption and denying that an arrest had actually occurred. The Public Access Counselor's own review of the records showed that an arrest had in fact taken place, triggering FOIA's specific arrest-disclosure provisions, and found that the subject's privacy interest was outweighed by the strong public interest in arrest information generally and in how law enforcement handled the incident. The police department was directed to release the records, subject only to redaction of statutorily defined private information, since it failed to prove the withheld material was otherwise exempt.

Disclosure of All Non-Exempt Portions of Requested Records
The requester sought copies of FOIA denial letters that a forest preserve district had issued citing a particular law-enforcement exemption, and the district produced heavily redacted copies, withholding not only private information but also material it deemed unrelated to the request. The Public Access Counselor held that because the request sought entire letters rather than specific information within them, the district could withhold only genuinely exempt content, properly redacting personal identifiers, but could not redact other material simply because it viewed that material as outside the scope of the request. The forest preserve district was directed to release the letters in full except for the properly redacted private information.

Production of Records to the Public Access Counselor
The requester sought a state licensing agency's complete investigative file on a real estate licensee, after the agency had previously been directed, in response to an earlier related request, to release the same file for failing to prove it was exempt, but did not comply. The agency again refused to respond to the new request, refused to provide the Public Access Counselor with copies of the records for review, and continued to assert without adequate support that the file was exempt as an investigative, confidential, or law-enforcement record. The Public Access Counselor held that the agency violated FOIA's response deadlines, notice requirements, and its duty to cooperate with review, and again directed it to produce the file, redacting only genuinely private third-party information.

Disclosure of Records Relating to the Death of a Minor
The requester, a journalist, sought investigative records concerning the police shooting of a minor, which a state agency withheld in full, primarily citing juvenile-confidentiality provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. The Public Access Counselor held that those provisions apply only to arrested or court-involved juveniles, not to a minor who died during the encounter and was never taken into custody, and found the agency's broader privacy objections unsupported, though it allowed redaction of unique identifiers, identifying information about surviving family members, and post-mortem photographs. The state agency was directed to release the remaining records, including the substantive investigative, autopsy, and toxicology materials, since the public interest in a full accounting of the shooting outweighed the narrower privacy interests actually established.

Judicial Inquiry Board is Not a "Public Body" to which FOIA is Applicable
The requester sought records from a state judicial oversight board concerning the circumstances of a former judge's removal from the bench, and the board declined to respond, asserting it was not subject to FOIA at all because it operates as part of the judicial branch. The Public Access Counselor agreed, holding that FOIA's definition of "public body" covers only legislative, executive, and administrative bodies and specifically excludes the judiciary, and that the board's investigatory role in judicial discipline places it squarely within the judicial branch. Because the board is not subject to FOIA in the first place, no violation occurred and the request for review was denied.

‘ Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought a school district's emergency management plans and related records, and the school district never responded at all, either to comply, deny, or extend the deadline within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the school district's total failure to respond constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The school district was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue timely responses to future requests.

Disclosure of Student Test Scores and the Illinois School Student Records Act
The requester sought de-identified fourth-grade math test scores from a school district, and the school district refused, first claiming the underlying student-privacy law made the data exempt entirely, then claiming that redacting and scrambling the scores so no student could be identified would amount to creating a new record it wasn't required to produce. The Public Access Counselor rejected both arguments, holding that a record with individually identifying information removed is no longer covered by student-records confidentiality law, and that redacting or reordering existing data does not create a new record under settled Illinois case law, even when the school district's own reporting software could not do so electronically. The school district was directed to provide the de-identified scores in the format requested or another format the requester had agreed to accept.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought village hall surveillance footage, police department records, meeting minutes, and building access logs, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor over several months. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a village government's financial records, including its checkbook register, treasurer's reports, and attorney invoices, and the village never responded at all, despite the Public Access Counselor's follow-up inquiry going unanswered as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, also finding the village appeared to lack a properly designated FOIA officer as the law requires. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, designate and identify a FOIA officer, and post the required public notice of its request procedures.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of travel and credit-card expense records for a public university's board members and president, later amending the request to broaden its scope, and the university never responded to either version despite repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's silence on the amended request constituted a denial under FOIA, since the requester had explicitly superseded his original request with the amended one. The university was directed to produce all records responsive to the amended request, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Records Relating to a Public Body's Internal Investigation into an Employee's Conduct
The requester, a journalist, sought police and internal-investigation records concerning an off-duty car accident involving a police department's assistant chief, and the city government withheld the underlying investigative materials, arguing they related to an "adjudication" of a disciplinary case and were therefore exempt. The Public Access Counselor held that an informal internal inquiry that never proceeded to a formal adjudicatory hearing does not qualify as an "adjudication" under the narrow exemption the city invoked, and that related records such as the traffic citation and witness accounts were independently public regardless of the investigation. The city government was directed to release the withheld investigative and citation records, subject only to permissible redactions for private information.

Statistical Data is Not Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)() of FOIA
The requester sought monthly Uniform Crime Report statistics that a city's police department had submitted to a state police agency for 2012 and 2013. The state police agency withheld the records entirely, arguing they were "preliminary" because the underlying numbers had not yet been verified and could later be revised, and that this made them exempt as deliberative material under the FOIA exemption for preliminary drafts, notes, and records in which opinions are expressed or policies are formulated. The PAC held that this exemption protects the deliberative process, not purely factual or statistical data, and that the crime statistics did not reveal any agency decision-making or reasoning—only numbers reported by the local police department. Because the possibility that data might later be corrected does not make it "preliminary" or deliberative in the legal sense, the PAC found the withholding improper and ordered the records released, noting the agency could simply flag the data as unverified.

Duty to Provide "Clear and Convincing" Evidence to Support Assertion of Exemptions; Possibility of Obtaining Public Records through Discovery Does Not Preclude FOIA Requests
The requester asked the police department for a copy of a specific police report, but the department denied the request, claiming disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and could deprive someone of a fair trial. The department also argued the requester should instead obtain the report through court discovery procedures. The PAC held that the department's justifications were vague and conclusory, failing to show by clear and convincing evidence that either exemption applied, and further explained that the availability of records through discovery does not eliminate a person's separate right to obtain records under FOIA. As a result, the PAC directed the department to release the report, subject only to limited redactions for private information and confidential source information.

Public Records in the Possession of a Contractor Performing a Governmental Function for a Public Body Are Public Records of the Public Body; A Public Body May Not Charge a Requester Fees for the Contractor to Locate and Retrieve Such Public Records in a Non-Commercial Request
The requester sought records related to a sidewalk/curb improvement project from the village government, including bid documents, payroll reports, and correspondence with the project's engineering firm. The village government said it did not possess many of these records because they were held by its private engineering contractor, and demanded payment of over $1,100 in estimated labor costs before it would obtain and release them. The PAC held that because the engineering firm was performing a governmental function on the village government's behalf, the records it held were legally public records of the village government, and that state law bars public bodies from charging non-commercial requesters for search, review, or other personnel costs, even when those costs are incurred through a contractor. As a result, the PAC found the village government improperly denied the request and ordered it to provide the withheld records without conditioning release on payment of those fees.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of a law firm's legal billing invoices from the city government for the past calendar year, but the city withheld them entirely, citing exemptions for attorney-client privileged communications, collective bargaining matters, and (later) records related to employee disciplinary adjudications. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau held that the city violated FOIA by withholding the invoices in full, finding that only specific descriptive entries revealing privileged legal advice or specific collective-bargaining strategy could be redacted, while general billing information—dates, attorney initials, hours, amounts billed, and general task descriptions—was not exempt and had to be disclosed. The PAC also rejected the disciplinary-adjudication exemption, reasoning that billing invoices exist independently of any disciplinary proceeding and are not themselves part of an adjudicatory process. The city government was directed to release the invoices with only narrowly tailored redactions.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester sought copies of settlement agreements from the county board, but the county board withheld some of them, citing confidentiality provisions within the agreements and arguing that release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA because the agreements resolved sexual harassment complaints. The Public Access Counselor held that settlement agreements are public records under FOIA and that confidentiality clauses within them are unenforceable because they conflict with the statute's plain language and legislative intent favoring disclosure. The PAC also found the privacy exemption inapplicable because the withheld documents did not describe the underlying allegations, and because the public's constitutional and statutory interest in knowing how public funds are spent outweighed any privacy interest the complainants had. As a result, the county board was directed to release the settlement agreements, subject only to redaction of private information under section 7(1)(b).

Duty to Disclose Public Records in the Possession of a Public Body
The requester sought records showing how much money was collected during a university's homecoming dance and how those funds were handled. The university denied the request, arguing the records belonged to its Student Government Association, which it claimed was not a "public body" subject to FOIA. The PAC held that this argument was irrelevant, because the records were in the university's possession and control—held in a university-controlled account and overseen by university staff—and therefore pertained to the transaction of public business by the university itself. The PAC ruled that the university violated FOIA and ordered it to release the records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Records Documenting Public Funds Paid to Entities Pursuant to Contracts For Performance of A Governmental Function Are Subject to Disclosure
The requester sought copies of the state lottery agency's marketing and advertising contracts, specifically the pricing structure and hourly rates, but the agency's private lottery manager redacted the financial terms, citing exemptions for information barred by other state law and for confidential commercial/financial information that could cause competitive harm. The PAC held that neither exemption applied: the financial terms did not qualify as "confidential data" under the Lottery Law's narrow exception, and because the figures represented the cost of publicly funded services, they were expressly subject to disclosure as records relating to the use of public funds, with no adequate showing of competitive harm to support withholding them as trade secrets. The PAC also found that confidentiality agreements between the manager and its contractors could not override this public disclosure duty, since those agreements themselves allowed for disclosure under a binding governmental order. The agency was directed to release the full financial terms, including contract totals, hourly rates, and any commissions.

Disclosure of Photographs of a Former Auxiliary Deputy Sheriff
The requester sought photographs of a former auxiliary deputy from the sheriff's department. The sheriff's department denied the request, arguing the photographs were exempt "private information" because they contained "biometric identifiers." The Public Access Counselor found that the photographs were general in nature and did not focus on any unique physical attribute used to identify a person, so they did not qualify as biometric identifiers under the common meaning of that term. Because FOIA's definition of "public records" specifically includes photographs, and the exemption for "private information" did not, the PAC concluded the sheriff's department violated FOIA and ordered the photographs to be disclosed.

Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Search for Responsive Records; Repeat Requests Under Section 3(g)
The requester sought records concerning a village clerk's participation in a conference, including communications, billing records, contribution documentation, and expense records. The village government responded that it had no responsive records and also claimed part of the request was unduly burdensome under section 3(g) because it was a repeat of an earlier request that had allegedly been "properly denied." The PAC found that the village government violated FOIA in multiple ways: it failed to show it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, especially since it had previously been directed to search for similar records and never complied; its section 3(g) burden claim failed because the prior request had not actually been "properly denied" (the earlier denial itself had been found improper); and it improperly withheld responsive records it later disclosed to the PAC without showing any exemption applied. The village government was ordered to conduct a proper search and disclose all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Photocopies of Records Deemed Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)(e-5)
An incarcerated requester asked the corrections department for photocopies of certain administrative directives that were already available for inspection in the correctional facility's library. The corrections department denied the request under a FOIA exemption covering records requested by inmates that are available in the facility library, and the requester argued this exemption shouldn't apply because inmates weren't allowed to photocopy the library materials themselves. The Public Access Counselor upheld the denial, finding that the exemption only requires that inmates have access to inspect the records in the library, not that they be permitted to make or receive photocopies, based on the legislative history showing the exemption was meant to relieve the department of the burden of copying records already available to inmates through the library.

Disclosure of Résumé and Job Application of Public Employee
The requester sought a copy of an employee's résumé and job application from the village government, which denied the request by claiming the records were exempt as private personal information, as material prohibited from disclosure under the Personnel Record Review Act, and as deliberative material. The PAC held that the records were not exempt: they bear on the employee's qualifications and public duties, the public has a strong interest in verifying that hiring complied with applicable laws, and this interest outweighed the employee's privacy concerns, since the information was factual and presented favorably rather than embarrassing. The PAC also found the Personnel Record Review Act only bars disclosure of performance evaluations (not résumés or applications), and that the records were purely factual rather than deliberative, so the village government was ordered to release the records, redacting only truly private identifying details like a signature, home address, and phone numbers.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester asked the city government for a copy of a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit against the city, along with related records and documents about the city council's vote to approve the settlement payment. The city government denied the request, citing a personal privacy exemption and pointing to a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement. The PAC held that settlement agreements are specifically made public records under FOIA, that confidentiality clauses in such agreements cannot override this rule, and that because the underlying claims related to the plaintiff's public employment, disclosure would not be an unwarranted invasion of privacy—especially given the strong public interest in how public funds are spent. The PAC also found the city government's response incomplete because it failed to address whether it searched for other related records, and ordered the city to disclose the settlement agreement and conduct a proper search for any additional responsive records.

Home Rule Ordinance Does Not Supersede FOIA; Negotiated Terms of Contracts with Public Bodies Do Not Constitute Trade Secrets; Correspondence With Third Parties Is Not Part of A Public Body's Deliberative Process
The requester, a journalist, sought records related to a touring musician's concerts at a village-owned entertainment venue, including contracts, correspondence, and financial terms with the concert promoter, and the village government withheld ticket-pricing emails and rental/revenue figures, citing the deliberative-process and trade-secret exemptions and, later, a home-rule ordinance it passed after the request was denied. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's ordinance could not override FOIA because regulating access to public records is a matter of statewide, not local, concern, that the financial terms of the venue's contracts were expressly subject to disclosure as records of the village's use of public funds, and that emails with the promoter did not qualify as deliberative because they were exchanged with an outside party representing independent interests. The village government was directed to produce the contracts, invoices, and emails, redacting only limited private information.

Disclosure of Public Employees' Compensation
The requester sought a hospital district's physician employment agreements, including compensation, incentive, and bonus information, and the hospital district redacted this financial information, arguing it was private and that physicians do not perform "public duties." The Public Access Counselor rejected both arguments, holding that records of physician compensation paid from the district's funds are public records concerning the use of public funds regardless of whether physicians have "public duties," that compensation amounts are not "private information" under the personal-privacy exemption, and that disclosure of pay tied to public employment is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The hospital district was directed to disclose the compensation information and a post-office-box address that had been improperly withheld as a home address.

Disclosure of Surveillance Video Recordings
The requester, a paralegal for the law firm representing a party in a fatal accident case, sought surveillance video from a state highway rest area showing the area near where a pedestrian was fatally struck by a truck, and the state transportation department withheld the video, arguing that disclosure would invade the privacy of the decedent's family. The Public Access Counselor held that while family members can have an independent privacy interest in graphic details of a relative's death, these videos did not depict the accident itself or contain graphic content, so the strong public interest in understanding the circumstances of a fatal traffic accident outweighed any privacy concern. The state transportation department was directed to provide the requester with copies of the videos.

Disclosure of the Governor's Calendar
The requester, a journalist, sought the governor's daily appointment calendar showing meetings and attendees, and the governor's office redacted the names of meeting attendees, arguing the calendar was a personal scheduling tool and that disclosure would reveal deliberative and privileged legal strategy. The Public Access Counselor held that because the calendar was maintained by staff, used to facilitate scheduling, and accessible to senior officials, it was a public record documenting the office's business rather than a private convenience, and that the governor's office had not shown with specific facts that disclosing attendees' identities would expose deliberative reasoning or privileged legal communications, distinguishing cases involving far more detailed or security-sensitive schedules. The governor's office was also found to have missed FOIA's response deadline and was directed to disclose the calendar entries, redacting only personal telephone numbers.

Failure to Timely Respond to FOIA Request Precludes Denial as Unduly Burdensome; Disclosure of Certified Payroll Records
The requester sought certified payroll records for state highway construction projects in a county, and the state transportation department denied the request as unduly burdensome, citing the labor involved in redacting the hundreds of pages of records. The Public Access Counselor held that the department's denial came after FOIA's five-business-day response deadline had already passed, which by itself barred it from claiming undue burden, and separately concluded that because the legislature specifically made certified payroll records public and defined exactly what information must be redacted from them, the burden of that redaction did not outweigh the strong public interest in disclosure. The state transportation department was directed to produce the certified payroll records, redacting only the specific categories of information the statute allows.

Determination letters

Illinois Department of Revenue did not violate FOIA by withholding audit manual sections
A law firm requested internal audit manuals from the Illinois Department of Revenue to understand how the state determines corporate income and sales taxes. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and concluded that the Department was legally allowed to keep these documents private to protect tax enforcement standards. This means the request for the records was denied and the case is now closed.

SIU School of Medicine properly withheld animal training emails under 7(1)(f)
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine requested records from the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine about animal use in medical training. The school withheld some emails, claiming they were internal drafts or deliberative communications. The Attorney General's office agreed that the school followed the law and was allowed to keep those specific documents private.

SIU School of Medicine properly applied 7(1)(f) to emails on animal use
A research group requested records from a medical school about its use of animals in training programs. The school withheld some emails, claiming they were internal drafts or deliberative communications. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school, finding that the records were protected from disclosure.

City of Elmhurst improperly withheld construction cost estimates under 7(1)(f)
A citizen requested documents from the City of Elmhurst regarding construction costs for city parking garages. The City refused to release the records, claiming they were internal drafts and opinions under section 7(1)(f) of FOIA. The Attorney General's office reviewed the documents and concluded that the general contractor's draft proposals were not exempt because the contractor had its own financial interest, and the City Manager's memorandum was factual, not deliberative. However, the office allowed the City to redact the Assistant City Manager's handwritten notes, which reflected pre-decisional opinions and were not publicly cited by the Mayor.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 DVD fee under FOIA
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD copy. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department improperly assessed the fee because it failed to respond to the request within the required time limits under FOIA. Alternatively, even if the response had been timely, the fee was set by an administrative rule, not by a statute, and therefore could not be charged under FOIA. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the $20 fee.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 fee for DVD under administrative rule
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department could not charge this fee because it was based on an administrative rule rather than a specific state law. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the cost of the DVD.

Chicago Transit Authority improperly withheld Bombardier component percentages in Buy America audit
A requester sought detailed audit information about the manufacturing origins of railcar components for a Chicago Transit Authority project. The Attorney General's office determined that the CTA properly withheld the percentages of components from suppliers other than Bombardier, but improperly withheld the percentages of components supplied by Bombardier. The CTA also properly withheld the percentages and subcomponents in the Buy America Compliance Certificates, but improperly withheld the Description of Work in the Post-Delivery Audit.

Village of Forest Park no violation for withholding police video under law enforcement exemptions
The question was whether the Village of Forest Park properly withheld surveillance videos of a hit-and-run under FOIA Section 7(1)(d) exemptions, including an unargued but implicated Section 7(1)(d)(iii) fair-trial exemption. The Public Access Bureau held that the Village did not improperly deny the request at the time it was submitted, because disclosure during the pendency of the criminal prosecution would have created a substantial likelihood of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The reasoning applied the federal analog under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B), requiring a showing that a trial is pending or imminent and that disclosure would more probably than not seriously interfere with the fairness of the proceedings. The Bureau noted that the videos contained witness and defendant statements whose disclosure could have influenced testimony, but suggested the same rationale might no longer apply if a new request were submitted later. No binding opinion was issued.

PAC cannot review Illinois Department of Revenue's commercial-purpose FOIA denial
Mr. Vertin requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue for his business. Because the request was for a commercial purpose, the Attorney General's office stated it does not have the legal authority to review the Department's denial. The requester must instead pursue the matter through a lawsuit in court.

PAC lacks authority to review commercial-purpose FOIA denial by IL Dept of Revenue
A business owner requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue, but the Department denied the request. When the requester asked the Attorney General's office to intervene, the office declined because the request was for a commercial purpose. Under Illinois law, the Public Access Counselor does not have the authority to resolve disputes involving commercial FOIA requests.

First Fire Protection District improperly withheld budget documents under 7(1)(f)
A citizen requested a budget document that was presented during a public fire district meeting. The district refused to release it, claiming it was a 'preliminary draft' that might confuse the public. The Attorney General's office disagreed, ruling that the district did not provide enough evidence to justify keeping the document secret and ordered them to release it.

Illinois Department of Corrections must disclose contractor-held prescription drug records
A reporter requested records of prescription drug orders made by the Illinois Department of Corrections through private vendors. The Attorney General's office ruled that the Department must get these records from its vendor and provide them to the reporter. The Department is allowed to remove personal information that would identify specific inmates to protect their medical privacy.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District properly withheld facility plans under 7(1)(k)
A requester asked for detailed facility plans from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, but the District refused to provide them, citing security concerns. The Attorney General's office reviewed the documents and agreed that releasing the technical details of the facility's systems could pose a security risk. Consequently, the PAC closed the case, finding that the District acted within the law.

University of Illinois properly withheld animal medical records but improperly redacted protocol names
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 signatures and personal emergency-contact numbers were properly redacted. The university was directed to disclose the remaining redacted information.

Governor's Office improperly withheld correspondence from former official under FOIA exemptions
The requester sought correspondence between the governor's office and a former state agency director, portions of which the office withheld as deliberative material, attorney-client communications, and personal information. The PAC determined that most of the pre-decisional emails and the personal emails were properly withheld, but that certain factual records and a legal-matter update did not qualify as deliberative or privileged and were improperly withheld. The governor's office was directed to release the improperly withheld records.

PAC cannot review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
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.

PAC declines to review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
A business owner requested training materials from the University of Illinois to help his company win a government contract. The Attorney General's office declined to review the University's refusal to provide these documents because the law prohibits the PAC from intervening in FOIA disputes involving commercial requests. The requester must now pursue the matter through the court system if they wish to challenge the denial.

Lake County State's Attorney's Office improperly withheld emails under 7(1)(f) and 7(1)(m)
The requester sought e-mails between a state's attorney's office investigator and a school district official concerning an investigation into the district's finances, which the office withheld as deliberative material and attorney work product. The PAC determined the e-mails merely requested and furnished factual information and did not reflect any deliberative process, legal theories, or litigation strategy, so neither exemption applied. The state's attorney's office was directed to provide the e-mails to the requester.

City of Monticello properly withheld preliminary drafts under section 7(1)(f)
This determination addressed whether the City of Monticello properly withheld wastewater treatment plant design specifications under FOIA's preliminary-drafts exemption, 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(f). The Public Access Bureau held that the City did not improperly withhold the records because they were preliminary, deliberative materials prepared by the City's engineering consultant and had not yet been presented to or reviewed by the City Council. The Bureau reasoned that section 7(1)(f) covers intra-agency deliberative material, including consultant work product where the consultant represents the public body's interests, and that the exception for records 'publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body' did not apply because the discussion at the relevant council meeting was led by the City superintendent and the consultant, not the Mayor (the head of the public body). The City of Monticello was the public body involved, and the records at issue were consultant-prepared plans and specifications for a wastewater treatment plant.

Illinois Department of Revenue improperly withheld personnel records under 7(1)(c), 7(1)(f), and 7(1)(m)
The requester sought communications the department's personnel office received regarding hiring and staffing matters, which the department withheld as deliberative material. The PAC determined that the records largely requested and conveyed factual and logistical information rather than opinions or recommendations, so the department did not meet its burden of showing they were exempt as deliberative. The department was directed to furnish the records to the requester.

Governor's Office of Management and Budget improperly withheld PowerPoint under 7(1)(f)
A reporter requested budget-related documents from the Governor's budget office, but the office refused to release a PowerPoint presentation, claiming it was part of internal policy discussions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the budget office did not prove the document was exempt from public view. Consequently, the office was ordered to release the PowerPoint to the reporter.

Park Ridge-Niles SD 64 improperly redacted teacher disciplinary settlement records
A reporter requested records regarding a teacher's disciplinary settlement, but the school district blacked out too much information. The Attorney General's office ruled that the district must release the records, only redacting the names of students to protect their privacy. This ensures the public can understand the reasons for the settlement while keeping student identities private.

Proper University properly withheld internal audit report under exemption 7(1)(c)
The requester sought a copy of an internal audit report about a contractor's compliance with contract-timeline requirements, which a public college withheld as an internal-audit record. The requester argued that because the college had previously furnished the audit to its accreditation commission, the college improperly granted the commission an exclusive right to the record and waived the internal-audit exemption. The PAC determined the record was properly exempt as an internal audit, that the college's compulsory, confidentiality-protected disclosure to the accreditation commission did not give it any right to disseminate the record, and that no waiver occurred; the college's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois Department of Human Services properly denied records under 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(dd)
A citizen requested their own public aid records from the Illinois Department of Human Services to verify that proper procedures were followed. The Department denied the request, citing laws that protect the confidentiality of public aid recipients. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the law prohibits the release of these records for the requester's stated purpose.

Village of Arlington Heights properly withheld blueprints under section 7(1)(k)
A resident requested building blueprints from the Village of Arlington Heights, but the Village refused to provide them, citing a law that protects construction documents for private projects. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and agreed with the Village, finding that the building was privately funded and therefore exempt from disclosure. This means the Village was legally allowed to keep the blueprints private.

Elmhurst SD 205 improperly withheld some emails under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(f)
The requester sought emails between the school district superintendent and a high school principal, and between the district and a parent, concerning complaints about morning announcements, which the district withheld under the deliberative-process and personal-privacy exemptions. The PAC determined that most Superintendent-Principal emails were properly withheld as predecisional, but two reflecting a final decision were not, and that the parent's emails were not inter- or intra-agency communications and must be released with only the parent's name, contact information, and references to her children redacted. The district was directed to release the improperly withheld and redacted materials accordingly.

City of Bloomington improperly withheld police disciplinary records under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c)
A requester asked for 10 years of disciplinary records and citizen complaints for three specific police officers. The City of Bloomington refused to provide some of these records, claiming they were either too old or protected by privacy laws. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the City's refusal to release the records was improper.

City of Chicago Department of Law improperly withheld factual email under 7(1)(m)
This determination addresses whether the City of Chicago Department of Law properly withheld the text of an email between two of its attorneys under FOIA's section 7(1)(m) exemption for attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product. The Public Access Bureau held that the Department improperly withheld the email, finding it did not meet its burden of showing either privilege applied. The email was a purely factual status update on two legal matters that disclosed no litigation theories, mental impressions, or strategy (defeating the work-product claim) and conveyed no legal advice, merely factual information later forwarded to clients with an 'FYI' note (defeating the attorney-client privilege claim). The rule for future disputes: a public body invoking 7(1)(m) must show objective indicia that a communication either reveals an attorney's conceptual litigation strategy or constitutes legal advice sought in confidence -- a factual status update, even if marked confidential and prepared by counsel, does not qualify. The body reviewed was the City of Chicago Department of Law regarding an email exchanged between two of its attorneys.

Village of Oak Park properly withheld employee survey as deliberative process material under 7(1)(f)
A reporter requested an employee survey from the Village of Oak Park, but the Village refused to release it, claiming it was part of their internal decision-making process. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and agreed with the Village, ruling that the document was exempt from disclosure because it was used for internal policy formulation. This means the public does not have a right to access this specific type of internal survey.

Southern Illinois University properly withheld termination and reinstatement records under 7(1)(n)
The requester sought an employee's termination and reinstatement records from the university, which withheld them as records relating to an employee disciplinary adjudication. Based on confidential information the university provided, the PAC determined that the final outcome of the adjudication did not itself impose discipline, so the exemption for disciplinary case records was not overridden by the final-outcome exception. The university's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Court cases

Kibort v. Westrom ()
The court held that the Du Page County Election Commission properly denied a FOIA request for election materials because the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/17-20, 17-22) specifically prohibited their disclosure. The court further found that the Commission's denial letter sufficiently complied with the requirements of section 9(b) of the FOIA by citing the relevant statutory exemptions.

Kopchar v. City of Chicago ()
The court held that the City of Chicago was not required under FOIA to disclose the specific criteria or standards used to evaluate firefighter physical abilities tests. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding the requested information exempt from disclosure.

Gekas v. Williamson ()
The court held that records concerning allegations of misconduct by a deputy sheriff in the performance of his public duties are not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA personnel file exemption. The court affirmed the production of internal-affairs files while remanding for the disclosure of additional files related to misconduct allegations, subject to redaction of exempt personal information.

Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200 ()
The Supreme Court held that a school superintendent's employment contract is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA as a personnel file, as it constitutes a contract dealing with the expenditure of public funds. The Court ordered the disclosure of the contract, subject only to the redaction of specific private information.

Watkins v. McCarthy (2012 IL App (1st) 100632)
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of an inmate's FOIA request for police misconduct records. The court remanded the case for an in camera inspection to determine the applicability of FOIA exemptions, specifically noting the potential relevance of section 7(1)(n) regarding disciplinary records.

Dumke v. City of Chicago (2013 IL App (1st) 121668)
The court held that the City of Chicago waived the FOIA exemption under section 7(1)(f) for a consultant's report when the mayor publicly cited and identified the report in a press conference and press release. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment for the city and granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that the public citation precluded the need for an in camera review.

The State Journal-Register and Bruce Rushton v. The University of Illinois Springfield and Harry Berman (2013 IL App (4th) 120881)
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' FOIA request for specific redacted documents, including an email string, internal communications, and witness statements, as they did not fall under the Educational Privacy Act. The remainder of the trial court's order, including the exemption of the student victim's name, was affirmed.

Kalven v. City of Chicago (2014 IL App (1st) 121846)
The appellate court held that police 'repeater lists' and complaint register files regarding officer misconduct are subject to disclosure under FOIA. The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff regarding the repeater lists and reversed the judgment for the defendant regarding the complaint files, remanding for consideration of redactions under the deliberative process exemption.

John Peter Gonigam and First Electric Newspaper, LLC v. Office of the Sheriff of McHenry County (2014 IL App (2d) 140159-U)
The court affirmed the trial court's order requiring the Sheriff's Office to release documents, holding that the records were not exempt under section 7(1)(n) of the FOIA. The court determined the documents were not related to an adjudication of a disciplinary case, as they were generated independently of and prior to the investigation and adjudication process.

Ward v. Weisbaum (2015 IL App (3d) 130852-U)
The circuit court properly dismissed the plaintiff's FOIA lawsuit for injunctive relief because the requested home addresses of two individuals constituted private information exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(b) of the FOIA. The court held that the Secretary of State was not required to disclose the private home addresses when employer addresses had already been provided.

Calvin Merritte v. Thomas Templeton and Troy Holland (2015 IL App (3d) 140014-U)
The court held that an inmate was not entitled to a correction officer's medical or disciplinary records under FOIA, but was entitled to a redacted photograph of the officer's injury. The court determined that the redacted photograph did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under section 7(1)(b).

For the Good of Illinois, Inc. v. Office of Comptroller (2016 IL App (1st) 143755-U)
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the Comptroller properly established that the request was unduly burdensome. The court further affirmed the denial of attorney fees, finding that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party because the court ruled against it on the merits.

Peoria Journal Star v. City of Peoria (2016 IL App (3d) 140838)
The court held that a police department report regarding an employee grievance was not exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(n). The court determined that because the report was created prior to and independent of any formal disciplinary adjudication, it did not qualify as a record of a disciplinary proceeding.

Ralph Mlaska v. The Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 150189-U)
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the documents requested by the plaintiff from the Illinois Department of Corrections were exempt from disclosure under sections 7(1)(a), (1)(e-7), and (1)(f) of the Freedom of Information Act. The court upheld the Department's refusal to provide the records based on these statutory exemptions.

Brian Dugan v. Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 150233-U)
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections regarding a FOIA request. The court held that the Department properly asserted a FOIA exemption and that the plaintiff's motions for sanctions were meritless.

Cebertowicz v. Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 151024)
The court held that the Illinois Department of Corrections did not violate FOIA by denying an inmate's request for copies of documents that were already available for inspection in the facility's library. Under section 7(1)(e-5), materials accessible to an inmate within their correctional facility are exempt from the requirement to provide copies.

City of Chicago v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2017 IL App (1st) 150870)
The court addressed a reverse-FOIA action where a pharmaceutical company sought to prevent the City of Chicago from disclosing documents provided under a protective order. The court affirmed the circuit court's order, finding that the parties maintained a legally cognizable interest in the declaratory relief sought regarding the applicability of FOIA exemptions 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(g).

In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor (2019 IL 122949)
The Supreme Court held that judicial protective orders take precedence over FOIA disclosure requirements. Consequently, the City did not improperly withhold documents under section 11(d) of FOIA because it was required to comply with existing court orders.

Better Government Association v. Village of Rosemont (2017 IL App (1st) 161957)
The court held that the Village of Rosemont could not redact financial terms from public contracts under FOIA, as the trade secrets exemption (section 7(1)(g)) does not apply to standard rental rates and incentives provided by a public body. Furthermore, the court ruled that home rule units lack the authority to create additional exemptions to FOIA disclosure requirements.

The Chicago Tribune v. The College of Du Page and The College of Du Page Foundation (2017 IL App (2d) 160274)
The court held that a federal grand jury subpoena served on the College of Du Page Foundation was subject to disclosure under FOIA, rejecting the argument that the subpoena was exempt as information prohibited from disclosure by federal law. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment requiring the production of the document.

McGee v. Kelley (2017 IL App (3d) 160324)
The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for police records, holding that the records were exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(c) as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court further noted that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to support his claim that the documents had previously been made public.

Chicago Tribune Co. v. Cook County Assessor’s Office (2018 IL App (1st) 170455)
The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the Cook County Assessor’s Office failed to justify withholding property valuation records under the FOIA deliberative process exemption. The appellate court also vacated the trial court's order sealing the case records, finding no compelling reason to maintain secrecy.

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2018 IL App (1st) 171846)
The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint, holding that the plaintiff's request was unduly burdensome under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA. The court determined that the burden of compliance outweighed the public interest because the request amounted to an unfocused 'fishing expedition' rather than a targeted inquiry.

Johnson v. Joliet Police Department (2018 IL App (3d) 170726)
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the requested disciplinary records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they were protected by the Personnel Record Review Act. The court concluded that section 7(1)(a) of FOIA, in conjunction with the Review Act, prohibited the disclosure of the requested disciplinary history.

City of Danville v. Madigan (2018 IL App (4th) 170182)
The court held that documents possessed by a public body are subject to FOIA disclosure if they pertain to public business, provided they do not fall under specific statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the Attorney General's binding opinion that the City of Danville was required to disclose records related to its Housing Task Force.

City of Danville v. Madigan and Flynn (2018 IL App (4th) 170182-U)
The court held that the Attorney General's binding opinion requiring the City of Danville to disclose records under FOIA was not clearly erroneous. The court clarified that while not all documents in a public body's possession are public records, the documents in question pertained to public business and were subject to disclosure.

Kelly v. Village of Kenilworth (2019 IL App (1st) 170780)
The court held that while the defendants demonstrated an ongoing investigation under FOIA section 7(1)(d), they failed to meet their burden of proving that the entirety of the withheld files were exempt. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow for proper compliance with FOIA procedures.

Timpone v. Illinois Student Assistance Comm’n (2019 IL App (1st) 181115)
The court held that the names of Monetary Award Program (MAP) grant recipients are exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(b) because their release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of the requester and the associated award of attorney fees.

NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. Chicago Police Department (2019 IL App (1st) 181426)
The court held that records concerning the police shooting of a minor are not exempt from FOIA disclosure under the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions. The court determined that the records did not relate to a minor who had been investigated, arrested, or taken into custody for a criminal offense, thus requiring their release.

Walker v. Bruscato (2019 IL App (2d) 170775)
The court affirmed summary judgment for the State's Attorney, holding that the plaintiff's FOIA request for grand jury materials was properly denied because the requested records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA as information prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law. The court further determined that additional discovery was unnecessary as the plaintiff had already received the requested grand jury transcript.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Exemptions. (1) When a request is made to inspect or copy a public record that contains information that is exempt from disclosure under this Section, but also contains information that is not exempt from disclosure, the public body may elect to redact the information that is exempt. The public body shall make the remaining information available for inspection and copying. Subject to this requirement, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) Information specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or rules and regulations implementing federal or State law. (b) Private information, unless disclosure is required by another provision of this Act, a State or federal law, or a court order. (b-5) Files, documents, and other data or databases maintained by one or more law enforcement agencies and specifically designed to provide information to one or more law enforcement agencies regarding the physical or mental status of one or more individual subjects. (c) Personal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information. "Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" means the disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject's right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information. The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy. (d) Records in the possession of any public body created in the course of administrative enforcement proceedings, and any law enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure would: (i) interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by any law enforcement or correctional agency that is the recipient of the request; (ii) interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings conducted by the public body that is the recipient of the request; (iii) create a substantial likelihood that a person will be deprived of a fair trial or an impartial hearing; (iv) unavoidably disclose the identity of a confidential source, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, or persons who file complaints with or provide information to administrative, investigative, law enforcement, or penal agencies; except that the identities of witnesses to traffic crashes, traffic crash reports, and rescue reports shall be provided by agencies of local government, except when disclosure would interfere with an active criminal investigation conducted by the agency that is the recipient of the request; (v) disclose unique or specialized investigative techniques other than those generally used and known or disclose internal documents of correctional agencies related to detection, observation, or investigation of incidents of crime or misconduct, and disclosure would result in demonstrable harm to the agency or public body that is the recipient of the request; (vi) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person; or (vii) obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation by the agency that is the recipient of the request. (d-5) A law enforcement record created for law enforcement purposes and contained in a shared electronic record management system if the law enforcement agency that is the recipient of the request did not create the record, did not participate in or have a role in any of the events which are the subject of the record, and only has access to the record through the shared electronic record management system. (d-6) Records contained in the Officer Professional Conduct Database under Section 9.2 of the Illinois Police Training Act, except to the extent authorized under that Section. This includes the documents supplied to the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board from the Illinois State Police and Illinois State Police Merit Board. (d-7) Information gathered or records created from the use of automatic license plate readers in connection with Section 2-130 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (e) Records that relate to or affect the security of correctional institutions and detention facilities. (e-5) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail if those materials are available in the library of the correctional institution or facility or jail where the inmate is confined. (e-6) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail if those materials include records from staff members' personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information. (e-7) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health if those materials are available through an administrative request to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health. (e-8) Records requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, the disclosure of which would result in the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from a jail or correctional institution or facility. (e-9) Records requested by a person in a county jail or committed to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, containing personal information pertaining to the person's victim or the victim's family, including, but not limited to, a victim's home address, home telephone number, work or school address, work telephone number, social security number, or any other identifying information, except as may be relevant to a requester's current or potential case or claim. (e-10) Law enforcement records of other persons requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, including, but not limited to, arrest and booking records, mug shots, and crime scene photographs, except as these records may be relevant to the requester's current or potential case or claim. (f) Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda, and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated, except that a specific record or relevant portion of a record shall not be exempt when the record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body. The exemption provided in this paragraph (f) extends to all those records of officers and agencies of the General Assembly that pertain to the preparation of legislative documents. (g) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person or business where the trade secrets or commercial or financial information are furnished under a claim that they are proprietary, privileged, or confidential, and that disclosure of the trade secrets or commercial or financial information would cause competitive harm to the person or business, and only insofar as the claim directly applies to the records requested. The information included under this exemption includes all trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained by a public body, including a public pension fund, from a private equity fund or a privately held company within the investment portfolio of a private equity fund as a result of either investing or evaluating a potential investment of public funds in a private equity fund. The exemption contained in this item does not apply to the aggregate financial performance information of a private equity fund, nor to the identity of the fund's managers or general partners. The exemption contained in this item does not apply to the identity of a privately held company within the investment portfolio of a private equity fund, unless the disclosure of the identity of a privately held company may cause competitive harm. Nothing contained in this paragraph (g) shall be construed to prevent a person or business from consenting to disclosure. (h) Proposals and bids for any contract, grant, or agreement, including information which if it were disclosed would frustrate procurement or give an advantage to any person proposing to enter into a contractor agreement with the body, until an award or final selection is made. Information prepared by or for the body in preparation of a bid solicitation shall be exempt until an award or final selection is made. (i) Valuable formulae, computer geographic systems, designs, drawings, and research data obtained or produced by any public body when disclosure could reasonably be expected to produce private gain or public loss. The exemption for "computer geographic systems" provided in this paragraph (i) does not extend to requests made by news media as defined in Section 2 of this Act when the requested information is not otherwise exempt and the only purpose of the request is to access and disseminate information regarding the health, safety, welfare, or legal rights of the general public. (j) The following information pertaining to educational matters: (i) test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer an academic examination; (ii) information received by a primary or secondary school, college, or university under its procedures for the evaluation of faculty members by their academic peers; (iii) information concerning a school or university's adjudication of student disciplinary cases, but only to the extent that disclosure would unavoidably reveal the identity of the student; and (iv) course materials or research materials used by faculty members. (k) Architects' plans, engineers' technical submissions, and other construction related technical documents for projects not constructed or developed in whole or in part with public funds and the same for projects constructed or developed with public funds, including, but not limited to, power generating and distribution stations and other transmission and distribution facilities, water treatment facilities, airport facilities, sport stadiums, convention centers, and all government owned, operated, or occupied buildings, but only to the extent that disclosure would compromise security. (l) Minutes of meetings of public bodies closed to the public as provided in the Open Meetings Act until the public body makes the minutes available to the public under Section 2.06 of the Open Meetings Act. (m) 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. (n) Records relating to a public body's adjudication of employee grievances or disciplinary cases; however, this exemption shall not extend to the final outcome of cases in which discipline is imposed. (o) Administrative or technical information associated with automated data processing operations, including, but not limited to, software, operating protocols, computer program abstracts, file layouts, source listings, object modules, load modules, user guides, documentation pertaining to all logical and physical design of computerized systems, employee manuals, and any other information that, if disclosed, would jeopardize the security of the system or its data or the security of materials exempt under this Section. (p) Records relating to collective negotiating matters between public bodies and their employees or representatives, except that any final contract or agreement shall be subject to inspection and copying. (q) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to determine the qualifications of an applicant for a license or employment. (r) The records, documents, and information relating to real estate purchase negotiations until those negotiations have been completed or otherwise terminated. With regard to a parcel involved in a pending or actually and reasonably contemplated eminent domain proceeding under the Eminent Domain Act, records, documents, and information relating to that parcel shall be exempt except as may be allowed under discovery rules adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court. The records, documents, and information relating to a real estate sale shall be exempt until a sale is consummated. (s) 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. (t) Information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public body responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions, insurance companies, or pharmacy benefit managers, unless disclosure is otherwise required by State law. (u) Information that would disclose or might lead to the disclosure of secret or confidential information, codes, algorithms, programs, or private keys intended to be used to create electronic signatures under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (v) Vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent, or respond to potential attacks upon a community's population or systems, facilities, or installations, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose the vulnerability or jeopardize the effectiveness of the measures, policies, or plans, or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public. Information exempt under this item may include such things as details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of personnel or equipment, to the operation of communication systems or protocols, to cybersecurity vulnerabilities, or to tactical operations. (w) (Blank). (x) Maps and other records regarding the location or security of generation, transmission, distribution, storage, gathering, treatment, or switching facilities owned by a utility, by a power generator, or by the Illinois Power Agency. (y) Information contained in or related to proposals, bids, or negotiations related to electric power procurement under Section 1-75 of the Illinois Power Agency Act and Section 16-111.5 of the Public Utilities Act that is determined to be confidential and proprietary by the Illinois Power Agency or by the Illinois Commerce Commission. (z) Information about students exempted from disclosure under Section 10-20.38 or 34-18.29 of the School Code, and information about undergraduate students enrolled at an institution of higher education exempted from disclosure under Section 25 of the Illinois Credit Card Marketing Act of 2009. (aa) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the Viatical Settlements Act of 2009. (bb) Records and information provided to a mortality review team and records maintained by a mortality review team appointed under the Department of Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team Act. (cc) Information regarding interments, entombments, or inurnments of human remains that are submitted to the Cemetery Oversight Database under the Cemetery Care Act or the Cemetery Oversight Act, whichever is applicable. (dd) Correspondence and records (i) that may not be disclosed under Section 11-9 of the Illinois Public Aid Code or (ii) that pertain to appeals under Section 11-8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ee) The names, addresses, or other personal information of persons who are minors and are also participants and registrants in programs of park districts, forest preserve districts, conservation districts, recreation agencies, and special recreation associations. (ff) The names, addresses, or other personal information of participants and registrants in programs of park districts, forest preserve districts, conservation districts, recreation agencies, and special recreation associations where such programs are targeted primarily to minors. (gg) Confidential information described in Section 1-100 of the Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal Act of 2012. (hh) The report submitted to the State Board of Education by the School Security and Standards Task Force under item (8) of subsection (d) of Section 2-3.160 of the School Code and any information contained in that report. (ii) Records requested by persons committed to or detained by the Department of Human Services under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act or committed to the Department of Corrections under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act if those materials: (i) are available in the library of the facility where the individual is confined; (ii) include records from staff members' personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information; or (iii) are available through an administrative request to the Department of Human Services or the Department of Corrections. (jj) Confidential information described in Section 5-535 of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (kk) The public body's credit card numbers, debit card numbers, bank account numbers, Federal Employer Identification Number, security code numbers, passwords, and similar account information, the disclosure of which could result in identity theft or impression or defrauding of a governmental entity or a person. (ll) Records concerning the work of the threat assessment team of a school district, including, but not limited to, any threat assessment procedure under the School Safety Drill Act and any information contained in the procedure. (mm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 15 of the Student Confidential Reporting Act. (nn) Proprietary information submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Drug Take-Back Act. (oo) Records described in subsection (f) of Section 3-5-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections. (pp) Any and all information regarding burials, interments, or entombments of human remains as required to be reported to the Department of Natural Resources pursuant either to the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Protection Act or the Human Remains Protection Act. (qq) Reports described in subsection (e) of Section 16-15 of the Abortion Care Clinical Training Program Act. (rr) Information obtained by a certified local health department under the Access to Public Health Data Act. (ss) For a request directed to a public body that is also a HIPAA-covered entity, all information that is protected health information, including demographic information, that may be contained within or extracted from any record held by the public body in compliance with State and federal medical privacy laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its regulations, 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164. As used in this paragraph, "HIPAA-covered entity" has the meaning given to the term "covered entity" in 45 CFR 160.103 and "protected health information" has the meaning given to that term in 45 CFR 160.103. (tt) Proposals or bids submitted by engineering consultants in response to requests for proposal or other competitive bidding requests by the Department of Transportation or the Illinois Toll Highway Authority. (1.5) Any information exempt from disclosure under the Judicial Privacy Act shall be redacted from public records prior to disclosure under this Act. (1.6) Any information exempt from disclosure under the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act shall be redacted from public records prior to disclosure under this Act. (1.7) Any information exempt from disclosure under paragraph (3.5) of Section 9-15 of the Election Code shall be redacted from public records prior to disclosure under this Act. (2) A public record that is not in the possession of a public body but is in the possession of a party with whom the agency has contracted to perform a governmental function on behalf of the public body, and that directly relates to the governmental function and is not otherwise exempt under this Act, shall be considered a public record of the public body, for purposes of this Act. (3) This Section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as stated in this Section or otherwise provided in this Act. (Source: P.A. 102-38, eff. 6-25-21; 102-558, eff. 8-20-21; 102-694, eff. 1-7-22; 102-752, eff. 5-6-22; 102-753, eff. 1-1-23; 102-776, eff. 1-1-23; 102-791, eff. 5-13-22; 102-982, eff. 7-1-23; 102-1055, eff. 6-10-22; 103-154, eff. 6-30-23; 103-423, eff. 1-1-24; 103-446, eff. 8-4-23; 103-462, eff. 8-4-23; 103-540, eff. 1-1-24; 103-554, eff. 1-1-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-865, eff. 1-1-25; 104-443, eff. 1-1-26.) (Text of Section after amendment by P.A. 104-300 )

Breakdown by specific citation: 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy (records whose release would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy)): 73 · 7(1)(b) (Private information (defined in Sec. 2(c-5) -- e.g. SSNs, driver's license numbers, home addresses in some contexts)): 70 · 7(1)(a) (Federal/State-law confidentiality — or public defender case files, for documents issued under the other amendment version (see Sec. 7)): 65 · 7 (General exemptions provision (cites Sec. 7 as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 42 · 7(1)(f) (Preliminary drafts, notes, and deliberative materials (pre-decisional "draft" exemption)): 38 · 7(1)(m) (Attorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials (attorney-client-style privilege)): 16 · 7(1)(g) (Trade secrets and confidential commercial/financial information): 12 · 7(1)(d) (Law-enforcement/administrative-proceeding records (general)): 11 · 7(1)(d)(i) (Would interfere with pending/contemplated law-enforcement proceedings): 10 · 7(1)(v) (Security vulnerability assessments and response plans): 8 · 7(1)(n) (Employee grievance/discipline adjudication records (except final discipline outcomes)): 7 · 7(1)(k) (Architectural/engineering security-sensitive construction documents): 6 · 7(1) (General exemption list (cites the lettered exemptions in Sec. 7(1) without naming a specific one)): 6 · 7(1)(j)(iv) (Faculty course/research materials): 5 · 7(1)(e) (Correctional/detention facility security records): 5 · 7(1)(i) (Valuable formulae, designs, and research data): 3 · 7(1)(d)(ii) (Would interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings): 3 · 7(1)(e-10) (Other people's law-enforcement records requested by an inmate): 3 · 7(1)(e-5) (Records available to an inmate through the facility library): 2 · 7(1)(d)(vii) (Would obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation): 2 · 7(1)(s) (Intergovernmental risk-management/self-insurance pool records): 2 · 7(1)(h) (Bids and proposals, until a contract is awarded): 2 · 7(1)(t) (Financial institution/insurer regulatory examination reports): 2 · 7(1)(o) (Data-processing/IT security information): 2 · 7(1)(kk) (Public body's own financial account/security credentials): 2 · 7(1)(x) (Utility facility location/security maps): 2 · 7(1)(d)(iv) (Would disclose a confidential source or informant): 2 · 7(1)(p) (Collective bargaining negotiation records (final contracts stay public)): 1 · 7(1)(r) (Real estate purchase negotiation records, until completed): 1 · 7(1)(q) (Licensing/employment exam questions and scoring keys): 1 · 7(1)(d)(vi) (Would endanger the life or safety of law enforcement or others): 1 · 7(1)(d)(iii) (Would create a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial or hearing): 1 · 7(1)(d-7) (Automatic license plate reader data): 1 · 7(1)(l) (Closed-session meeting minutes not yet released under OMA Sec. 2.06): 1 · 7(1)(b)(ii): 1 · 7(1)(e-8) (Records whose release would risk harm or an escape): 1 · 7(b): 1 · 7(b)(v): 1 · 7(f): 1 · 7(1)(b)(i): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Master index of all PAC FOIA opinions issued since 2010
This document is not a legal decision, but rather a master list or index of all binding opinions issued by the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor since 2010. It is intended to help the public and legal professionals find specific past rulings on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) issues.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of legal invoices reflecting a school district's expenses in several lawsuits, and the school district withheld the invoices in full, asserting attorney-client privilege. The Public Access Counselor held that while some invoice descriptions could reveal privileged communications and could be redacted, generic descriptions of the work performed, attorneys' initials, time spent, and billed amounts are not privileged and must be disclosed. The school district was directed to release the non-exempt portions of the invoices, since withholding the records in their entirety violated FOIA's requirement to redact only the exempt information and produce the rest.

Disclosure of Records Pertaining to Arrests and Police Reports
The requester, a journalist, sought police incident reports and related records concerning an arrest of a local public official, which a police department withheld entirely, citing a personal-privacy exemption and denying that an arrest had actually occurred. The Public Access Counselor's own review of the records showed that an arrest had in fact taken place, triggering FOIA's specific arrest-disclosure provisions, and found that the subject's privacy interest was outweighed by the strong public interest in arrest information generally and in how law enforcement handled the incident. The police department was directed to release the records, subject only to redaction of statutorily defined private information, since it failed to prove the withheld material was otherwise exempt.

Disclosure of All Non-Exempt Portions of Requested Records
The requester sought copies of FOIA denial letters that a forest preserve district had issued citing a particular law-enforcement exemption, and the district produced heavily redacted copies, withholding not only private information but also material it deemed unrelated to the request. The Public Access Counselor held that because the request sought entire letters rather than specific information within them, the district could withhold only genuinely exempt content, properly redacting personal identifiers, but could not redact other material simply because it viewed that material as outside the scope of the request. The forest preserve district was directed to release the letters in full except for the properly redacted private information.

Production of Records to the Public Access Counselor
The requester sought a state licensing agency's complete investigative file on a real estate licensee, after the agency had previously been directed, in response to an earlier related request, to release the same file for failing to prove it was exempt, but did not comply. The agency again refused to respond to the new request, refused to provide the Public Access Counselor with copies of the records for review, and continued to assert without adequate support that the file was exempt as an investigative, confidential, or law-enforcement record. The Public Access Counselor held that the agency violated FOIA's response deadlines, notice requirements, and its duty to cooperate with review, and again directed it to produce the file, redacting only genuinely private third-party information.

Disclosure of Records Relating to the Death of a Minor
The requester, a journalist, sought investigative records concerning the police shooting of a minor, which a state agency withheld in full, primarily citing juvenile-confidentiality provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. The Public Access Counselor held that those provisions apply only to arrested or court-involved juveniles, not to a minor who died during the encounter and was never taken into custody, and found the agency's broader privacy objections unsupported, though it allowed redaction of unique identifiers, identifying information about surviving family members, and post-mortem photographs. The state agency was directed to release the remaining records, including the substantive investigative, autopsy, and toxicology materials, since the public interest in a full accounting of the shooting outweighed the narrower privacy interests actually established.

Judicial Inquiry Board is Not a "Public Body" to which FOIA is Applicable
The requester sought records from a state judicial oversight board concerning the circumstances of a former judge's removal from the bench, and the board declined to respond, asserting it was not subject to FOIA at all because it operates as part of the judicial branch. The Public Access Counselor agreed, holding that FOIA's definition of "public body" covers only legislative, executive, and administrative bodies and specifically excludes the judiciary, and that the board's investigatory role in judicial discipline places it squarely within the judicial branch. Because the board is not subject to FOIA in the first place, no violation occurred and the request for review was denied.

‘ Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought a school district's emergency management plans and related records, and the school district never responded at all, either to comply, deny, or extend the deadline within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the school district's total failure to respond constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The school district was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue timely responses to future requests.

Disclosure of Student Test Scores and the Illinois School Student Records Act
The requester sought de-identified fourth-grade math test scores from a school district, and the school district refused, first claiming the underlying student-privacy law made the data exempt entirely, then claiming that redacting and scrambling the scores so no student could be identified would amount to creating a new record it wasn't required to produce. The Public Access Counselor rejected both arguments, holding that a record with individually identifying information removed is no longer covered by student-records confidentiality law, and that redacting or reordering existing data does not create a new record under settled Illinois case law, even when the school district's own reporting software could not do so electronically. The school district was directed to provide the de-identified scores in the format requested or another format the requester had agreed to accept.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought village hall surveillance footage, police department records, meeting minutes, and building access logs, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor over several months. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a village government's financial records, including its checkbook register, treasurer's reports, and attorney invoices, and the village never responded at all, despite the Public Access Counselor's follow-up inquiry going unanswered as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, also finding the village appeared to lack a properly designated FOIA officer as the law requires. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, designate and identify a FOIA officer, and post the required public notice of its request procedures.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of travel and credit-card expense records for a public university's board members and president, later amending the request to broaden its scope, and the university never responded to either version despite repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's silence on the amended request constituted a denial under FOIA, since the requester had explicitly superseded his original request with the amended one. The university was directed to produce all records responsive to the amended request, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Records Relating to a Public Body's Internal Investigation into an Employee's Conduct
The requester, a journalist, sought police and internal-investigation records concerning an off-duty car accident involving a police department's assistant chief, and the city government withheld the underlying investigative materials, arguing they related to an "adjudication" of a disciplinary case and were therefore exempt. The Public Access Counselor held that an informal internal inquiry that never proceeded to a formal adjudicatory hearing does not qualify as an "adjudication" under the narrow exemption the city invoked, and that related records such as the traffic citation and witness accounts were independently public regardless of the investigation. The city government was directed to release the withheld investigative and citation records, subject only to permissible redactions for private information.

Statistical Data is Not Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)() of FOIA
The requester sought monthly Uniform Crime Report statistics that a city's police department had submitted to a state police agency for 2012 and 2013. The state police agency withheld the records entirely, arguing they were "preliminary" because the underlying numbers had not yet been verified and could later be revised, and that this made them exempt as deliberative material under the FOIA exemption for preliminary drafts, notes, and records in which opinions are expressed or policies are formulated. The PAC held that this exemption protects the deliberative process, not purely factual or statistical data, and that the crime statistics did not reveal any agency decision-making or reasoning—only numbers reported by the local police department. Because the possibility that data might later be corrected does not make it "preliminary" or deliberative in the legal sense, the PAC found the withholding improper and ordered the records released, noting the agency could simply flag the data as unverified.

Duty to Provide "Clear and Convincing" Evidence to Support Assertion of Exemptions; Possibility of Obtaining Public Records through Discovery Does Not Preclude FOIA Requests
The requester asked the police department for a copy of a specific police report, but the department denied the request, claiming disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and could deprive someone of a fair trial. The department also argued the requester should instead obtain the report through court discovery procedures. The PAC held that the department's justifications were vague and conclusory, failing to show by clear and convincing evidence that either exemption applied, and further explained that the availability of records through discovery does not eliminate a person's separate right to obtain records under FOIA. As a result, the PAC directed the department to release the report, subject only to limited redactions for private information and confidential source information.

Public Records in the Possession of a Contractor Performing a Governmental Function for a Public Body Are Public Records of the Public Body; A Public Body May Not Charge a Requester Fees for the Contractor to Locate and Retrieve Such Public Records in a Non-Commercial Request
The requester sought records related to a sidewalk/curb improvement project from the village government, including bid documents, payroll reports, and correspondence with the project's engineering firm. The village government said it did not possess many of these records because they were held by its private engineering contractor, and demanded payment of over $1,100 in estimated labor costs before it would obtain and release them. The PAC held that because the engineering firm was performing a governmental function on the village government's behalf, the records it held were legally public records of the village government, and that state law bars public bodies from charging non-commercial requesters for search, review, or other personnel costs, even when those costs are incurred through a contractor. As a result, the PAC found the village government improperly denied the request and ordered it to provide the withheld records without conditioning release on payment of those fees.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of a law firm's legal billing invoices from the city government for the past calendar year, but the city withheld them entirely, citing exemptions for attorney-client privileged communications, collective bargaining matters, and (later) records related to employee disciplinary adjudications. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau held that the city violated FOIA by withholding the invoices in full, finding that only specific descriptive entries revealing privileged legal advice or specific collective-bargaining strategy could be redacted, while general billing information—dates, attorney initials, hours, amounts billed, and general task descriptions—was not exempt and had to be disclosed. The PAC also rejected the disciplinary-adjudication exemption, reasoning that billing invoices exist independently of any disciplinary proceeding and are not themselves part of an adjudicatory process. The city government was directed to release the invoices with only narrowly tailored redactions.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester sought copies of settlement agreements from the county board, but the county board withheld some of them, citing confidentiality provisions within the agreements and arguing that release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA because the agreements resolved sexual harassment complaints. The Public Access Counselor held that settlement agreements are public records under FOIA and that confidentiality clauses within them are unenforceable because they conflict with the statute's plain language and legislative intent favoring disclosure. The PAC also found the privacy exemption inapplicable because the withheld documents did not describe the underlying allegations, and because the public's constitutional and statutory interest in knowing how public funds are spent outweighed any privacy interest the complainants had. As a result, the county board was directed to release the settlement agreements, subject only to redaction of private information under section 7(1)(b).

Duty to Disclose Public Records in the Possession of a Public Body
The requester sought records showing how much money was collected during a university's homecoming dance and how those funds were handled. The university denied the request, arguing the records belonged to its Student Government Association, which it claimed was not a "public body" subject to FOIA. The PAC held that this argument was irrelevant, because the records were in the university's possession and control—held in a university-controlled account and overseen by university staff—and therefore pertained to the transaction of public business by the university itself. The PAC ruled that the university violated FOIA and ordered it to release the records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Records Documenting Public Funds Paid to Entities Pursuant to Contracts For Performance of A Governmental Function Are Subject to Disclosure
The requester sought copies of the state lottery agency's marketing and advertising contracts, specifically the pricing structure and hourly rates, but the agency's private lottery manager redacted the financial terms, citing exemptions for information barred by other state law and for confidential commercial/financial information that could cause competitive harm. The PAC held that neither exemption applied: the financial terms did not qualify as "confidential data" under the Lottery Law's narrow exception, and because the figures represented the cost of publicly funded services, they were expressly subject to disclosure as records relating to the use of public funds, with no adequate showing of competitive harm to support withholding them as trade secrets. The PAC also found that confidentiality agreements between the manager and its contractors could not override this public disclosure duty, since those agreements themselves allowed for disclosure under a binding governmental order. The agency was directed to release the full financial terms, including contract totals, hourly rates, and any commissions.

Disclosure of Photographs of a Former Auxiliary Deputy Sheriff
The requester sought photographs of a former auxiliary deputy from the sheriff's department. The sheriff's department denied the request, arguing the photographs were exempt "private information" because they contained "biometric identifiers." The Public Access Counselor found that the photographs were general in nature and did not focus on any unique physical attribute used to identify a person, so they did not qualify as biometric identifiers under the common meaning of that term. Because FOIA's definition of "public records" specifically includes photographs, and the exemption for "private information" did not, the PAC concluded the sheriff's department violated FOIA and ordered the photographs to be disclosed.

Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Search for Responsive Records; Repeat Requests Under Section 3(g)
The requester sought records concerning a village clerk's participation in a conference, including communications, billing records, contribution documentation, and expense records. The village government responded that it had no responsive records and also claimed part of the request was unduly burdensome under section 3(g) because it was a repeat of an earlier request that had allegedly been "properly denied." The PAC found that the village government violated FOIA in multiple ways: it failed to show it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, especially since it had previously been directed to search for similar records and never complied; its section 3(g) burden claim failed because the prior request had not actually been "properly denied" (the earlier denial itself had been found improper); and it improperly withheld responsive records it later disclosed to the PAC without showing any exemption applied. The village government was ordered to conduct a proper search and disclose all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Photocopies of Records Deemed Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)(e-5)
An incarcerated requester asked the corrections department for photocopies of certain administrative directives that were already available for inspection in the correctional facility's library. The corrections department denied the request under a FOIA exemption covering records requested by inmates that are available in the facility library, and the requester argued this exemption shouldn't apply because inmates weren't allowed to photocopy the library materials themselves. The Public Access Counselor upheld the denial, finding that the exemption only requires that inmates have access to inspect the records in the library, not that they be permitted to make or receive photocopies, based on the legislative history showing the exemption was meant to relieve the department of the burden of copying records already available to inmates through the library.

Disclosure of Résumé and Job Application of Public Employee
The requester sought a copy of an employee's résumé and job application from the village government, which denied the request by claiming the records were exempt as private personal information, as material prohibited from disclosure under the Personnel Record Review Act, and as deliberative material. The PAC held that the records were not exempt: they bear on the employee's qualifications and public duties, the public has a strong interest in verifying that hiring complied with applicable laws, and this interest outweighed the employee's privacy concerns, since the information was factual and presented favorably rather than embarrassing. The PAC also found the Personnel Record Review Act only bars disclosure of performance evaluations (not résumés or applications), and that the records were purely factual rather than deliberative, so the village government was ordered to release the records, redacting only truly private identifying details like a signature, home address, and phone numbers.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester asked the city government for a copy of a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit against the city, along with related records and documents about the city council's vote to approve the settlement payment. The city government denied the request, citing a personal privacy exemption and pointing to a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement. The PAC held that settlement agreements are specifically made public records under FOIA, that confidentiality clauses in such agreements cannot override this rule, and that because the underlying claims related to the plaintiff's public employment, disclosure would not be an unwarranted invasion of privacy—especially given the strong public interest in how public funds are spent. The PAC also found the city government's response incomplete because it failed to address whether it searched for other related records, and ordered the city to disclose the settlement agreement and conduct a proper search for any additional responsive records.

Home Rule Ordinance Does Not Supersede FOIA; Negotiated Terms of Contracts with Public Bodies Do Not Constitute Trade Secrets; Correspondence With Third Parties Is Not Part of A Public Body's Deliberative Process
The requester, a journalist, sought records related to a touring musician's concerts at a village-owned entertainment venue, including contracts, correspondence, and financial terms with the concert promoter, and the village government withheld ticket-pricing emails and rental/revenue figures, citing the deliberative-process and trade-secret exemptions and, later, a home-rule ordinance it passed after the request was denied. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's ordinance could not override FOIA because regulating access to public records is a matter of statewide, not local, concern, that the financial terms of the venue's contracts were expressly subject to disclosure as records of the village's use of public funds, and that emails with the promoter did not qualify as deliberative because they were exchanged with an outside party representing independent interests. The village government was directed to produce the contracts, invoices, and emails, redacting only limited private information.

Disclosure of Public Employees' Compensation
The requester sought a hospital district's physician employment agreements, including compensation, incentive, and bonus information, and the hospital district redacted this financial information, arguing it was private and that physicians do not perform "public duties." The Public Access Counselor rejected both arguments, holding that records of physician compensation paid from the district's funds are public records concerning the use of public funds regardless of whether physicians have "public duties," that compensation amounts are not "private information" under the personal-privacy exemption, and that disclosure of pay tied to public employment is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The hospital district was directed to disclose the compensation information and a post-office-box address that had been improperly withheld as a home address.

Disclosure of Surveillance Video Recordings
The requester, a paralegal for the law firm representing a party in a fatal accident case, sought surveillance video from a state highway rest area showing the area near where a pedestrian was fatally struck by a truck, and the state transportation department withheld the video, arguing that disclosure would invade the privacy of the decedent's family. The Public Access Counselor held that while family members can have an independent privacy interest in graphic details of a relative's death, these videos did not depict the accident itself or contain graphic content, so the strong public interest in understanding the circumstances of a fatal traffic accident outweighed any privacy concern. The state transportation department was directed to provide the requester with copies of the videos.

Disclosure of the Governor's Calendar
The requester, a journalist, sought the governor's daily appointment calendar showing meetings and attendees, and the governor's office redacted the names of meeting attendees, arguing the calendar was a personal scheduling tool and that disclosure would reveal deliberative and privileged legal strategy. The Public Access Counselor held that because the calendar was maintained by staff, used to facilitate scheduling, and accessible to senior officials, it was a public record documenting the office's business rather than a private convenience, and that the governor's office had not shown with specific facts that disclosing attendees' identities would expose deliberative reasoning or privileged legal communications, distinguishing cases involving far more detailed or security-sensitive schedules. The governor's office was also found to have missed FOIA's response deadline and was directed to disclose the calendar entries, redacting only personal telephone numbers.

Failure to Timely Respond to FOIA Request Precludes Denial as Unduly Burdensome; Disclosure of Certified Payroll Records
The requester sought certified payroll records for state highway construction projects in a county, and the state transportation department denied the request as unduly burdensome, citing the labor involved in redacting the hundreds of pages of records. The Public Access Counselor held that the department's denial came after FOIA's five-business-day response deadline had already passed, which by itself barred it from claiming undue burden, and separately concluded that because the legislature specifically made certified payroll records public and defined exactly what information must be redacted from them, the burden of that redaction did not outweigh the strong public interest in disclosure. The state transportation department was directed to produce the certified payroll records, redacting only the specific categories of information the statute allows.

Determination letters

Illinois Department of Revenue did not violate FOIA by withholding audit manual sections
A law firm requested internal audit manuals from the Illinois Department of Revenue to understand how the state determines corporate income and sales taxes. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and concluded that the Department was legally allowed to keep these documents private to protect tax enforcement standards. This means the request for the records was denied and the case is now closed.

SIU School of Medicine properly withheld animal training emails under 7(1)(f)
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine requested records from the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine about animal use in medical training. The school withheld some emails, claiming they were internal drafts or deliberative communications. The Attorney General's office agreed that the school followed the law and was allowed to keep those specific documents private.

SIU School of Medicine properly applied 7(1)(f) to emails on animal use
A research group requested records from a medical school about its use of animals in training programs. The school withheld some emails, claiming they were internal drafts or deliberative communications. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school, finding that the records were protected from disclosure.

City of Elmhurst improperly withheld construction cost estimates under 7(1)(f)
A citizen requested documents from the City of Elmhurst regarding construction costs for city parking garages. The City refused to release the records, claiming they were internal drafts and opinions under section 7(1)(f) of FOIA. The Attorney General's office reviewed the documents and concluded that the general contractor's draft proposals were not exempt because the contractor had its own financial interest, and the City Manager's memorandum was factual, not deliberative. However, the office allowed the City to redact the Assistant City Manager's handwritten notes, which reflected pre-decisional opinions and were not publicly cited by the Mayor.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 DVD fee under FOIA
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD copy. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department improperly assessed the fee because it failed to respond to the request within the required time limits under FOIA. Alternatively, even if the response had been timely, the fee was set by an administrative rule, not by a statute, and therefore could not be charged under FOIA. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the $20 fee.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 fee for DVD under administrative rule
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department could not charge this fee because it was based on an administrative rule rather than a specific state law. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the cost of the DVD.

Chicago Transit Authority improperly withheld Bombardier component percentages in Buy America audit
A requester sought detailed audit information about the manufacturing origins of railcar components for a Chicago Transit Authority project. The Attorney General's office determined that the CTA properly withheld the percentages of components from suppliers other than Bombardier, but improperly withheld the percentages of components supplied by Bombardier. The CTA also properly withheld the percentages and subcomponents in the Buy America Compliance Certificates, but improperly withheld the Description of Work in the Post-Delivery Audit.

Village of Forest Park no violation for withholding police video under law enforcement exemptions
The question was whether the Village of Forest Park properly withheld surveillance videos of a hit-and-run under FOIA Section 7(1)(d) exemptions, including an unargued but implicated Section 7(1)(d)(iii) fair-trial exemption. The Public Access Bureau held that the Village did not improperly deny the request at the time it was submitted, because disclosure during the pendency of the criminal prosecution would have created a substantial likelihood of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The reasoning applied the federal analog under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B), requiring a showing that a trial is pending or imminent and that disclosure would more probably than not seriously interfere with the fairness of the proceedings. The Bureau noted that the videos contained witness and defendant statements whose disclosure could have influenced testimony, but suggested the same rationale might no longer apply if a new request were submitted later. No binding opinion was issued.

PAC cannot review Illinois Department of Revenue's commercial-purpose FOIA denial
Mr. Vertin requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue for his business. Because the request was for a commercial purpose, the Attorney General's office stated it does not have the legal authority to review the Department's denial. The requester must instead pursue the matter through a lawsuit in court.

PAC lacks authority to review commercial-purpose FOIA denial by IL Dept of Revenue
A business owner requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue, but the Department denied the request. When the requester asked the Attorney General's office to intervene, the office declined because the request was for a commercial purpose. Under Illinois law, the Public Access Counselor does not have the authority to resolve disputes involving commercial FOIA requests.

First Fire Protection District improperly withheld budget documents under 7(1)(f)
A citizen requested a budget document that was presented during a public fire district meeting. The district refused to release it, claiming it was a 'preliminary draft' that might confuse the public. The Attorney General's office disagreed, ruling that the district did not provide enough evidence to justify keeping the document secret and ordered them to release it.

Illinois Department of Corrections must disclose contractor-held prescription drug records
A reporter requested records of prescription drug orders made by the Illinois Department of Corrections through private vendors. The Attorney General's office ruled that the Department must get these records from its vendor and provide them to the reporter. The Department is allowed to remove personal information that would identify specific inmates to protect their medical privacy.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District properly withheld facility plans under 7(1)(k)
A requester asked for detailed facility plans from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, but the District refused to provide them, citing security concerns. The Attorney General's office reviewed the documents and agreed that releasing the technical details of the facility's systems could pose a security risk. Consequently, the PAC closed the case, finding that the District acted within the law.

University of Illinois properly withheld animal medical records but improperly redacted protocol names
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 signatures and personal emergency-contact numbers were properly redacted. The university was directed to disclose the remaining redacted information.

Governor's Office improperly withheld correspondence from former official under FOIA exemptions
The requester sought correspondence between the governor's office and a former state agency director, portions of which the office withheld as deliberative material, attorney-client communications, and personal information. The PAC determined that most of the pre-decisional emails and the personal emails were properly withheld, but that certain factual records and a legal-matter update did not qualify as deliberative or privileged and were improperly withheld. The governor's office was directed to release the improperly withheld records.

PAC cannot review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
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.

PAC declines to review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
A business owner requested training materials from the University of Illinois to help his company win a government contract. The Attorney General's office declined to review the University's refusal to provide these documents because the law prohibits the PAC from intervening in FOIA disputes involving commercial requests. The requester must now pursue the matter through the court system if they wish to challenge the denial.

Lake County State's Attorney's Office improperly withheld emails under 7(1)(f) and 7(1)(m)
The requester sought e-mails between a state's attorney's office investigator and a school district official concerning an investigation into the district's finances, which the office withheld as deliberative material and attorney work product. The PAC determined the e-mails merely requested and furnished factual information and did not reflect any deliberative process, legal theories, or litigation strategy, so neither exemption applied. The state's attorney's office was directed to provide the e-mails to the requester.

City of Monticello properly withheld preliminary drafts under section 7(1)(f)
This determination addressed whether the City of Monticello properly withheld wastewater treatment plant design specifications under FOIA's preliminary-drafts exemption, 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(f). The Public Access Bureau held that the City did not improperly withhold the records because they were preliminary, deliberative materials prepared by the City's engineering consultant and had not yet been presented to or reviewed by the City Council. The Bureau reasoned that section 7(1)(f) covers intra-agency deliberative material, including consultant work product where the consultant represents the public body's interests, and that the exception for records 'publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body' did not apply because the discussion at the relevant council meeting was led by the City superintendent and the consultant, not the Mayor (the head of the public body). The City of Monticello was the public body involved, and the records at issue were consultant-prepared plans and specifications for a wastewater treatment plant.

Illinois Department of Revenue improperly withheld personnel records under 7(1)(c), 7(1)(f), and 7(1)(m)
The requester sought communications the department's personnel office received regarding hiring and staffing matters, which the department withheld as deliberative material. The PAC determined that the records largely requested and conveyed factual and logistical information rather than opinions or recommendations, so the department did not meet its burden of showing they were exempt as deliberative. The department was directed to furnish the records to the requester.

Governor's Office of Management and Budget improperly withheld PowerPoint under 7(1)(f)
A reporter requested budget-related documents from the Governor's budget office, but the office refused to release a PowerPoint presentation, claiming it was part of internal policy discussions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the budget office did not prove the document was exempt from public view. Consequently, the office was ordered to release the PowerPoint to the reporter.

Park Ridge-Niles SD 64 improperly redacted teacher disciplinary settlement records
A reporter requested records regarding a teacher's disciplinary settlement, but the school district blacked out too much information. The Attorney General's office ruled that the district must release the records, only redacting the names of students to protect their privacy. This ensures the public can understand the reasons for the settlement while keeping student identities private.

Proper University properly withheld internal audit report under exemption 7(1)(c)
The requester sought a copy of an internal audit report about a contractor's compliance with contract-timeline requirements, which a public college withheld as an internal-audit record. The requester argued that because the college had previously furnished the audit to its accreditation commission, the college improperly granted the commission an exclusive right to the record and waived the internal-audit exemption. The PAC determined the record was properly exempt as an internal audit, that the college's compulsory, confidentiality-protected disclosure to the accreditation commission did not give it any right to disseminate the record, and that no waiver occurred; the college's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois Department of Human Services properly denied records under 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(dd)
A citizen requested their own public aid records from the Illinois Department of Human Services to verify that proper procedures were followed. The Department denied the request, citing laws that protect the confidentiality of public aid recipients. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the law prohibits the release of these records for the requester's stated purpose.

Village of Arlington Heights properly withheld blueprints under section 7(1)(k)
A resident requested building blueprints from the Village of Arlington Heights, but the Village refused to provide them, citing a law that protects construction documents for private projects. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and agreed with the Village, finding that the building was privately funded and therefore exempt from disclosure. This means the Village was legally allowed to keep the blueprints private.

Elmhurst SD 205 improperly withheld some emails under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(f)
The requester sought emails between the school district superintendent and a high school principal, and between the district and a parent, concerning complaints about morning announcements, which the district withheld under the deliberative-process and personal-privacy exemptions. The PAC determined that most Superintendent-Principal emails were properly withheld as predecisional, but two reflecting a final decision were not, and that the parent's emails were not inter- or intra-agency communications and must be released with only the parent's name, contact information, and references to her children redacted. The district was directed to release the improperly withheld and redacted materials accordingly.

City of Bloomington improperly withheld police disciplinary records under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c)
A requester asked for 10 years of disciplinary records and citizen complaints for three specific police officers. The City of Bloomington refused to provide some of these records, claiming they were either too old or protected by privacy laws. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the City's refusal to release the records was improper.

City of Chicago Department of Law improperly withheld factual email under 7(1)(m)
This determination addresses whether the City of Chicago Department of Law properly withheld the text of an email between two of its attorneys under FOIA's section 7(1)(m) exemption for attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product. The Public Access Bureau held that the Department improperly withheld the email, finding it did not meet its burden of showing either privilege applied. The email was a purely factual status update on two legal matters that disclosed no litigation theories, mental impressions, or strategy (defeating the work-product claim) and conveyed no legal advice, merely factual information later forwarded to clients with an 'FYI' note (defeating the attorney-client privilege claim). The rule for future disputes: a public body invoking 7(1)(m) must show objective indicia that a communication either reveals an attorney's conceptual litigation strategy or constitutes legal advice sought in confidence -- a factual status update, even if marked confidential and prepared by counsel, does not qualify. The body reviewed was the City of Chicago Department of Law regarding an email exchanged between two of its attorneys.

Village of Oak Park properly withheld employee survey as deliberative process material under 7(1)(f)
A reporter requested an employee survey from the Village of Oak Park, but the Village refused to release it, claiming it was part of their internal decision-making process. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and agreed with the Village, ruling that the document was exempt from disclosure because it was used for internal policy formulation. This means the public does not have a right to access this specific type of internal survey.

Southern Illinois University properly withheld termination and reinstatement records under 7(1)(n)
The requester sought an employee's termination and reinstatement records from the university, which withheld them as records relating to an employee disciplinary adjudication. Based on confidential information the university provided, the PAC determined that the final outcome of the adjudication did not itself impose discipline, so the exemption for disciplinary case records was not overridden by the final-outcome exception. The university's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Court cases

Kibort v. Westrom ()
The court held that the Du Page County Election Commission properly denied a FOIA request for election materials because the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/17-20, 17-22) specifically prohibited their disclosure. The court further found that the Commission's denial letter sufficiently complied with the requirements of section 9(b) of the FOIA by citing the relevant statutory exemptions.

Kopchar v. City of Chicago ()
The court held that the City of Chicago was not required under FOIA to disclose the specific criteria or standards used to evaluate firefighter physical abilities tests. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding the requested information exempt from disclosure.

Gekas v. Williamson ()
The court held that records concerning allegations of misconduct by a deputy sheriff in the performance of his public duties are not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA personnel file exemption. The court affirmed the production of internal-affairs files while remanding for the disclosure of additional files related to misconduct allegations, subject to redaction of exempt personal information.

Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200 ()
The Supreme Court held that a school superintendent's employment contract is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA as a personnel file, as it constitutes a contract dealing with the expenditure of public funds. The Court ordered the disclosure of the contract, subject only to the redaction of specific private information.

Watkins v. McCarthy (2012 IL App (1st) 100632)
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of an inmate's FOIA request for police misconduct records. The court remanded the case for an in camera inspection to determine the applicability of FOIA exemptions, specifically noting the potential relevance of section 7(1)(n) regarding disciplinary records.

Dumke v. City of Chicago (2013 IL App (1st) 121668)
The court held that the City of Chicago waived the FOIA exemption under section 7(1)(f) for a consultant's report when the mayor publicly cited and identified the report in a press conference and press release. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment for the city and granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that the public citation precluded the need for an in camera review.

The State Journal-Register and Bruce Rushton v. The University of Illinois Springfield and Harry Berman (2013 IL App (4th) 120881)
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' FOIA request for specific redacted documents, including an email string, internal communications, and witness statements, as they did not fall under the Educational Privacy Act. The remainder of the trial court's order, including the exemption of the student victim's name, was affirmed.

Kalven v. City of Chicago (2014 IL App (1st) 121846)
The appellate court held that police 'repeater lists' and complaint register files regarding officer misconduct are subject to disclosure under FOIA. The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff regarding the repeater lists and reversed the judgment for the defendant regarding the complaint files, remanding for consideration of redactions under the deliberative process exemption.

John Peter Gonigam and First Electric Newspaper, LLC v. Office of the Sheriff of McHenry County (2014 IL App (2d) 140159-U)
The court affirmed the trial court's order requiring the Sheriff's Office to release documents, holding that the records were not exempt under section 7(1)(n) of the FOIA. The court determined the documents were not related to an adjudication of a disciplinary case, as they were generated independently of and prior to the investigation and adjudication process.

Ward v. Weisbaum (2015 IL App (3d) 130852-U)
The circuit court properly dismissed the plaintiff's FOIA lawsuit for injunctive relief because the requested home addresses of two individuals constituted private information exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(b) of the FOIA. The court held that the Secretary of State was not required to disclose the private home addresses when employer addresses had already been provided.

Calvin Merritte v. Thomas Templeton and Troy Holland (2015 IL App (3d) 140014-U)
The court held that an inmate was not entitled to a correction officer's medical or disciplinary records under FOIA, but was entitled to a redacted photograph of the officer's injury. The court determined that the redacted photograph did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under section 7(1)(b).

For the Good of Illinois, Inc. v. Office of Comptroller (2016 IL App (1st) 143755-U)
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the Comptroller properly established that the request was unduly burdensome. The court further affirmed the denial of attorney fees, finding that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party because the court ruled against it on the merits.

Peoria Journal Star v. City of Peoria (2016 IL App (3d) 140838)
The court held that a police department report regarding an employee grievance was not exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(n). The court determined that because the report was created prior to and independent of any formal disciplinary adjudication, it did not qualify as a record of a disciplinary proceeding.

Ralph Mlaska v. The Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 150189-U)
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the documents requested by the plaintiff from the Illinois Department of Corrections were exempt from disclosure under sections 7(1)(a), (1)(e-7), and (1)(f) of the Freedom of Information Act. The court upheld the Department's refusal to provide the records based on these statutory exemptions.

Brian Dugan v. Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 150233-U)
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections regarding a FOIA request. The court held that the Department properly asserted a FOIA exemption and that the plaintiff's motions for sanctions were meritless.

Cebertowicz v. Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 151024)
The court held that the Illinois Department of Corrections did not violate FOIA by denying an inmate's request for copies of documents that were already available for inspection in the facility's library. Under section 7(1)(e-5), materials accessible to an inmate within their correctional facility are exempt from the requirement to provide copies.

City of Chicago v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2017 IL App (1st) 150870)
The court addressed a reverse-FOIA action where a pharmaceutical company sought to prevent the City of Chicago from disclosing documents provided under a protective order. The court affirmed the circuit court's order, finding that the parties maintained a legally cognizable interest in the declaratory relief sought regarding the applicability of FOIA exemptions 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(g).

In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor (2019 IL 122949)
The Supreme Court held that judicial protective orders take precedence over FOIA disclosure requirements. Consequently, the City did not improperly withhold documents under section 11(d) of FOIA because it was required to comply with existing court orders.

Better Government Association v. Village of Rosemont (2017 IL App (1st) 161957)
The court held that the Village of Rosemont could not redact financial terms from public contracts under FOIA, as the trade secrets exemption (section 7(1)(g)) does not apply to standard rental rates and incentives provided by a public body. Furthermore, the court ruled that home rule units lack the authority to create additional exemptions to FOIA disclosure requirements.

The Chicago Tribune v. The College of Du Page and The College of Du Page Foundation (2017 IL App (2d) 160274)
The court held that a federal grand jury subpoena served on the College of Du Page Foundation was subject to disclosure under FOIA, rejecting the argument that the subpoena was exempt as information prohibited from disclosure by federal law. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment requiring the production of the document.

McGee v. Kelley (2017 IL App (3d) 160324)
The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for police records, holding that the records were exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(c) as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court further noted that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to support his claim that the documents had previously been made public.

Chicago Tribune Co. v. Cook County Assessor’s Office (2018 IL App (1st) 170455)
The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the Cook County Assessor’s Office failed to justify withholding property valuation records under the FOIA deliberative process exemption. The appellate court also vacated the trial court's order sealing the case records, finding no compelling reason to maintain secrecy.

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2018 IL App (1st) 171846)
The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint, holding that the plaintiff's request was unduly burdensome under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA. The court determined that the burden of compliance outweighed the public interest because the request amounted to an unfocused 'fishing expedition' rather than a targeted inquiry.

Johnson v. Joliet Police Department (2018 IL App (3d) 170726)
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the requested disciplinary records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they were protected by the Personnel Record Review Act. The court concluded that section 7(1)(a) of FOIA, in conjunction with the Review Act, prohibited the disclosure of the requested disciplinary history.

City of Danville v. Madigan (2018 IL App (4th) 170182)
The court held that documents possessed by a public body are subject to FOIA disclosure if they pertain to public business, provided they do not fall under specific statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the Attorney General's binding opinion that the City of Danville was required to disclose records related to its Housing Task Force.

City of Danville v. Madigan and Flynn (2018 IL App (4th) 170182-U)
The court held that the Attorney General's binding opinion requiring the City of Danville to disclose records under FOIA was not clearly erroneous. The court clarified that while not all documents in a public body's possession are public records, the documents in question pertained to public business and were subject to disclosure.

Kelly v. Village of Kenilworth (2019 IL App (1st) 170780)
The court held that while the defendants demonstrated an ongoing investigation under FOIA section 7(1)(d), they failed to meet their burden of proving that the entirety of the withheld files were exempt. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow for proper compliance with FOIA procedures.

Timpone v. Illinois Student Assistance Comm’n (2019 IL App (1st) 181115)
The court held that the names of Monetary Award Program (MAP) grant recipients are exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(b) because their release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of the requester and the associated award of attorney fees.

NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. Chicago Police Department (2019 IL App (1st) 181426)
The court held that records concerning the police shooting of a minor are not exempt from FOIA disclosure under the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions. The court determined that the records did not relate to a minor who had been investigated, arrested, or taken into custody for a criminal offense, thus requiring their release.

Walker v. Bruscato (2019 IL App (2d) 170775)
The court affirmed summary judgment for the State's Attorney, holding that the plaintiff's FOIA request for grand jury materials was properly denied because the requested records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA as information prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law. The court further determined that additional discovery was unnecessary as the plaintiff had already received the requested grand jury transcript.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Exemptions. (1) When a request is made to inspect or copy a public record that contains information that is exempt from disclosure under this Section, but also contains information that is not exempt from disclosure, the public body may elect to redact the information that is exempt. The public body shall make the remaining information available for inspection and copying. Subject to this requirement, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) Records created or compiled by a State public defender agency or commission subject to the State Public Defender Act that contain: individual client identity; individual case file information; individual investigation records and other records that are otherwise subject to attorney-client privilege; records that would not be discoverable in litigation; records under Section 2.15; training materials; records related to attorney consultation and representation strategy; or any of the above concerning clients of county public defenders or other defender agencies and firms. This exclusion does not apply to deidentified, aggregated, administrative records, such as general case processing and workload information. (a-5) Information specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or rules and regulations implementing federal or State law. (b) Private information, unless disclosure is required by another provision of this Act, a State or federal law, or a court order. (b-5) Files, documents, and other data or databases maintained by one or more law enforcement agencies and specifically designed to provide information to one or more law enforcement agencies regarding the physical or mental status of one or more individual subjects. (c) Personal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information. "Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" means the disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject's right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information. The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy. (d) Records in the possession of any public body created in the course of administrative enforcement proceedings, and any law enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that disclosure would: (i) interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by any law enforcement or correctional agency that is the recipient of the request; (ii) interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings conducted by the public body that is the recipient of the request; (iii) create a substantial likelihood that a person will be deprived of a fair trial or an impartial hearing; (iv) unavoidably disclose the identity of a confidential source, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, or persons who file complaints with or provide information to administrative, investigative, law enforcement, or penal agencies; except that the identities of witnesses to traffic crashes, traffic crash reports, and rescue reports shall be provided by agencies of local government, except when disclosure would interfere with an active criminal investigation conducted by the agency that is the recipient of the request; (v) disclose unique or specialized investigative techniques other than those generally used and known or disclose internal documents of correctional agencies related to detection, observation, or investigation of incidents of crime or misconduct, and disclosure would result in demonstrable harm to the agency or public body that is the recipient of the request; (vi) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person; or (vii) obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation by the agency that is the recipient of the request. (d-5) A law enforcement record created for law enforcement purposes and contained in a shared electronic record management system if the law enforcement agency that is the recipient of the request did not create the record, did not participate in or have a role in any of the events which are the subject of the record, and only has access to the record through the shared electronic record management system. (d-6) Records contained in the Officer Professional Conduct Database under Section 9.2 of the Illinois Police Training Act, except to the extent authorized under that Section. This includes the documents supplied to the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board from the Illinois State Police and Illinois State Police Merit Board. (d-7) Information gathered or records created from the use of automatic license plate readers in connection with Section 2-130 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (e) Records that relate to or affect the security of correctional institutions and detention facilities. (e-5) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail if those materials are available in the library of the correctional institution or facility or jail where the inmate is confined. (e-6) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail if those materials include records from staff members' personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information. (e-7) Records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health if those materials are available through an administrative request to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health. (e-8) Records requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, the disclosure of which would result in the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from a jail or correctional institution or facility. (e-9) Records requested by a person in a county jail or committed to the Department of Corrections or Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, containing personal information pertaining to the person's victim or the victim's family, including, but not limited to, a victim's home address, home telephone number, work or school address, work telephone number, social security number, or any other identifying information, except as may be relevant to a requester's current or potential case or claim. (e-10) Law enforcement records of other persons requested by a person committed to the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services Division of Mental Health, or a county jail, including, but not limited to, arrest and booking records, mug shots, and crime scene photographs, except as these records may be relevant to the requester's current or potential case or claim. (f) Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda, and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated, except that a specific record or relevant portion of a record shall not be exempt when the record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body. The exemption provided in this paragraph (f) extends to all those records of officers and agencies of the General Assembly that pertain to the preparation of legislative documents. (g) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person or business where the trade secrets or commercial or financial information are furnished under a claim that they are proprietary, privileged, or confidential, and that disclosure of the trade secrets or commercial or financial information would cause competitive harm to the person or business, and only insofar as the claim directly applies to the records requested. The information included under this exemption includes all trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained by a public body, including a public pension fund, from a private equity fund or a privately held company within the investment portfolio of a private equity fund as a result of either investing or evaluating a potential investment of public funds in a private equity fund. The exemption contained in this item does not apply to the aggregate financial performance information of a private equity fund, nor to the identity of the fund's managers or general partners. The exemption contained in this item does not apply to the identity of a privately held company within the investment portfolio of a private equity fund, unless the disclosure of the identity of a privately held company may cause competitive harm. Nothing contained in this paragraph (g) shall be construed to prevent a person or business from consenting to disclosure. (h) Proposals and bids for any contract, grant, or agreement, including information which if it were disclosed would frustrate procurement or give an advantage to any person proposing to enter into a contractor agreement with the body, until an award or final selection is made. Information prepared by or for the body in preparation of a bid solicitation shall be exempt until an award or final selection is made. (i) Valuable formulae, computer geographic systems, designs, drawings, and research data obtained or produced by any public body when disclosure could reasonably be expected to produce private gain or public loss. The exemption for "computer geographic systems" provided in this paragraph (i) does not extend to requests made by news media as defined in Section 2 of this Act when the requested information is not otherwise exempt and the only purpose of the request is to access and disseminate information regarding the health, safety, welfare, or legal rights of the general public. (j) The following information pertaining to educational matters: (i) test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer an academic examination; (ii) information received by a primary or secondary school, college, or university under its procedures for the evaluation of faculty members by their academic peers; (iii) information concerning a school or university's adjudication of student disciplinary cases, but only to the extent that disclosure would unavoidably reveal the identity of the student; and (iv) course materials or research materials used by faculty members. (k) Architects' plans, engineers' technical submissions, and other construction related technical documents for projects not constructed or developed in whole or in part with public funds and the same for projects constructed or developed with public funds, including, but not limited to, power generating and distribution stations and other transmission and distribution facilities, water treatment facilities, airport facilities, sport stadiums, convention centers, and all government owned, operated, or occupied buildings, but only to the extent that disclosure would compromise security. (l) Minutes of meetings of public bodies closed to the public as provided in the Open Meetings Act until the public body makes the minutes available to the public under Section 2.06 of the Open Meetings Act. (m) 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. (n) Records relating to a public body's adjudication of employee grievances or disciplinary cases; however, this exemption shall not extend to the final outcome of cases in which discipline is imposed. (o) Administrative or technical information associated with automated data processing operations, including, but not limited to, software, operating protocols, computer program abstracts, file layouts, source listings, object modules, load modules, user guides, documentation pertaining to all logical and physical design of computerized systems, employee manuals, and any other information that, if disclosed, would jeopardize the security of the system or its data or the security of materials exempt under this Section. (p) Records relating to collective negotiating matters between public bodies and their employees or representatives, except that any final contract or agreement shall be subject to inspection and copying. (q) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to determine the qualifications of an applicant for a license or employment. (r) The records, documents, and information relating to real estate purchase negotiations until those negotiations have been completed or otherwise terminated. With regard to a parcel involved in a pending or actually and reasonably contemplated eminent domain proceeding under the Eminent Domain Act, records, documents, and information relating to that parcel shall be exempt except as may be allowed under discovery rules adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court. The records, documents, and information relating to a real estate sale shall be exempt until a sale is consummated. (s) 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. (t) Information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public body responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions, insurance companies, or pharmacy benefit managers, unless disclosure is otherwise required by State law. (u) Information that would disclose or might lead to the disclosure of secret or confidential information, codes, algorithms, programs, or private keys intended to be used to create electronic signatures under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (v) Vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent, or respond to potential attacks upon a community's population or systems, facilities, or installations, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose the vulnerability or jeopardize the effectiveness of the measures, policies, or plans, or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public. Information exempt under this item may include such things as details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of personnel or equipment, to the operation of communication systems or protocols, to cybersecurity vulnerabilities, or to tactical operations. (w) (Blank). (x) Maps and other records regarding the location or security of generation, transmission, distribution, storage, gathering, treatment, or switching facilities owned by a utility, by a power generator, or by the Illinois Power Agency. (y) Information contained in or related to proposals, bids, or negotiations related to electric power procurement under Section 1-75 of the Illinois Power Agency Act and Section 16-111.5 of the Public Utilities Act that is determined to be confidential and proprietary by the Illinois Power Agency or by the Illinois Commerce Commission. (z) Information about students exempted from disclosure under Section 10-20.38 or 34-18.29 of the School Code, and information about undergraduate students enrolled at an institution of higher education exempted from disclosure under Section 25 of the Illinois Credit Card Marketing Act of 2009. (aa) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the Viatical Settlements Act of 2009. (bb) Records and information provided to a mortality review team and records maintained by a mortality review team appointed under the Department of Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team Act. (cc) Information regarding interments, entombments, or inurnments of human remains that are submitted to the Cemetery Oversight Database under the Cemetery Care Act or the Cemetery Oversight Act, whichever is applicable. (dd) Correspondence and records (i) that may not be disclosed under Section 11-9 of the Illinois Public Aid Code or (ii) that pertain to appeals under Section 11-8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ee) The names, addresses, or other personal information of persons who are minors and are also participants and registrants in programs of park districts, forest preserve districts, conservation districts, recreation agencies, and special recreation associations. (ff) The names, addresses, or other personal information of participants and registrants in programs of park districts, forest preserve districts, conservation districts, recreation agencies, and special recreation associations where such programs are targeted primarily to minors. (gg) Confidential information described in Section 1-100 of the Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal Act of 2012. (hh) The report submitted to the State Board of Education by the School Security and Standards Task Force under item (8) of subsection (d) of Section 2-3.160 of the School Code and any information contained in that report. (ii) Records requested by persons committed to or detained by the Department of Human Services under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act or committed to the Department of Corrections under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act if those materials: (i) are available in the library of the facility where the individual is confined; (ii) include records from staff members' personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information; or (iii) are available through an administrative request to the Department of Human Services or the Department of Corrections. (jj) Confidential information described in Section 5-535 of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (kk) The public body's credit card numbers, debit card numbers, bank account numbers, Federal Employer Identification Number, security code numbers, passwords, and similar account information, the disclosure of which could result in identity theft or impression or defrauding of a governmental entity or a person. (ll) Records concerning the work of the threat assessment team of a school district, including, but not limited to, any threat assessment procedure under the School Safety Drill Act and any information contained in the procedure. (mm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 15 of the Student Confidential Reporting Act. (nn) Proprietary information submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency under the Drug Take-Back Act. (oo) Records described in subsection (f) of Section 3-5-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections. (pp) Any and all information regarding burials, interments, or entombments of human remains as required to be reported to the Department of Natural Resources pursuant either to the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Protection Act or the Human Remains Protection Act. (qq) Reports described in subsection (e) of Section 16-15 of the Abortion Care Clinical Training Program Act. (rr) Information obtained by a certified local health department under the Access to Public Health Data Act. (ss) For a request directed to a public body that is also a HIPAA-covered entity, all information that is protected health information, including demographic information, that may be contained within or extracted from any record held by the public body in compliance with State and federal medical privacy laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its regulations, 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164. As used in this paragraph, "HIPAA-covered entity" has the meaning given to the term "covered entity" in 45 CFR 160.103 and "protected health information" has the meaning given to that term in 45 CFR 160.103. (tt) Proposals or bids submitted by engineering consultants in response to requests for proposal or other competitive bidding requests by the Department of Transportation or the Illinois Toll Highway Authority. (1.5) Any information exempt from disclosure under the Judicial Privacy Act shall be redacted from public records prior to disclosure under this Act. (1.6) Any information exempt from disclosure under the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act shall be redacted from public records prior to disclosure under this Act. (1.7) Any information exempt from disclosure under paragraph (3.5) of Section 9-15 of the Election Code shall be redacted from public records prior to disclosure under this Act. (2) A public record that is not in the possession of a public body but is in the possession of a party with whom the agency has contracted to perform a governmental function on behalf of the public body, and that directly relates to the governmental function and is not otherwise exempt under this Act, shall be considered a public record of the public body, for purposes of this Act. (3) This Section does not authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as stated in this Section or otherwise provided in this Act. (Source: P.A. 103-154, eff. 6-30-23; 103-423, eff. 1-1-24; 103-446, eff. 8-4-23; 103-462, eff. 8-4-23; 103-540, eff. 1-1-24; 103-554, eff. 1-1-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-865, eff. 1-1-25; 104-300, eff. 1-1-27; 104-443, eff. 1-1-26.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy (records whose release would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy)): 73 · 7(1)(b) (Private information (defined in Sec. 2(c-5) -- e.g. SSNs, driver's license numbers, home addresses in some contexts)): 70 · 7(1)(a) (Federal/State-law confidentiality — or public defender case files, for documents issued under the other amendment version (see Sec. 7)): 65 · 7 (General exemptions provision (cites Sec. 7 as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 42 · 7(1)(f) (Preliminary drafts, notes, and deliberative materials (pre-decisional "draft" exemption)): 38 · 7(1)(m) (Attorney/auditor communications and litigation-preparation materials (attorney-client-style privilege)): 16 · 7(1)(g) (Trade secrets and confidential commercial/financial information): 12 · 7(1)(d) (Law-enforcement/administrative-proceeding records (general)): 11 · 7(1)(d)(i) (Would interfere with pending/contemplated law-enforcement proceedings): 10 · 7(1)(v) (Security vulnerability assessments and response plans): 8 · 7(1)(n) (Employee grievance/discipline adjudication records (except final discipline outcomes)): 7 · 7(1)(k) (Architectural/engineering security-sensitive construction documents): 6 · 7(1) (General exemption list (cites the lettered exemptions in Sec. 7(1) without naming a specific one)): 6 · 7(1)(j)(iv) (Faculty course/research materials): 5 · 7(1)(e) (Correctional/detention facility security records): 5 · 7(1)(i) (Valuable formulae, designs, and research data): 3 · 7(1)(d)(ii) (Would interfere with active administrative enforcement proceedings): 3 · 7(1)(e-10) (Other people's law-enforcement records requested by an inmate): 3 · 7(1)(e-5) (Records available to an inmate through the facility library): 2 · 7(1)(d)(vii) (Would obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation): 2 · 7(1)(s) (Intergovernmental risk-management/self-insurance pool records): 2 · 7(1)(h) (Bids and proposals, until a contract is awarded): 2 · 7(1)(t) (Financial institution/insurer regulatory examination reports): 2 · 7(1)(o) (Data-processing/IT security information): 2 · 7(1)(kk) (Public body's own financial account/security credentials): 2 · 7(1)(x) (Utility facility location/security maps): 2 · 7(1)(d)(iv) (Would disclose a confidential source or informant): 2 · 7(1)(p) (Collective bargaining negotiation records (final contracts stay public)): 1 · 7(1)(r) (Real estate purchase negotiation records, until completed): 1 · 7(1)(q) (Licensing/employment exam questions and scoring keys): 1 · 7(1)(d)(vi) (Would endanger the life or safety of law enforcement or others): 1 · 7(1)(d)(iii) (Would create a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial or hearing): 1 · 7(1)(d-7) (Automatic license plate reader data): 1 · 7(1)(l) (Closed-session meeting minutes not yet released under OMA Sec. 2.06): 1 · 7(1)(b)(ii): 1 · 7(1)(e-8) (Records whose release would risk harm or an escape): 1 · 7(b): 1 · 7(b)(v): 1 · 7(f): 1 · 7(1)(b)(i): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Master index of all PAC FOIA opinions issued since 2010
This document is not a legal decision, but rather a master list or index of all binding opinions issued by the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor since 2010. It is intended to help the public and legal professionals find specific past rulings on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) issues.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of legal invoices reflecting a school district's expenses in several lawsuits, and the school district withheld the invoices in full, asserting attorney-client privilege. The Public Access Counselor held that while some invoice descriptions could reveal privileged communications and could be redacted, generic descriptions of the work performed, attorneys' initials, time spent, and billed amounts are not privileged and must be disclosed. The school district was directed to release the non-exempt portions of the invoices, since withholding the records in their entirety violated FOIA's requirement to redact only the exempt information and produce the rest.

Disclosure of Records Pertaining to Arrests and Police Reports
The requester, a journalist, sought police incident reports and related records concerning an arrest of a local public official, which a police department withheld entirely, citing a personal-privacy exemption and denying that an arrest had actually occurred. The Public Access Counselor's own review of the records showed that an arrest had in fact taken place, triggering FOIA's specific arrest-disclosure provisions, and found that the subject's privacy interest was outweighed by the strong public interest in arrest information generally and in how law enforcement handled the incident. The police department was directed to release the records, subject only to redaction of statutorily defined private information, since it failed to prove the withheld material was otherwise exempt.

Disclosure of All Non-Exempt Portions of Requested Records
The requester sought copies of FOIA denial letters that a forest preserve district had issued citing a particular law-enforcement exemption, and the district produced heavily redacted copies, withholding not only private information but also material it deemed unrelated to the request. The Public Access Counselor held that because the request sought entire letters rather than specific information within them, the district could withhold only genuinely exempt content, properly redacting personal identifiers, but could not redact other material simply because it viewed that material as outside the scope of the request. The forest preserve district was directed to release the letters in full except for the properly redacted private information.

Production of Records to the Public Access Counselor
The requester sought a state licensing agency's complete investigative file on a real estate licensee, after the agency had previously been directed, in response to an earlier related request, to release the same file for failing to prove it was exempt, but did not comply. The agency again refused to respond to the new request, refused to provide the Public Access Counselor with copies of the records for review, and continued to assert without adequate support that the file was exempt as an investigative, confidential, or law-enforcement record. The Public Access Counselor held that the agency violated FOIA's response deadlines, notice requirements, and its duty to cooperate with review, and again directed it to produce the file, redacting only genuinely private third-party information.

Disclosure of Records Relating to the Death of a Minor
The requester, a journalist, sought investigative records concerning the police shooting of a minor, which a state agency withheld in full, primarily citing juvenile-confidentiality provisions of the Juvenile Court Act. The Public Access Counselor held that those provisions apply only to arrested or court-involved juveniles, not to a minor who died during the encounter and was never taken into custody, and found the agency's broader privacy objections unsupported, though it allowed redaction of unique identifiers, identifying information about surviving family members, and post-mortem photographs. The state agency was directed to release the remaining records, including the substantive investigative, autopsy, and toxicology materials, since the public interest in a full accounting of the shooting outweighed the narrower privacy interests actually established.

Judicial Inquiry Board is Not a "Public Body" to which FOIA is Applicable
The requester sought records from a state judicial oversight board concerning the circumstances of a former judge's removal from the bench, and the board declined to respond, asserting it was not subject to FOIA at all because it operates as part of the judicial branch. The Public Access Counselor agreed, holding that FOIA's definition of "public body" covers only legislative, executive, and administrative bodies and specifically excludes the judiciary, and that the board's investigatory role in judicial discipline places it squarely within the judicial branch. Because the board is not subject to FOIA in the first place, no violation occurred and the request for review was denied.

‘ Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought a school district's emergency management plans and related records, and the school district never responded at all, either to comply, deny, or extend the deadline within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the school district's total failure to respond constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The school district was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue timely responses to future requests.

Disclosure of Student Test Scores and the Illinois School Student Records Act
The requester sought de-identified fourth-grade math test scores from a school district, and the school district refused, first claiming the underlying student-privacy law made the data exempt entirely, then claiming that redacting and scrambling the scores so no student could be identified would amount to creating a new record it wasn't required to produce. The Public Access Counselor rejected both arguments, holding that a record with individually identifying information removed is no longer covered by student-records confidentiality law, and that redacting or reordering existing data does not create a new record under settled Illinois case law, even when the school district's own reporting software could not do so electronically. The school district was directed to provide the de-identified scores in the format requested or another format the requester had agreed to accept.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought village hall surveillance footage, police department records, meeting minutes, and building access logs, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor over several months. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a village government's financial records, including its checkbook register, treasurer's reports, and attorney invoices, and the village never responded at all, despite the Public Access Counselor's follow-up inquiry going unanswered as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, also finding the village appeared to lack a properly designated FOIA officer as the law requires. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, designate and identify a FOIA officer, and post the required public notice of its request procedures.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of travel and credit-card expense records for a public university's board members and president, later amending the request to broaden its scope, and the university never responded to either version despite repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's silence on the amended request constituted a denial under FOIA, since the requester had explicitly superseded his original request with the amended one. The university was directed to produce all records responsive to the amended request, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Records Relating to a Public Body's Internal Investigation into an Employee's Conduct
The requester, a journalist, sought police and internal-investigation records concerning an off-duty car accident involving a police department's assistant chief, and the city government withheld the underlying investigative materials, arguing they related to an "adjudication" of a disciplinary case and were therefore exempt. The Public Access Counselor held that an informal internal inquiry that never proceeded to a formal adjudicatory hearing does not qualify as an "adjudication" under the narrow exemption the city invoked, and that related records such as the traffic citation and witness accounts were independently public regardless of the investigation. The city government was directed to release the withheld investigative and citation records, subject only to permissible redactions for private information.

Statistical Data is Not Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)() of FOIA
The requester sought monthly Uniform Crime Report statistics that a city's police department had submitted to a state police agency for 2012 and 2013. The state police agency withheld the records entirely, arguing they were "preliminary" because the underlying numbers had not yet been verified and could later be revised, and that this made them exempt as deliberative material under the FOIA exemption for preliminary drafts, notes, and records in which opinions are expressed or policies are formulated. The PAC held that this exemption protects the deliberative process, not purely factual or statistical data, and that the crime statistics did not reveal any agency decision-making or reasoning—only numbers reported by the local police department. Because the possibility that data might later be corrected does not make it "preliminary" or deliberative in the legal sense, the PAC found the withholding improper and ordered the records released, noting the agency could simply flag the data as unverified.

Duty to Provide "Clear and Convincing" Evidence to Support Assertion of Exemptions; Possibility of Obtaining Public Records through Discovery Does Not Preclude FOIA Requests
The requester asked the police department for a copy of a specific police report, but the department denied the request, claiming disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and could deprive someone of a fair trial. The department also argued the requester should instead obtain the report through court discovery procedures. The PAC held that the department's justifications were vague and conclusory, failing to show by clear and convincing evidence that either exemption applied, and further explained that the availability of records through discovery does not eliminate a person's separate right to obtain records under FOIA. As a result, the PAC directed the department to release the report, subject only to limited redactions for private information and confidential source information.

Public Records in the Possession of a Contractor Performing a Governmental Function for a Public Body Are Public Records of the Public Body; A Public Body May Not Charge a Requester Fees for the Contractor to Locate and Retrieve Such Public Records in a Non-Commercial Request
The requester sought records related to a sidewalk/curb improvement project from the village government, including bid documents, payroll reports, and correspondence with the project's engineering firm. The village government said it did not possess many of these records because they were held by its private engineering contractor, and demanded payment of over $1,100 in estimated labor costs before it would obtain and release them. The PAC held that because the engineering firm was performing a governmental function on the village government's behalf, the records it held were legally public records of the village government, and that state law bars public bodies from charging non-commercial requesters for search, review, or other personnel costs, even when those costs are incurred through a contractor. As a result, the PAC found the village government improperly denied the request and ordered it to provide the withheld records without conditioning release on payment of those fees.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of a law firm's legal billing invoices from the city government for the past calendar year, but the city withheld them entirely, citing exemptions for attorney-client privileged communications, collective bargaining matters, and (later) records related to employee disciplinary adjudications. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau held that the city violated FOIA by withholding the invoices in full, finding that only specific descriptive entries revealing privileged legal advice or specific collective-bargaining strategy could be redacted, while general billing information—dates, attorney initials, hours, amounts billed, and general task descriptions—was not exempt and had to be disclosed. The PAC also rejected the disciplinary-adjudication exemption, reasoning that billing invoices exist independently of any disciplinary proceeding and are not themselves part of an adjudicatory process. The city government was directed to release the invoices with only narrowly tailored redactions.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester sought copies of settlement agreements from the county board, but the county board withheld some of them, citing confidentiality provisions within the agreements and arguing that release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA because the agreements resolved sexual harassment complaints. The Public Access Counselor held that settlement agreements are public records under FOIA and that confidentiality clauses within them are unenforceable because they conflict with the statute's plain language and legislative intent favoring disclosure. The PAC also found the privacy exemption inapplicable because the withheld documents did not describe the underlying allegations, and because the public's constitutional and statutory interest in knowing how public funds are spent outweighed any privacy interest the complainants had. As a result, the county board was directed to release the settlement agreements, subject only to redaction of private information under section 7(1)(b).

Duty to Disclose Public Records in the Possession of a Public Body
The requester sought records showing how much money was collected during a university's homecoming dance and how those funds were handled. The university denied the request, arguing the records belonged to its Student Government Association, which it claimed was not a "public body" subject to FOIA. The PAC held that this argument was irrelevant, because the records were in the university's possession and control—held in a university-controlled account and overseen by university staff—and therefore pertained to the transaction of public business by the university itself. The PAC ruled that the university violated FOIA and ordered it to release the records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Records Documenting Public Funds Paid to Entities Pursuant to Contracts For Performance of A Governmental Function Are Subject to Disclosure
The requester sought copies of the state lottery agency's marketing and advertising contracts, specifically the pricing structure and hourly rates, but the agency's private lottery manager redacted the financial terms, citing exemptions for information barred by other state law and for confidential commercial/financial information that could cause competitive harm. The PAC held that neither exemption applied: the financial terms did not qualify as "confidential data" under the Lottery Law's narrow exception, and because the figures represented the cost of publicly funded services, they were expressly subject to disclosure as records relating to the use of public funds, with no adequate showing of competitive harm to support withholding them as trade secrets. The PAC also found that confidentiality agreements between the manager and its contractors could not override this public disclosure duty, since those agreements themselves allowed for disclosure under a binding governmental order. The agency was directed to release the full financial terms, including contract totals, hourly rates, and any commissions.

Disclosure of Photographs of a Former Auxiliary Deputy Sheriff
The requester sought photographs of a former auxiliary deputy from the sheriff's department. The sheriff's department denied the request, arguing the photographs were exempt "private information" because they contained "biometric identifiers." The Public Access Counselor found that the photographs were general in nature and did not focus on any unique physical attribute used to identify a person, so they did not qualify as biometric identifiers under the common meaning of that term. Because FOIA's definition of "public records" specifically includes photographs, and the exemption for "private information" did not, the PAC concluded the sheriff's department violated FOIA and ordered the photographs to be disclosed.

Duty to Conduct a Reasonable Search for Responsive Records; Repeat Requests Under Section 3(g)
The requester sought records concerning a village clerk's participation in a conference, including communications, billing records, contribution documentation, and expense records. The village government responded that it had no responsive records and also claimed part of the request was unduly burdensome under section 3(g) because it was a repeat of an earlier request that had allegedly been "properly denied." The PAC found that the village government violated FOIA in multiple ways: it failed to show it conducted a reasonable search for responsive records, especially since it had previously been directed to search for similar records and never complied; its section 3(g) burden claim failed because the prior request had not actually been "properly denied" (the earlier denial itself had been found improper); and it improperly withheld responsive records it later disclosed to the PAC without showing any exemption applied. The village government was ordered to conduct a proper search and disclose all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Photocopies of Records Deemed Exempt from Disclosure under Section 7(1)(e-5)
An incarcerated requester asked the corrections department for photocopies of certain administrative directives that were already available for inspection in the correctional facility's library. The corrections department denied the request under a FOIA exemption covering records requested by inmates that are available in the facility library, and the requester argued this exemption shouldn't apply because inmates weren't allowed to photocopy the library materials themselves. The Public Access Counselor upheld the denial, finding that the exemption only requires that inmates have access to inspect the records in the library, not that they be permitted to make or receive photocopies, based on the legislative history showing the exemption was meant to relieve the department of the burden of copying records already available to inmates through the library.

Disclosure of Résumé and Job Application of Public Employee
The requester sought a copy of an employee's résumé and job application from the village government, which denied the request by claiming the records were exempt as private personal information, as material prohibited from disclosure under the Personnel Record Review Act, and as deliberative material. The PAC held that the records were not exempt: they bear on the employee's qualifications and public duties, the public has a strong interest in verifying that hiring complied with applicable laws, and this interest outweighed the employee's privacy concerns, since the information was factual and presented favorably rather than embarrassing. The PAC also found the Personnel Record Review Act only bars disclosure of performance evaluations (not résumés or applications), and that the records were purely factual rather than deliberative, so the village government was ordered to release the records, redacting only truly private identifying details like a signature, home address, and phone numbers.

Disclosure of Settlement Agreements
The requester asked the city government for a copy of a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit against the city, along with related records and documents about the city council's vote to approve the settlement payment. The city government denied the request, citing a personal privacy exemption and pointing to a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement. The PAC held that settlement agreements are specifically made public records under FOIA, that confidentiality clauses in such agreements cannot override this rule, and that because the underlying claims related to the plaintiff's public employment, disclosure would not be an unwarranted invasion of privacy—especially given the strong public interest in how public funds are spent. The PAC also found the city government's response incomplete because it failed to address whether it searched for other related records, and ordered the city to disclose the settlement agreement and conduct a proper search for any additional responsive records.

Home Rule Ordinance Does Not Supersede FOIA; Negotiated Terms of Contracts with Public Bodies Do Not Constitute Trade Secrets; Correspondence With Third Parties Is Not Part of A Public Body's Deliberative Process
The requester, a journalist, sought records related to a touring musician's concerts at a village-owned entertainment venue, including contracts, correspondence, and financial terms with the concert promoter, and the village government withheld ticket-pricing emails and rental/revenue figures, citing the deliberative-process and trade-secret exemptions and, later, a home-rule ordinance it passed after the request was denied. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's ordinance could not override FOIA because regulating access to public records is a matter of statewide, not local, concern, that the financial terms of the venue's contracts were expressly subject to disclosure as records of the village's use of public funds, and that emails with the promoter did not qualify as deliberative because they were exchanged with an outside party representing independent interests. The village government was directed to produce the contracts, invoices, and emails, redacting only limited private information.

Disclosure of Public Employees' Compensation
The requester sought a hospital district's physician employment agreements, including compensation, incentive, and bonus information, and the hospital district redacted this financial information, arguing it was private and that physicians do not perform "public duties." The Public Access Counselor rejected both arguments, holding that records of physician compensation paid from the district's funds are public records concerning the use of public funds regardless of whether physicians have "public duties," that compensation amounts are not "private information" under the personal-privacy exemption, and that disclosure of pay tied to public employment is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The hospital district was directed to disclose the compensation information and a post-office-box address that had been improperly withheld as a home address.

Disclosure of Surveillance Video Recordings
The requester, a paralegal for the law firm representing a party in a fatal accident case, sought surveillance video from a state highway rest area showing the area near where a pedestrian was fatally struck by a truck, and the state transportation department withheld the video, arguing that disclosure would invade the privacy of the decedent's family. The Public Access Counselor held that while family members can have an independent privacy interest in graphic details of a relative's death, these videos did not depict the accident itself or contain graphic content, so the strong public interest in understanding the circumstances of a fatal traffic accident outweighed any privacy concern. The state transportation department was directed to provide the requester with copies of the videos.

Disclosure of the Governor's Calendar
The requester, a journalist, sought the governor's daily appointment calendar showing meetings and attendees, and the governor's office redacted the names of meeting attendees, arguing the calendar was a personal scheduling tool and that disclosure would reveal deliberative and privileged legal strategy. The Public Access Counselor held that because the calendar was maintained by staff, used to facilitate scheduling, and accessible to senior officials, it was a public record documenting the office's business rather than a private convenience, and that the governor's office had not shown with specific facts that disclosing attendees' identities would expose deliberative reasoning or privileged legal communications, distinguishing cases involving far more detailed or security-sensitive schedules. The governor's office was also found to have missed FOIA's response deadline and was directed to disclose the calendar entries, redacting only personal telephone numbers.

Failure to Timely Respond to FOIA Request Precludes Denial as Unduly Burdensome; Disclosure of Certified Payroll Records
The requester sought certified payroll records for state highway construction projects in a county, and the state transportation department denied the request as unduly burdensome, citing the labor involved in redacting the hundreds of pages of records. The Public Access Counselor held that the department's denial came after FOIA's five-business-day response deadline had already passed, which by itself barred it from claiming undue burden, and separately concluded that because the legislature specifically made certified payroll records public and defined exactly what information must be redacted from them, the burden of that redaction did not outweigh the strong public interest in disclosure. The state transportation department was directed to produce the certified payroll records, redacting only the specific categories of information the statute allows.

Determination letters

Illinois Department of Revenue did not violate FOIA by withholding audit manual sections
A law firm requested internal audit manuals from the Illinois Department of Revenue to understand how the state determines corporate income and sales taxes. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and concluded that the Department was legally allowed to keep these documents private to protect tax enforcement standards. This means the request for the records was denied and the case is now closed.

SIU School of Medicine properly withheld animal training emails under 7(1)(f)
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine requested records from the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine about animal use in medical training. The school withheld some emails, claiming they were internal drafts or deliberative communications. The Attorney General's office agreed that the school followed the law and was allowed to keep those specific documents private.

SIU School of Medicine properly applied 7(1)(f) to emails on animal use
A research group requested records from a medical school about its use of animals in training programs. The school withheld some emails, claiming they were internal drafts or deliberative communications. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school, finding that the records were protected from disclosure.

City of Elmhurst improperly withheld construction cost estimates under 7(1)(f)
A citizen requested documents from the City of Elmhurst regarding construction costs for city parking garages. The City refused to release the records, claiming they were internal drafts and opinions under section 7(1)(f) of FOIA. The Attorney General's office reviewed the documents and concluded that the general contractor's draft proposals were not exempt because the contractor had its own financial interest, and the City Manager's memorandum was factual, not deliberative. However, the office allowed the City to redact the Assistant City Manager's handwritten notes, which reflected pre-decisional opinions and were not publicly cited by the Mayor.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 DVD fee under FOIA
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD copy. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department improperly assessed the fee because it failed to respond to the request within the required time limits under FOIA. Alternatively, even if the response had been timely, the fee was set by an administrative rule, not by a statute, and therefore could not be charged under FOIA. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the $20 fee.

Illinois State Police improperly charged $20 fee for DVD under administrative rule
A citizen requested video records from the Illinois State Police and was charged $20 for a DVD. The Attorney General's office ruled that the police department could not charge this fee because it was based on an administrative rule rather than a specific state law. The PAC requested that the police department reimburse the citizen for the cost of the DVD.

Chicago Transit Authority improperly withheld Bombardier component percentages in Buy America audit
A requester sought detailed audit information about the manufacturing origins of railcar components for a Chicago Transit Authority project. The Attorney General's office determined that the CTA properly withheld the percentages of components from suppliers other than Bombardier, but improperly withheld the percentages of components supplied by Bombardier. The CTA also properly withheld the percentages and subcomponents in the Buy America Compliance Certificates, but improperly withheld the Description of Work in the Post-Delivery Audit.

Village of Forest Park no violation for withholding police video under law enforcement exemptions
The question was whether the Village of Forest Park properly withheld surveillance videos of a hit-and-run under FOIA Section 7(1)(d) exemptions, including an unargued but implicated Section 7(1)(d)(iii) fair-trial exemption. The Public Access Bureau held that the Village did not improperly deny the request at the time it was submitted, because disclosure during the pendency of the criminal prosecution would have created a substantial likelihood of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The reasoning applied the federal analog under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(B), requiring a showing that a trial is pending or imminent and that disclosure would more probably than not seriously interfere with the fairness of the proceedings. The Bureau noted that the videos contained witness and defendant statements whose disclosure could have influenced testimony, but suggested the same rationale might no longer apply if a new request were submitted later. No binding opinion was issued.

PAC cannot review Illinois Department of Revenue's commercial-purpose FOIA denial
Mr. Vertin requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue for his business. Because the request was for a commercial purpose, the Attorney General's office stated it does not have the legal authority to review the Department's denial. The requester must instead pursue the matter through a lawsuit in court.

PAC lacks authority to review commercial-purpose FOIA denial by IL Dept of Revenue
A business owner requested real estate records from the Illinois Department of Revenue, but the Department denied the request. When the requester asked the Attorney General's office to intervene, the office declined because the request was for a commercial purpose. Under Illinois law, the Public Access Counselor does not have the authority to resolve disputes involving commercial FOIA requests.

First Fire Protection District improperly withheld budget documents under 7(1)(f)
A citizen requested a budget document that was presented during a public fire district meeting. The district refused to release it, claiming it was a 'preliminary draft' that might confuse the public. The Attorney General's office disagreed, ruling that the district did not provide enough evidence to justify keeping the document secret and ordered them to release it.

Illinois Department of Corrections must disclose contractor-held prescription drug records
A reporter requested records of prescription drug orders made by the Illinois Department of Corrections through private vendors. The Attorney General's office ruled that the Department must get these records from its vendor and provide them to the reporter. The Department is allowed to remove personal information that would identify specific inmates to protect their medical privacy.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District properly withheld facility plans under 7(1)(k)
A requester asked for detailed facility plans from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, but the District refused to provide them, citing security concerns. The Attorney General's office reviewed the documents and agreed that releasing the technical details of the facility's systems could pose a security risk. Consequently, the PAC closed the case, finding that the District acted within the law.

University of Illinois properly withheld animal medical records but improperly redacted protocol names
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 signatures and personal emergency-contact numbers were properly redacted. The university was directed to disclose the remaining redacted information.

Governor's Office improperly withheld correspondence from former official under FOIA exemptions
The requester sought correspondence between the governor's office and a former state agency director, portions of which the office withheld as deliberative material, attorney-client communications, and personal information. The PAC determined that most of the pre-decisional emails and the personal emails were properly withheld, but that certain factual records and a legal-matter update did not qualify as deliberative or privileged and were improperly withheld. The governor's office was directed to release the improperly withheld records.

PAC cannot review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
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.

PAC declines to review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
A business owner requested training materials from the University of Illinois to help his company win a government contract. The Attorney General's office declined to review the University's refusal to provide these documents because the law prohibits the PAC from intervening in FOIA disputes involving commercial requests. The requester must now pursue the matter through the court system if they wish to challenge the denial.

Lake County State's Attorney's Office improperly withheld emails under 7(1)(f) and 7(1)(m)
The requester sought e-mails between a state's attorney's office investigator and a school district official concerning an investigation into the district's finances, which the office withheld as deliberative material and attorney work product. The PAC determined the e-mails merely requested and furnished factual information and did not reflect any deliberative process, legal theories, or litigation strategy, so neither exemption applied. The state's attorney's office was directed to provide the e-mails to the requester.

City of Monticello properly withheld preliminary drafts under section 7(1)(f)
This determination addressed whether the City of Monticello properly withheld wastewater treatment plant design specifications under FOIA's preliminary-drafts exemption, 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(f). The Public Access Bureau held that the City did not improperly withhold the records because they were preliminary, deliberative materials prepared by the City's engineering consultant and had not yet been presented to or reviewed by the City Council. The Bureau reasoned that section 7(1)(f) covers intra-agency deliberative material, including consultant work product where the consultant represents the public body's interests, and that the exception for records 'publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body' did not apply because the discussion at the relevant council meeting was led by the City superintendent and the consultant, not the Mayor (the head of the public body). The City of Monticello was the public body involved, and the records at issue were consultant-prepared plans and specifications for a wastewater treatment plant.

Illinois Department of Revenue improperly withheld personnel records under 7(1)(c), 7(1)(f), and 7(1)(m)
The requester sought communications the department's personnel office received regarding hiring and staffing matters, which the department withheld as deliberative material. The PAC determined that the records largely requested and conveyed factual and logistical information rather than opinions or recommendations, so the department did not meet its burden of showing they were exempt as deliberative. The department was directed to furnish the records to the requester.

Governor's Office of Management and Budget improperly withheld PowerPoint under 7(1)(f)
A reporter requested budget-related documents from the Governor's budget office, but the office refused to release a PowerPoint presentation, claiming it was part of internal policy discussions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the budget office did not prove the document was exempt from public view. Consequently, the office was ordered to release the PowerPoint to the reporter.

Park Ridge-Niles SD 64 improperly redacted teacher disciplinary settlement records
A reporter requested records regarding a teacher's disciplinary settlement, but the school district blacked out too much information. The Attorney General's office ruled that the district must release the records, only redacting the names of students to protect their privacy. This ensures the public can understand the reasons for the settlement while keeping student identities private.

Proper University properly withheld internal audit report under exemption 7(1)(c)
The requester sought a copy of an internal audit report about a contractor's compliance with contract-timeline requirements, which a public college withheld as an internal-audit record. The requester argued that because the college had previously furnished the audit to its accreditation commission, the college improperly granted the commission an exclusive right to the record and waived the internal-audit exemption. The PAC determined the record was properly exempt as an internal audit, that the college's compulsory, confidentiality-protected disclosure to the accreditation commission did not give it any right to disseminate the record, and that no waiver occurred; the college's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois Department of Human Services properly denied records under 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(dd)
A citizen requested their own public aid records from the Illinois Department of Human Services to verify that proper procedures were followed. The Department denied the request, citing laws that protect the confidentiality of public aid recipients. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the law prohibits the release of these records for the requester's stated purpose.

Village of Arlington Heights properly withheld blueprints under section 7(1)(k)
A resident requested building blueprints from the Village of Arlington Heights, but the Village refused to provide them, citing a law that protects construction documents for private projects. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and agreed with the Village, finding that the building was privately funded and therefore exempt from disclosure. This means the Village was legally allowed to keep the blueprints private.

Elmhurst SD 205 improperly withheld some emails under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(f)
The requester sought emails between the school district superintendent and a high school principal, and between the district and a parent, concerning complaints about morning announcements, which the district withheld under the deliberative-process and personal-privacy exemptions. The PAC determined that most Superintendent-Principal emails were properly withheld as predecisional, but two reflecting a final decision were not, and that the parent's emails were not inter- or intra-agency communications and must be released with only the parent's name, contact information, and references to her children redacted. The district was directed to release the improperly withheld and redacted materials accordingly.

City of Bloomington improperly withheld police disciplinary records under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c)
A requester asked for 10 years of disciplinary records and citizen complaints for three specific police officers. The City of Bloomington refused to provide some of these records, claiming they were either too old or protected by privacy laws. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the City's refusal to release the records was improper.

City of Chicago Department of Law improperly withheld factual email under 7(1)(m)
This determination addresses whether the City of Chicago Department of Law properly withheld the text of an email between two of its attorneys under FOIA's section 7(1)(m) exemption for attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product. The Public Access Bureau held that the Department improperly withheld the email, finding it did not meet its burden of showing either privilege applied. The email was a purely factual status update on two legal matters that disclosed no litigation theories, mental impressions, or strategy (defeating the work-product claim) and conveyed no legal advice, merely factual information later forwarded to clients with an 'FYI' note (defeating the attorney-client privilege claim). The rule for future disputes: a public body invoking 7(1)(m) must show objective indicia that a communication either reveals an attorney's conceptual litigation strategy or constitutes legal advice sought in confidence -- a factual status update, even if marked confidential and prepared by counsel, does not qualify. The body reviewed was the City of Chicago Department of Law regarding an email exchanged between two of its attorneys.

Village of Oak Park properly withheld employee survey as deliberative process material under 7(1)(f)
A reporter requested an employee survey from the Village of Oak Park, but the Village refused to release it, claiming it was part of their internal decision-making process. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and agreed with the Village, ruling that the document was exempt from disclosure because it was used for internal policy formulation. This means the public does not have a right to access this specific type of internal survey.

Southern Illinois University properly withheld termination and reinstatement records under 7(1)(n)
The requester sought an employee's termination and reinstatement records from the university, which withheld them as records relating to an employee disciplinary adjudication. Based on confidential information the university provided, the PAC determined that the final outcome of the adjudication did not itself impose discipline, so the exemption for disciplinary case records was not overridden by the final-outcome exception. The university's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Court cases

Kibort v. Westrom ()
The court held that the Du Page County Election Commission properly denied a FOIA request for election materials because the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/17-20, 17-22) specifically prohibited their disclosure. The court further found that the Commission's denial letter sufficiently complied with the requirements of section 9(b) of the FOIA by citing the relevant statutory exemptions.

Kopchar v. City of Chicago ()
The court held that the City of Chicago was not required under FOIA to disclose the specific criteria or standards used to evaluate firefighter physical abilities tests. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding the requested information exempt from disclosure.

Gekas v. Williamson ()
The court held that records concerning allegations of misconduct by a deputy sheriff in the performance of his public duties are not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA personnel file exemption. The court affirmed the production of internal-affairs files while remanding for the disclosure of additional files related to misconduct allegations, subject to redaction of exempt personal information.

Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200 ()
The Supreme Court held that a school superintendent's employment contract is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA as a personnel file, as it constitutes a contract dealing with the expenditure of public funds. The Court ordered the disclosure of the contract, subject only to the redaction of specific private information.

Watkins v. McCarthy (2012 IL App (1st) 100632)
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of an inmate's FOIA request for police misconduct records. The court remanded the case for an in camera inspection to determine the applicability of FOIA exemptions, specifically noting the potential relevance of section 7(1)(n) regarding disciplinary records.

Dumke v. City of Chicago (2013 IL App (1st) 121668)
The court held that the City of Chicago waived the FOIA exemption under section 7(1)(f) for a consultant's report when the mayor publicly cited and identified the report in a press conference and press release. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment for the city and granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that the public citation precluded the need for an in camera review.

The State Journal-Register and Bruce Rushton v. The University of Illinois Springfield and Harry Berman (2013 IL App (4th) 120881)
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' FOIA request for specific redacted documents, including an email string, internal communications, and witness statements, as they did not fall under the Educational Privacy Act. The remainder of the trial court's order, including the exemption of the student victim's name, was affirmed.

Kalven v. City of Chicago (2014 IL App (1st) 121846)
The appellate court held that police 'repeater lists' and complaint register files regarding officer misconduct are subject to disclosure under FOIA. The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff regarding the repeater lists and reversed the judgment for the defendant regarding the complaint files, remanding for consideration of redactions under the deliberative process exemption.

John Peter Gonigam and First Electric Newspaper, LLC v. Office of the Sheriff of McHenry County (2014 IL App (2d) 140159-U)
The court affirmed the trial court's order requiring the Sheriff's Office to release documents, holding that the records were not exempt under section 7(1)(n) of the FOIA. The court determined the documents were not related to an adjudication of a disciplinary case, as they were generated independently of and prior to the investigation and adjudication process.

Ward v. Weisbaum (2015 IL App (3d) 130852-U)
The circuit court properly dismissed the plaintiff's FOIA lawsuit for injunctive relief because the requested home addresses of two individuals constituted private information exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(b) of the FOIA. The court held that the Secretary of State was not required to disclose the private home addresses when employer addresses had already been provided.

Calvin Merritte v. Thomas Templeton and Troy Holland (2015 IL App (3d) 140014-U)
The court held that an inmate was not entitled to a correction officer's medical or disciplinary records under FOIA, but was entitled to a redacted photograph of the officer's injury. The court determined that the redacted photograph did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under section 7(1)(b).

For the Good of Illinois, Inc. v. Office of Comptroller (2016 IL App (1st) 143755-U)
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the Comptroller properly established that the request was unduly burdensome. The court further affirmed the denial of attorney fees, finding that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party because the court ruled against it on the merits.

Peoria Journal Star v. City of Peoria (2016 IL App (3d) 140838)
The court held that a police department report regarding an employee grievance was not exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(n). The court determined that because the report was created prior to and independent of any formal disciplinary adjudication, it did not qualify as a record of a disciplinary proceeding.

Ralph Mlaska v. The Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 150189-U)
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the documents requested by the plaintiff from the Illinois Department of Corrections were exempt from disclosure under sections 7(1)(a), (1)(e-7), and (1)(f) of the Freedom of Information Act. The court upheld the Department's refusal to provide the records based on these statutory exemptions.

Brian Dugan v. Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 150233-U)
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections regarding a FOIA request. The court held that the Department properly asserted a FOIA exemption and that the plaintiff's motions for sanctions were meritless.

Cebertowicz v. Illinois Department of Corrections (2016 IL App (4th) 151024)
The court held that the Illinois Department of Corrections did not violate FOIA by denying an inmate's request for copies of documents that were already available for inspection in the facility's library. Under section 7(1)(e-5), materials accessible to an inmate within their correctional facility are exempt from the requirement to provide copies.

City of Chicago v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2017 IL App (1st) 150870)
The court addressed a reverse-FOIA action where a pharmaceutical company sought to prevent the City of Chicago from disclosing documents provided under a protective order. The court affirmed the circuit court's order, finding that the parties maintained a legally cognizable interest in the declaratory relief sought regarding the applicability of FOIA exemptions 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(g).

In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor (2019 IL 122949)
The Supreme Court held that judicial protective orders take precedence over FOIA disclosure requirements. Consequently, the City did not improperly withhold documents under section 11(d) of FOIA because it was required to comply with existing court orders.

Better Government Association v. Village of Rosemont (2017 IL App (1st) 161957)
The court held that the Village of Rosemont could not redact financial terms from public contracts under FOIA, as the trade secrets exemption (section 7(1)(g)) does not apply to standard rental rates and incentives provided by a public body. Furthermore, the court ruled that home rule units lack the authority to create additional exemptions to FOIA disclosure requirements.

The Chicago Tribune v. The College of Du Page and The College of Du Page Foundation (2017 IL App (2d) 160274)
The court held that a federal grand jury subpoena served on the College of Du Page Foundation was subject to disclosure under FOIA, rejecting the argument that the subpoena was exempt as information prohibited from disclosure by federal law. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment requiring the production of the document.

McGee v. Kelley (2017 IL App (3d) 160324)
The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for police records, holding that the records were exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(c) as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court further noted that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to support his claim that the documents had previously been made public.

Chicago Tribune Co. v. Cook County Assessor’s Office (2018 IL App (1st) 170455)
The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the Cook County Assessor’s Office failed to justify withholding property valuation records under the FOIA deliberative process exemption. The appellate court also vacated the trial court's order sealing the case records, finding no compelling reason to maintain secrecy.

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (2018 IL App (1st) 171846)
The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint, holding that the plaintiff's request was unduly burdensome under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA. The court determined that the burden of compliance outweighed the public interest because the request amounted to an unfocused 'fishing expedition' rather than a targeted inquiry.

Johnson v. Joliet Police Department (2018 IL App (3d) 170726)
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the requested disciplinary records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they were protected by the Personnel Record Review Act. The court concluded that section 7(1)(a) of FOIA, in conjunction with the Review Act, prohibited the disclosure of the requested disciplinary history.

City of Danville v. Madigan (2018 IL App (4th) 170182)
The court held that documents possessed by a public body are subject to FOIA disclosure if they pertain to public business, provided they do not fall under specific statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the Attorney General's binding opinion that the City of Danville was required to disclose records related to its Housing Task Force.

City of Danville v. Madigan and Flynn (2018 IL App (4th) 170182-U)
The court held that the Attorney General's binding opinion requiring the City of Danville to disclose records under FOIA was not clearly erroneous. The court clarified that while not all documents in a public body's possession are public records, the documents in question pertained to public business and were subject to disclosure.

Kelly v. Village of Kenilworth (2019 IL App (1st) 170780)
The court held that while the defendants demonstrated an ongoing investigation under FOIA section 7(1)(d), they failed to meet their burden of proving that the entirety of the withheld files were exempt. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow for proper compliance with FOIA procedures.

Timpone v. Illinois Student Assistance Comm’n (2019 IL App (1st) 181115)
The court held that the names of Monetary Award Program (MAP) grant recipients are exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(b) because their release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of the requester and the associated award of attorney fees.

NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. Chicago Police Department (2019 IL App (1st) 181426)
The court held that records concerning the police shooting of a minor are not exempt from FOIA disclosure under the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions. The court determined that the records did not relate to a minor who had been investigated, arrested, or taken into custody for a criminal offense, thus requiring their release.

Walker v. Bruscato (2019 IL App (2d) 170775)
The court affirmed summary judgment for the State's Attorney, holding that the plaintiff's FOIA request for grand jury materials was properly denied because the requested records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA as information prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law. The court further determined that additional discovery was unnecessary as the plaintiff had already received the requested grand jury transcript.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

(Repealed). (Source: P.A. 95-331, eff. 8-21-07. Repealed by P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10 and by P.A. 101-652, eff. 1-1-22.)

(Text of Section from P.A. 104-10)

Statutory exemptions. To the extent provided for by the statutes referenced below, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) All information determined to be confidential under Section 4002 of the Technology Advancement and Development Act. (b) Library circulation and order records identifying library users with specific materials under the Library Records Confidentiality Act. (c) Applications, related documents, and medical records received by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board and any and all documents or other records prepared by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board or its staff relating to applications it has received. (d) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives relating to known or suspected cases of sexually transmitted infection or any information the disclosure of which is restricted under the Illinois Sexually Transmitted Infection Control Act. (e) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 30 of the Radon Industry Licensing Act. (f) Firm performance evaluations under Section 55 of the Architectural, Engineering, and Land Surveying Qualifications Based Selection Act. (g) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 50 of the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Act. (h) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, and records of any lawfully created State or local inspector general's office that would be exempt if created or obtained by an Executive Inspector General's office under that Act. (i) Information contained in a local emergency energy plan submitted to a municipality in accordance with a local emergency energy plan ordinance that is adopted under Section 11-21.5-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (j) Information and data concerning the distribution of surcharge moneys collected and remitted by carriers under the Emergency Telephone System Act. (k) Law enforcement officer identification information or driver identification information compiled by a law enforcement agency or the Department of Transportation under Section 11-212 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (l) Records and information provided to a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (m) Information provided to the predatory lending database created pursuant to Article 3 of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act, except to the extent authorized under that Article. (n) Defense budgets and petitions for certification of compensation and expenses for court appointed trial counsel as provided under Sections 10 and 15 of the Capital Crimes Litigation Act (repealed). This subsection (n) shall apply until the conclusion of the trial of the case, even if the prosecution chooses not to pursue the death penalty prior to trial or sentencing. (o) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4 of the Illinois Health and Hazardous Substances Registry Act. (p) Security portions of system safety program plans, investigation reports, surveys, schedules, lists, data, or information compiled, collected, or prepared by or for the Department of Transportation under Sections 2705-300 and 2705-616 of the Department of Transportation Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois, the Regional Transportation Authority under Section 2.11 of the Regional Transportation Authority Act, or the St. Clair County Transit District under the Bi-State Transit Safety Act (repealed). (q) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Personnel Record Review Act. (r) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Illinois School Student Records Act. (s) Information the disclosure of which is restricted under Section 5-108 of the Public Utilities Act. (t) (Blank). (u) Records and information provided to an independent team of experts under the Developmental Disability and Mental Health Safety Act (also known as Brian's Law). (v) Names and information of people who have applied for or received Firearm Owner's Identification Cards under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or applied for or received a concealed carry license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, unless otherwise authorized by the Firearm Concealed Carry Act; and databases under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, records of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, and law enforcement agency objections under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (v-5) Records of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board that are exempted from disclosure under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (w) Personally identifiable information which is exempted from disclosure under subsection (g) of Section 19.1 of the Toll Highway Act. (x) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 5-1014.3 of the Counties Code or Section 8-11-21 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (y) Confidential information under the Adult Protective Services Act and its predecessor enabling statute, the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act, including information about the identity and administrative finding against any caregiver of a verified and substantiated decision of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation of an eligible adult maintained in the Registry established under Section 7.5 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (z) Records and information provided to a fatality review team or the Illinois Fatality Review Team Advisory Council under Section 15 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (aa) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2.37 of the Wildlife Code. (bb) Information which is or was prohibited from disclosure by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (cc) Recordings made under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (dd) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 45 of the Condominium and Common Interest Community Ombudsperson Act. (ee) Information that is exempted from disclosure under Section 30.1 of the Pharmacy Practice Act. (ff) Information that is exempted from disclosure under the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. (gg) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 7-603.5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (hh) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 1A-16.7 of the Election Code. (ii) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (jj) Information and reports that are required to be submitted to the Department of Labor by registering day and temporary labor service agencies but are exempt from disclosure under subsection (a-1) of Section 45 of the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. (kk) Information prohibited from disclosure under the Seizure and Forfeiture Reporting Act. (ll) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (mm) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 4.2 of the Crime Victims Compensation Act. (nn) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 70 of the Higher Education Student Assistance Act. (oo) Communications, notes, records, and reports arising out of a peer support counseling session prohibited from disclosure under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (pp) Names and all identifying information relating to an employee of an emergency services provider or law enforcement agency under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (qq) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives collected under the Reproductive Health Act. (rr) Information that is exempt from disclosure under the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. (ss) Data reported by an employer to the Department of Human Rights pursuant to Section 2-108 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (tt) Recordings made under the Children's Advocacy Center Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (uu) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the Sexual Assault Evidence Submission Act. (vv) Information that is exempt from disclosure under subsections (f) and (j) of Section 5-36 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ww) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 16.8 of the State Treasurer Act. (xx) Information that is exempt from disclosure or information that shall not be made public under the Illinois Insurance Code. (yy) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. (zz) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. (aaa) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 1-167 of the Illinois Pension Code. (bbb) Information that is prohibited from disclosure by the Illinois Police Training Act and the Illinois State Police Act. (ccc) Records exempt from disclosure under Section 2605-304 of the Illinois State Police Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (ddd) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 35 of the Address Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Human Trafficking, or Stalking Act. (eee) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (b) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (fff) Images from cameras under the Expressway Camera Act. This subsection (fff) is inoperative on and after July 1, 2028. (ggg) Information prohibited from disclosure under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Section 14 of the Nurse Agency Licensing Act. (hhh) Information submitted to the Illinois State Police in an affidavit or application for an assault weapon endorsement, assault weapon attachment endorsement, .50 caliber rifle endorsement, or .50 caliber cartridge endorsement under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (iii) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the School Safety Drill Act. (jjj) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 30 of the Insurance Data Security Law. (kkk) Confidential business information prohibited from disclosure under Section 45 of the Paint Stewardship Act. (lll) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 2-3.196 of the School Code. (mmm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (e) of Section 1-129 of the Illinois Power Agency Act. (nnn) Materials received by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity that are confidential under the Music and Musicians Tax Credit and Jobs Act. (ooo) Data or information provided pursuant to Section 20 of the Statewide Recycling Needs and Assessment Act. (ppp) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 28-11 of the Lawful Health Care Activity Act. (qqq) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 7-101 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (rrr) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4-2 of the Uniform Money Transmission Modernization Act. (sss) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act. (ttt) Audio recordings made under Section 30 of the Illinois State Police Act, except to the extent authorized under that Section. (Source: P.A. 103-8, eff. 6-7-23; 103-34, eff. 6-9-23; 103-142, eff. 1-1-24; 103-372, eff. 1-1-24; 103-472, eff. 8-1-24; 103-508, eff. 8-4-23; 103-580, eff. 12-8-23; 103-592, eff. 6-7-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-636, eff. 7-1-24; 103-724, eff. 1-1-25; 103-786, eff. 8-7-24; 103-859, eff. 8-9-24; 103-991, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1049, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1081, eff. 3-21-25; 104-10, eff. 6-16-25.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-18)

Breakdown by specific citation: 7.5(cc) (Law enforcement body-camera recordings): 12 · 7.5(q) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(q)): 5 · 7.5(r) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(r)): 5 · 7.5(bb) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(bb)): 4 · 7.5(zz) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(zz)): 3 · 7.5(v) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(v)): 3 · 7.5(y) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(y)): 2 · 7.5(k) (Law enforcement officer or driver identification info compiled under the Illinois Vehicle Code): 1 · 7.5 (Exempt under another statute (cites Sec. 7.5's cross-reference list as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 1 · 7.5(yy): 1 · 7.5(h) (Exempt under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (including inspector general office records)): 1 · 7.5(w) (Personally identifiable toll-account info exempted under the Toll Highway Act): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Section 7.5(zz) of FOIA Exempts from Disclosure Information Identifying City Employees in Bargaining Unit Positions Represented By a Particular Union
The requester, on behalf of an advocacy organization, sought the names, job titles, and work contact information of city employees covered by a specific union's collective bargaining agreement, which the city denied as prohibited disclosure of union-membership information. The Public Access Counselor held that identifying which employees belong to that particular bargaining unit would necessarily reveal protected information about union membership and the union's identity under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The city's denial was upheld and no violation was found.

Determination letters

Central School District No. 104 improperly withheld notice to remedy for teacher performance
A newspaper requested a notice to remedy that was attached to a school board resolution, but the district withheld it, claiming it was a confidential performance evaluation. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau ruled that the notice to remedy is not a 'performance evaluation' under the School Code or the Personnel Record Review Act because it addresses specific instances of misconduct rather than a comprehensive periodic evaluation. Therefore, the district improperly denied the request.

Chicago Public Schools improperly redacted student cell size data under privacy exemptions
A reporter asked Chicago Public Schools for data showing which grammar schools students came from to attend selective high schools. The school district hid some of the numbers, claiming that showing small groups of students might reveal their identities. The Attorney General's office concluded that the district improperly redacted that information.

Springfield Police Department properly withheld body camera recordings under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage, but the City of Springfield denied the request. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed with the City, finding that the requester was not authorized to receive the footage under the specific rules of the Illinois Body Camera Act. Consequently, the case was closed with no violation found.

Frankfort School District improperly withheld non-disciplinary personnel complaints
A requester asked a school district for complaints and disciplinary records involving staff members. The district refused to provide them, claiming they were protected by law. The Attorney General's office reviewed the records and found that some of the documents were not actually disciplinary records, so the district must release them.

Chicago Police Department properly denied body camera recordings under FOIA and Body Camera Act
An attorney sought body-camera recordings of a traffic accident on behalf of a client, which the police department withheld under the Body Camera Act. The PAC determined the client did not appear on the recordings and was therefore not the "subject of the encounter" entitled to obtain them, and the recordings were not otherwise flagged for release under the Act's disclosure triggers. The department's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois State Police properly denied traffic stop data request under 7.5(k)
A requester asked the Illinois State Police for detailed records of traffic stops in Boone County, including information that could identify drivers and officers. The Attorney General's office found that state law specifically prohibits the release of this identifying information. Therefore, the police were correct to deny the request, and the case is closed.

Wauconda School District 118 partially violated FOIA in redacting settlement agreement as student records
A reporter asked a school district for a copy of a legal settlement agreement involving a student. The school district blacked out large portions, claiming they were protected student records under state and federal law. The Illinois Attorney General's office reviewed the document and found that the district did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that all of the redacted information was exempt from disclosure, noting that some limited information did not appear to be individually attributable to any particular student. The determination does not order the district to release any specific information.

Plainfield CCSD 202 properly withheld teacher notes under student records exemption
A requester asked a school district for teachers' notes about student behavior. The school district refused, arguing that the request was too broad and that the records contained private student information. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by student privacy laws and closed the case.

Cook County School District 130 did not violate FOIA by withholding union membership data
The Freedom Foundation asked Cook County School District 130 for a list of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 73, including their names and job details. The school district refused to provide this information, citing privacy and labor laws. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district, ruling that state law protects this type of union-related employee information from being released through a FOIA request because disclosing which employees are covered by the agreement would necessarily reveal union membership or status.

DeKalb County Housing Authority directed to release personnel file footnotes, upheld driver's license redactions
A requester asked the DeKalb County Housing Authority for personnel files of three employees, and later submitted requests for the same records for six other employees. The Housing Authority released some records but redacted many categories, including footnotes, employment applications, retirement investment elections, social security cards, driver's licenses, and middle initials. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the redactions and determined that the footnotes were not private information under FOIA and directed the Housing Authority to provide unredacted copies of those footnotes. The Bureau also found that driver's license numbers, birthdates, and signatures were properly redacted, but did not explicitly rule on the remaining contested categories such as middle initials, employment applications, resumes, references, and retirement investment elections.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied records without written authorization
The requester sought Department of Aging records concerning two named individuals without submitting the written authorization, evidence of guardianship or agency, and sworn statement of purpose that the department's rules require before releasing confidential adult-protective-services records. The PAC determined that because the requester did not provide the required documentation, the department's denial complied with the confidentiality provisions of the Adult Protective Services Act. The department did not improperly deny the request.

City of Bloomington did not violate FOIA by redacting body camera audio
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police incident at a YMCA, but the City redacted parts of the audio. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the City was legally allowed to hide those portions to protect the privacy of the people speaking to the police. This means the City followed the law and does not have to release the redacted audio.

City of Elmhurst properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A mother requested a police report regarding an incident involving her son, but the City denied the request because the records involved juvenile suspects. The Attorney General's office agreed with the City, explaining that state law strictly protects the confidentiality of juvenile police records, even from the parents of victims. Consequently, the City was legally required to withhold the information.

City of Bloomington improperly redacted body camera footage under 7(1)(c) and 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police encounter, but the City of Bloomington blurred out much of the video, claiming privacy exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the footage and decided the City went too far, as the video showed a public interaction that did not involve highly personal or private behavior. The City was told that it could not legally hide the identity of the person involved in that specific encounter.

Illinois Department of Human Services denial of home care worker personal info under section 7.5(zz) closed without action
The Freedom Foundation asked the Illinois Department of Human Services for a list of personal details about home care workers, including their names, ages, and hire dates. The Department refused to provide this information, arguing that a state law protecting labor relations information prohibited the disclosure. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and decided not to take any further action, effectively closing the matter.

Chicago Human Resources properly withheld employee lists under 7.5(zz)
A requester asked for lists of city motor truck drivers, but the City denied the request, arguing that state law prohibits the release of this specific information. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed that the City was legally allowed to withhold the records under a specific FOIA exemption. This means the City does not have to provide the requested lists.

Will County Sheriff's Office properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A requester asked the Will County Sheriff's Office for police records and video footage related to a specific case. The Sheriff's Office refused to release the files, and the Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the records were protected by law because they involved a juvenile. This means the public cannot access these specific records due to strict privacy rules regarding juvenile law enforcement files.

Illinois State Police properly withheld FOID card data under 7.5(v)
A journalist requested state-wide data on Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card holders broken down by location and year. The Illinois State Police denied the request, arguing that state law specifically prohibits the release of this information. The Attorney General's office agreed with the police, finding that the law exempts this specific data from public disclosure.

University of Illinois not required to create aggregated survey data under FOIA
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.

Galesburg Police Department properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body and dash camera footage from a September 2023 accident from the Galesburg Police Department. The department initially said the footage was unavailable due to a system issue, and later stated the video had been automatically deleted after 90 days. The Illinois Attorney General's office determined that, even if the footage existed, the requester was not entitled to it under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act because the recording captured only post-incident footage and was not flagged for disclosure. The matter is closed, and the department was advised to follow up on whether any squad car video could be recovered.

Illinois State Police properly denied FOID info request under 7.5(v) privacy exemption
A citizen requested their own FOID card records from the Illinois State Police, but the agency denied the request citing a privacy exemption. The Attorney General's office closed the case, finding no further action warranted because the exemption does not allow individuals to obtain their own FOID information through FOIA. The office noted that FOID cardholders may obtain their FOID card applications and revocation letters through the Firearms Services Bureau, and that ISP's response included instructions to access the Bureau's website for FOID information.

Chicago Park District properly withheld performance evaluations under Personnel Record Review Act
A former employee asked the Chicago Park District for copies of their past performance evaluations. The PAC explained that while employees have a right to see their own personnel files under a different law, FOIA specifically forbids public bodies from releasing performance evaluations. Because the law prohibits these records from being released through a FOIA request, the PAC closed the case.

Chicago Public Schools did not violate FOIA by withholding OIG laptop inventory data under 7.5(h)
The requester sought a school-by-school breakdown of the roughly 77,505 lost or stolen technology devices cited in a CPS Inspector General report, and the district's IT department provided a different, non-matching current dataset instead. The PAC determined that dataset was not responsive, and that the actual responsive records - the raw asset-management data CPS provided to and the OIG analyzed for its report - were properly exempt as inspector-general investigatory records. The district's ultimate withholding of the responsive data did not violate FOIA, though its search should have identified the correct dataset.

PAC closes case: Chicago Public Schools teacher evaluation records exempt from disclosure
A requester asked Chicago Public Schools for teacher evaluation data, hoping that removing personal names would make the records public. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district that these specific evaluation records are protected by law and cannot be released, even if names are removed. Consequently, the PAC closed the case without requiring the district to provide the documents.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied APSA records under confidentiality provisions
A citizen requested records from the Illinois Department on Aging concerning allegations of elder abuse or isolation. The Department refused to release the documents, stating they are confidential by law. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the records are legally protected and cannot be released without specific authorization.

Lake County Forest Preserve District improperly denied I-Pass records under multiple FOIA exemptions
A requester asked for I-Pass records related to a specific person, but the Lake County Forest Preserve District refused, claiming the records were exempt under several FOIA exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the District did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records were exempt under sections 7(1)(c), 7.5(w), 7(1)(d)(i), or 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA. The determination found that the District improperly denied the request.

Libertyville School District No. 70 properly withheld student incident reports under ISSRA and FOIA 7.5(r)
A citizen asked a school district for reports on student fights and disciplinary actions. The school district refused to provide them, arguing that even if names were removed, the details would still allow people to identify the students involved. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by privacy laws and closed the case.

Village of Skokie properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage of a meeting between two police officers from the Village of Skokie. The Village denied the request, and the Public Access Counselor agreed, finding that state law restricts access to such footage unless the requester is a subject of the encounter or meets specific legal criteria. Because the requester did not meet these criteria, the Village was legally permitted to withhold the video.

Village of Bolingbrook properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage of an incident they had reported to the Village of Bolingbrook. The Village denied the request, stating that the requester was not the person captured in the video and therefore not entitled to it. The Attorney General's office agreed, noting that state law strictly limits who can access body camera footage and that public interest does not override these specific privacy restrictions.

Chicago Police Department properly withheld School Absentee Reports under 7.5(bb) and Juvenile Court Act
This determination addresses whether the Chicago Police Department properly denied a FOIA request for School Absentee Reports under 5 ILCS 140/7.5(bb), which exempts records whose disclosure is prohibited by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. The Public Access Bureau held that CPD did not improperly deny the request, concluding that School Absentee Reports relate to minors taken into custody or limited custody under the Juvenile Court Act, and that such records are confidential except by court order, so no further action was warranted. The reasoning establishes that a police department may withhold records under section 7.5(bb) where the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions (705 ILCS 405/5-905(1) and 705 ILCS 405/3-4(g)) apply to the minors described in the records, even if similar records were previously disclosed. The public body involved was the Chicago Police Department, and the records at issue were School Absentee Reports.

Court cases

Jason F. Woolsey v. The Illinois State Police (2024 IL App (4th) 210467-UB)
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that section 7.5(v) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act prohibits the Illinois State Police from disclosing Firearm Owners Identification Card information, even to the applicant themselves. Consequently, the court vacated the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Statutory exemptions. To the extent provided for by the statutes referenced below, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) All information determined to be confidential under Section 4002 of the Technology Advancement and Development Act. (b) Library circulation and order records identifying library users with specific materials under the Library Records Confidentiality Act. (c) Applications, related documents, and medical records received by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board and any and all documents or other records prepared by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board or its staff relating to applications it has received. (d) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives relating to known or suspected cases of sexually transmitted infection or any information the disclosure of which is restricted under the Illinois Sexually Transmitted Infection Control Act. (e) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 30 of the Radon Industry Licensing Act. (f) Firm performance evaluations under Section 55 of the Architectural, Engineering, and Land Surveying Qualifications Based Selection Act. (g) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 50 of the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Act. (h) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, and records of any lawfully created State or local inspector general's office that would be exempt if created or obtained by an Executive Inspector General's office under that Act. (i) Information contained in a local emergency energy plan submitted to a municipality in accordance with a local emergency energy plan ordinance that is adopted under Section 11-21.5-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (j) Information and data concerning the distribution of surcharge moneys collected and remitted by carriers under the Emergency Telephone System Act. (k) Law enforcement officer identification information or driver identification information compiled by a law enforcement agency or the Department of Transportation under Section 11-212 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (l) Records and information provided to a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (m) Information provided to the predatory lending database created pursuant to Article 3 of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act, except to the extent authorized under that Article. (n) Defense budgets and petitions for certification of compensation and expenses for court appointed trial counsel as provided under Sections 10 and 15 of the Capital Crimes Litigation Act (repealed). This subsection (n) shall apply until the conclusion of the trial of the case, even if the prosecution chooses not to pursue the death penalty prior to trial or sentencing. (o) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4 of the Illinois Health and Hazardous Substances Registry Act. (p) Security portions of system safety program plans, investigation reports, surveys, schedules, lists, data, or information compiled, collected, or prepared by or for the Department of Transportation under Sections 2705-300 and 2705-616 of the Department of Transportation Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois, the Regional Transportation Authority under Section 2.11 of the Regional Transportation Authority Act, or the St. Clair County Transit District under the Bi-State Transit Safety Act (repealed). (q) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Personnel Record Review Act. (r) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Illinois School Student Records Act. (s) Information the disclosure of which is restricted under Section 5-108 of the Public Utilities Act. (t) (Blank). (u) Records and information provided to an independent team of experts under the Developmental Disability and Mental Health Safety Act (also known as Brian's Law). (v) Names and information of people who have applied for or received Firearm Owner's Identification Cards under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or applied for or received a concealed carry license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, unless otherwise authorized by the Firearm Concealed Carry Act; and databases under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, records of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, and law enforcement agency objections under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (v-5) Records of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board that are exempted from disclosure under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (w) Personally identifiable information which is exempted from disclosure under subsection (g) of Section 19.1 of the Toll Highway Act. (x) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 5-1014.3 of the Counties Code or Section 8-11-21 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (y) Confidential information under the Adult Protective Services Act and its predecessor enabling statute, the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act, including information about the identity and administrative finding against any caregiver of a verified and substantiated decision of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation of an eligible adult maintained in the Registry established under Section 7.5 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (z) Records and information provided to a fatality review team or the Illinois Fatality Review Team Advisory Council under Section 15 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (aa) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2.37 of the Wildlife Code. (bb) Information which is or was prohibited from disclosure by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (cc) Recordings made under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (dd) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 45 of the Condominium and Common Interest Community Ombudsperson Act. (ee) Information that is exempted from disclosure under Section 30.1 of the Pharmacy Practice Act. (ff) Information that is exempted from disclosure under the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. (gg) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 7-603.5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (hh) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 1A-16.7 of the Election Code. (ii) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (jj) Information and reports that are required to be submitted to the Department of Labor by registering day and temporary labor service agencies but are exempt from disclosure under subsection (a-1) of Section 45 of the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. (kk) Information prohibited from disclosure under the Seizure and Forfeiture Reporting Act. (ll) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (mm) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 4.2 of the Crime Victims Compensation Act. (nn) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 70 of the Higher Education Student Assistance Act. (oo) Communications, notes, records, and reports arising out of a peer support counseling session prohibited from disclosure under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (pp) Names and all identifying information relating to an employee of an emergency services provider or law enforcement agency under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (qq) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives collected under the Reproductive Health Act. (rr) Information that is exempt from disclosure under the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. (ss) Data reported by an employer to the Department of Human Rights pursuant to Section 2-108 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (tt) Recordings made under the Children's Advocacy Center Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (uu) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the Sexual Assault Evidence Submission Act. (vv) Information that is exempt from disclosure under subsections (f) and (j) of Section 5-36 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ww) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 16.8 of the State Treasurer Act. (xx) Information that is exempt from disclosure or information that shall not be made public under the Illinois Insurance Code. (yy) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. (zz) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. (aaa) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 1-167 of the Illinois Pension Code. (bbb) Information that is prohibited from disclosure by the Illinois Police Training Act and the Illinois State Police Act. (ccc) Records exempt from disclosure under Section 2605-304 of the Illinois State Police Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (ddd) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 35 of the Address Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Human Trafficking, or Stalking Act. (eee) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (b) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (fff) Images from cameras under the Expressway Camera Act and all automated license plate reader (ALPR) information used and collected by the Illinois State Police. "ALPR information" means information gathered by an ALPR or created from the analysis of data generated by an ALPR. This subsection (fff) is inoperative on and after July 1, 2028. (ggg) Information prohibited from disclosure under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Section 14 of the Nurse Agency Licensing Act. (hhh) Information submitted to the Illinois State Police in an affidavit or application for an assault weapon endorsement, assault weapon attachment endorsement, .50 caliber rifle endorsement, or .50 caliber cartridge endorsement under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (iii) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the School Safety Drill Act. (jjj) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 30 of the Insurance Data Security Law. (kkk) Confidential business information prohibited from disclosure under Section 45 of the Paint Stewardship Act. (lll) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 2-3.196 of the School Code. (mmm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (e) of Section 1-129 of the Illinois Power Agency Act. (nnn) Materials received by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity that are confidential under the Music and Musicians Tax Credit and Jobs Act. (ooo) Data or information provided pursuant to Section 20 of the Statewide Recycling Needs and Assessment Act. (ppp) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 28-11 of the Lawful Health Care Activity Act. (qqq) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 7-101 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (rrr) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4-2 of the Uniform Money Transmission Modernization Act. (sss) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act. (Source: P.A. 103-8, eff. 6-7-23; 103-34, eff. 6-9-23; 103-142, eff. 1-1-24; 103-372, eff. 1-1-24; 103-472, eff. 8-1-24; 103-508, eff. 8-4-23; 103-580, eff. 12-8-23; 103-592, eff. 6-7-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-636, eff. 7-1-24; 103-724, eff. 1-1-25; 103-786, eff. 8-7-24; 103-859, eff. 8-9-24; 103-991, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1049, eff. 8-9-24; 104-18, eff. 6-30-25.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-417)

Breakdown by specific citation: 7.5(cc) (Law enforcement body-camera recordings): 12 · 7.5(q) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(q)): 5 · 7.5(r) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(r)): 5 · 7.5(bb) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(bb)): 4 · 7.5(zz) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(zz)): 3 · 7.5(v) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(v)): 3 · 7.5(y) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(y)): 2 · 7.5(k) (Law enforcement officer or driver identification info compiled under the Illinois Vehicle Code): 1 · 7.5 (Exempt under another statute (cites Sec. 7.5's cross-reference list as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 1 · 7.5(yy): 1 · 7.5(h) (Exempt under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (including inspector general office records)): 1 · 7.5(w) (Personally identifiable toll-account info exempted under the Toll Highway Act): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Section 7.5(zz) of FOIA Exempts from Disclosure Information Identifying City Employees in Bargaining Unit Positions Represented By a Particular Union
The requester, on behalf of an advocacy organization, sought the names, job titles, and work contact information of city employees covered by a specific union's collective bargaining agreement, which the city denied as prohibited disclosure of union-membership information. The Public Access Counselor held that identifying which employees belong to that particular bargaining unit would necessarily reveal protected information about union membership and the union's identity under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The city's denial was upheld and no violation was found.

Determination letters

Central School District No. 104 improperly withheld notice to remedy for teacher performance
A newspaper requested a notice to remedy that was attached to a school board resolution, but the district withheld it, claiming it was a confidential performance evaluation. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau ruled that the notice to remedy is not a 'performance evaluation' under the School Code or the Personnel Record Review Act because it addresses specific instances of misconduct rather than a comprehensive periodic evaluation. Therefore, the district improperly denied the request.

Chicago Public Schools improperly redacted student cell size data under privacy exemptions
A reporter asked Chicago Public Schools for data showing which grammar schools students came from to attend selective high schools. The school district hid some of the numbers, claiming that showing small groups of students might reveal their identities. The Attorney General's office concluded that the district improperly redacted that information.

Springfield Police Department properly withheld body camera recordings under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage, but the City of Springfield denied the request. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed with the City, finding that the requester was not authorized to receive the footage under the specific rules of the Illinois Body Camera Act. Consequently, the case was closed with no violation found.

Frankfort School District improperly withheld non-disciplinary personnel complaints
A requester asked a school district for complaints and disciplinary records involving staff members. The district refused to provide them, claiming they were protected by law. The Attorney General's office reviewed the records and found that some of the documents were not actually disciplinary records, so the district must release them.

Chicago Police Department properly denied body camera recordings under FOIA and Body Camera Act
An attorney sought body-camera recordings of a traffic accident on behalf of a client, which the police department withheld under the Body Camera Act. The PAC determined the client did not appear on the recordings and was therefore not the "subject of the encounter" entitled to obtain them, and the recordings were not otherwise flagged for release under the Act's disclosure triggers. The department's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois State Police properly denied traffic stop data request under 7.5(k)
A requester asked the Illinois State Police for detailed records of traffic stops in Boone County, including information that could identify drivers and officers. The Attorney General's office found that state law specifically prohibits the release of this identifying information. Therefore, the police were correct to deny the request, and the case is closed.

Wauconda School District 118 partially violated FOIA in redacting settlement agreement as student records
A reporter asked a school district for a copy of a legal settlement agreement involving a student. The school district blacked out large portions, claiming they were protected student records under state and federal law. The Illinois Attorney General's office reviewed the document and found that the district did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that all of the redacted information was exempt from disclosure, noting that some limited information did not appear to be individually attributable to any particular student. The determination does not order the district to release any specific information.

Plainfield CCSD 202 properly withheld teacher notes under student records exemption
A requester asked a school district for teachers' notes about student behavior. The school district refused, arguing that the request was too broad and that the records contained private student information. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by student privacy laws and closed the case.

Cook County School District 130 did not violate FOIA by withholding union membership data
The Freedom Foundation asked Cook County School District 130 for a list of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 73, including their names and job details. The school district refused to provide this information, citing privacy and labor laws. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district, ruling that state law protects this type of union-related employee information from being released through a FOIA request because disclosing which employees are covered by the agreement would necessarily reveal union membership or status.

DeKalb County Housing Authority directed to release personnel file footnotes, upheld driver's license redactions
A requester asked the DeKalb County Housing Authority for personnel files of three employees, and later submitted requests for the same records for six other employees. The Housing Authority released some records but redacted many categories, including footnotes, employment applications, retirement investment elections, social security cards, driver's licenses, and middle initials. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the redactions and determined that the footnotes were not private information under FOIA and directed the Housing Authority to provide unredacted copies of those footnotes. The Bureau also found that driver's license numbers, birthdates, and signatures were properly redacted, but did not explicitly rule on the remaining contested categories such as middle initials, employment applications, resumes, references, and retirement investment elections.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied records without written authorization
The requester sought Department of Aging records concerning two named individuals without submitting the written authorization, evidence of guardianship or agency, and sworn statement of purpose that the department's rules require before releasing confidential adult-protective-services records. The PAC determined that because the requester did not provide the required documentation, the department's denial complied with the confidentiality provisions of the Adult Protective Services Act. The department did not improperly deny the request.

City of Bloomington did not violate FOIA by redacting body camera audio
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police incident at a YMCA, but the City redacted parts of the audio. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the City was legally allowed to hide those portions to protect the privacy of the people speaking to the police. This means the City followed the law and does not have to release the redacted audio.

City of Elmhurst properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A mother requested a police report regarding an incident involving her son, but the City denied the request because the records involved juvenile suspects. The Attorney General's office agreed with the City, explaining that state law strictly protects the confidentiality of juvenile police records, even from the parents of victims. Consequently, the City was legally required to withhold the information.

City of Bloomington improperly redacted body camera footage under 7(1)(c) and 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police encounter, but the City of Bloomington blurred out much of the video, claiming privacy exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the footage and decided the City went too far, as the video showed a public interaction that did not involve highly personal or private behavior. The City was told that it could not legally hide the identity of the person involved in that specific encounter.

Illinois Department of Human Services denial of home care worker personal info under section 7.5(zz) closed without action
The Freedom Foundation asked the Illinois Department of Human Services for a list of personal details about home care workers, including their names, ages, and hire dates. The Department refused to provide this information, arguing that a state law protecting labor relations information prohibited the disclosure. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and decided not to take any further action, effectively closing the matter.

Chicago Human Resources properly withheld employee lists under 7.5(zz)
A requester asked for lists of city motor truck drivers, but the City denied the request, arguing that state law prohibits the release of this specific information. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed that the City was legally allowed to withhold the records under a specific FOIA exemption. This means the City does not have to provide the requested lists.

Will County Sheriff's Office properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A requester asked the Will County Sheriff's Office for police records and video footage related to a specific case. The Sheriff's Office refused to release the files, and the Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the records were protected by law because they involved a juvenile. This means the public cannot access these specific records due to strict privacy rules regarding juvenile law enforcement files.

Illinois State Police properly withheld FOID card data under 7.5(v)
A journalist requested state-wide data on Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card holders broken down by location and year. The Illinois State Police denied the request, arguing that state law specifically prohibits the release of this information. The Attorney General's office agreed with the police, finding that the law exempts this specific data from public disclosure.

University of Illinois not required to create aggregated survey data under FOIA
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.

Galesburg Police Department properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body and dash camera footage from a September 2023 accident from the Galesburg Police Department. The department initially said the footage was unavailable due to a system issue, and later stated the video had been automatically deleted after 90 days. The Illinois Attorney General's office determined that, even if the footage existed, the requester was not entitled to it under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act because the recording captured only post-incident footage and was not flagged for disclosure. The matter is closed, and the department was advised to follow up on whether any squad car video could be recovered.

Illinois State Police properly denied FOID info request under 7.5(v) privacy exemption
A citizen requested their own FOID card records from the Illinois State Police, but the agency denied the request citing a privacy exemption. The Attorney General's office closed the case, finding no further action warranted because the exemption does not allow individuals to obtain their own FOID information through FOIA. The office noted that FOID cardholders may obtain their FOID card applications and revocation letters through the Firearms Services Bureau, and that ISP's response included instructions to access the Bureau's website for FOID information.

Chicago Park District properly withheld performance evaluations under Personnel Record Review Act
A former employee asked the Chicago Park District for copies of their past performance evaluations. The PAC explained that while employees have a right to see their own personnel files under a different law, FOIA specifically forbids public bodies from releasing performance evaluations. Because the law prohibits these records from being released through a FOIA request, the PAC closed the case.

Chicago Public Schools did not violate FOIA by withholding OIG laptop inventory data under 7.5(h)
The requester sought a school-by-school breakdown of the roughly 77,505 lost or stolen technology devices cited in a CPS Inspector General report, and the district's IT department provided a different, non-matching current dataset instead. The PAC determined that dataset was not responsive, and that the actual responsive records - the raw asset-management data CPS provided to and the OIG analyzed for its report - were properly exempt as inspector-general investigatory records. The district's ultimate withholding of the responsive data did not violate FOIA, though its search should have identified the correct dataset.

PAC closes case: Chicago Public Schools teacher evaluation records exempt from disclosure
A requester asked Chicago Public Schools for teacher evaluation data, hoping that removing personal names would make the records public. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district that these specific evaluation records are protected by law and cannot be released, even if names are removed. Consequently, the PAC closed the case without requiring the district to provide the documents.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied APSA records under confidentiality provisions
A citizen requested records from the Illinois Department on Aging concerning allegations of elder abuse or isolation. The Department refused to release the documents, stating they are confidential by law. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the records are legally protected and cannot be released without specific authorization.

Lake County Forest Preserve District improperly denied I-Pass records under multiple FOIA exemptions
A requester asked for I-Pass records related to a specific person, but the Lake County Forest Preserve District refused, claiming the records were exempt under several FOIA exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the District did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records were exempt under sections 7(1)(c), 7.5(w), 7(1)(d)(i), or 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA. The determination found that the District improperly denied the request.

Libertyville School District No. 70 properly withheld student incident reports under ISSRA and FOIA 7.5(r)
A citizen asked a school district for reports on student fights and disciplinary actions. The school district refused to provide them, arguing that even if names were removed, the details would still allow people to identify the students involved. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by privacy laws and closed the case.

Village of Skokie properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage of a meeting between two police officers from the Village of Skokie. The Village denied the request, and the Public Access Counselor agreed, finding that state law restricts access to such footage unless the requester is a subject of the encounter or meets specific legal criteria. Because the requester did not meet these criteria, the Village was legally permitted to withhold the video.

Village of Bolingbrook properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage of an incident they had reported to the Village of Bolingbrook. The Village denied the request, stating that the requester was not the person captured in the video and therefore not entitled to it. The Attorney General's office agreed, noting that state law strictly limits who can access body camera footage and that public interest does not override these specific privacy restrictions.

Chicago Police Department properly withheld School Absentee Reports under 7.5(bb) and Juvenile Court Act
This determination addresses whether the Chicago Police Department properly denied a FOIA request for School Absentee Reports under 5 ILCS 140/7.5(bb), which exempts records whose disclosure is prohibited by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. The Public Access Bureau held that CPD did not improperly deny the request, concluding that School Absentee Reports relate to minors taken into custody or limited custody under the Juvenile Court Act, and that such records are confidential except by court order, so no further action was warranted. The reasoning establishes that a police department may withhold records under section 7.5(bb) where the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions (705 ILCS 405/5-905(1) and 705 ILCS 405/3-4(g)) apply to the minors described in the records, even if similar records were previously disclosed. The public body involved was the Chicago Police Department, and the records at issue were School Absentee Reports.

Court cases

Jason F. Woolsey v. The Illinois State Police (2024 IL App (4th) 210467-UB)
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that section 7.5(v) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act prohibits the Illinois State Police from disclosing Firearm Owners Identification Card information, even to the applicant themselves. Consequently, the court vacated the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Statutory exemptions. To the extent provided for by the statutes referenced below, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) All information determined to be confidential under Section 4002 of the Technology Advancement and Development Act. (b) Library circulation and order records identifying library users with specific materials under the Library Records Confidentiality Act. (c) Applications, related documents, and medical records received by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board and any and all documents or other records prepared by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board or its staff relating to applications it has received. (d) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives relating to known or suspected cases of sexually transmitted infection or any information the disclosure of which is restricted under the Illinois Sexually Transmitted Infection Control Act. (e) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 30 of the Radon Industry Licensing Act. (f) Firm performance evaluations under Section 55 of the Architectural, Engineering, and Land Surveying Qualifications Based Selection Act. (g) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 50 of the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Act. (h) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, and records of any lawfully created State or local inspector general's office that would be exempt if created or obtained by an Executive Inspector General's office under that Act. (i) Information contained in a local emergency energy plan submitted to a municipality in accordance with a local emergency energy plan ordinance that is adopted under Section 11-21.5-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (j) Information and data concerning the distribution of surcharge moneys collected and remitted by carriers under the Emergency Telephone System Act. (k) Law enforcement officer identification information or driver identification information compiled by a law enforcement agency or the Department of Transportation under Section 11-212 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (l) Records and information provided to a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (m) Information provided to the predatory lending database created pursuant to Article 3 of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act, except to the extent authorized under that Article. (n) Defense budgets and petitions for certification of compensation and expenses for court appointed trial counsel as provided under Sections 10 and 15 of the Capital Crimes Litigation Act (repealed). This subsection (n) shall apply until the conclusion of the trial of the case, even if the prosecution chooses not to pursue the death penalty prior to trial or sentencing. (o) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4 of the Illinois Health and Hazardous Substances Registry Act. (p) Security portions of system safety program plans, investigation reports, surveys, schedules, lists, data, or information compiled, collected, or prepared by or for the Department of Transportation under Sections 2705-300 and 2705-616 of the Department of Transportation Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois, the Regional Transportation Authority under Section 2.11 of the Regional Transportation Authority Act, or the St. Clair County Transit District under the Bi-State Transit Safety Act (repealed). (q) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Personnel Record Review Act. (r) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Illinois School Student Records Act. (s) Information the disclosure of which is restricted under Section 5-108 of the Public Utilities Act. (t) (Blank). (u) Records and information provided to an independent team of experts under the Developmental Disability and Mental Health Safety Act (also known as Brian's Law). (v) Names and information of people who have applied for or received Firearm Owner's Identification Cards under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or applied for or received a concealed carry license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, unless otherwise authorized by the Firearm Concealed Carry Act; and databases under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, records of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, and law enforcement agency objections under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (v-5) Records of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board that are exempted from disclosure under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (w) Personally identifiable information which is exempted from disclosure under subsection (g) of Section 19.1 of the Toll Highway Act. (x) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 5-1014.3 of the Counties Code or Section 8-11-21 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (y) Confidential information under the Adult Protective Services Act and its predecessor enabling statute, the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act, including information about the identity and administrative finding against any caregiver of a verified and substantiated decision of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation of an eligible adult maintained in the Registry established under Section 7.5 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (z) Records and information provided to a fatality review team or the Illinois Fatality Review Team Advisory Council under Section 15 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (aa) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2.37 of the Wildlife Code. (bb) Information which is or was prohibited from disclosure by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (cc) Recordings made under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (dd) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 45 of the Condominium and Common Interest Community Ombudsperson Act. (ee) Information that is exempted from disclosure under Section 30.1 of the Pharmacy Practice Act. (ff) Information that is exempted from disclosure under the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. (gg) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 7-603.5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (hh) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 1A-16.7 of the Election Code. (ii) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (jj) Information and reports that are required to be submitted to the Department of Labor by registering day and temporary labor service agencies but are exempt from disclosure under subsection (a-1) of Section 45 of the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. (kk) Information prohibited from disclosure under the Seizure and Forfeiture Reporting Act. (ll) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (mm) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 4.2 of the Crime Victims Compensation Act. (nn) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 70 of the Higher Education Student Assistance Act. (oo) Communications, notes, records, and reports arising out of a peer support counseling session prohibited from disclosure under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (pp) Names and all identifying information relating to an employee of an emergency services provider or law enforcement agency under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (qq) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives collected under the Reproductive Health Act. (rr) Information that is exempt from disclosure under the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. (ss) Data reported by an employer to the Department of Human Rights pursuant to Section 2-108 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (tt) Recordings made under the Children's Advocacy Center Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (uu) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the Sexual Assault Evidence Submission Act. (vv) Information that is exempt from disclosure under subsections (f) and (j) of Section 5-36 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ww) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 16.8 of the State Treasurer Act. (xx) Information that is exempt from disclosure or information that shall not be made public under the Illinois Insurance Code. (yy) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. (zz) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. (aaa) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 1-167 of the Illinois Pension Code. (bbb) Information that is prohibited from disclosure by the Illinois Police Training Act and the Illinois State Police Act. (ccc) Records exempt from disclosure under Section 2605-304 of the Illinois State Police Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (ddd) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 35 of the Address Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Human Trafficking, or Stalking Act. (eee) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (b) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (fff) Images from cameras under the Expressway Camera Act. This subsection (fff) is inoperative on and after July 1, 2025. (ggg) Information prohibited from disclosure under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Section 14 of the Nurse Agency Licensing Act. (hhh) Information submitted to the Illinois State Police in an affidavit or application for an assault weapon endorsement, assault weapon attachment endorsement, .50 caliber rifle endorsement, or .50 caliber cartridge endorsement under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (iii) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the School Safety Drill Act. (jjj) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 30 of the Insurance Data Security Law. (kkk) Confidential business information prohibited from disclosure under Section 45 of the Paint Stewardship Act. (lll) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 2-3.196 of the School Code. (mmm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (e) of Section 1-129 of the Illinois Power Agency Act. (nnn) Materials received by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity that are confidential under the Music and Musicians Tax Credit and Jobs Act. (ooo) Data or information provided pursuant to Section 20 of the Statewide Recycling Needs and Assessment Act. (ppp) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 28-11 of the Lawful Health Care Activity Act. (qqq) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 7-101 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (rrr) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4-2 of the Uniform Money Transmission Modernization Act. (sss) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act. (Source: P.A. 103-8, eff. 6-7-23; 103-34, eff. 6-9-23; 103-142, eff. 1-1-24; 103-372, eff. 1-1-24; 103-472, eff. 8-1-24; 103-508, eff. 8-4-23; 103-580, eff. 12-8-23; 103-592, eff. 6-7-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-636, eff. 7-1-24; 103-724, eff. 1-1-25; 103-786, eff. 8-7-24; 103-859, eff. 8-9-24; 103-991, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1049, eff. 8-9-24; 104-417, eff. 8-15-25.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-428)

Breakdown by specific citation: 7.5(cc) (Law enforcement body-camera recordings): 12 · 7.5(q) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(q)): 5 · 7.5(r) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(r)): 5 · 7.5(bb) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(bb)): 4 · 7.5(zz) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(zz)): 3 · 7.5(v) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(v)): 3 · 7.5(y) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(y)): 2 · 7.5(k) (Law enforcement officer or driver identification info compiled under the Illinois Vehicle Code): 1 · 7.5 (Exempt under another statute (cites Sec. 7.5's cross-reference list as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 1 · 7.5(yy): 1 · 7.5(h) (Exempt under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (including inspector general office records)): 1 · 7.5(w) (Personally identifiable toll-account info exempted under the Toll Highway Act): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Section 7.5(zz) of FOIA Exempts from Disclosure Information Identifying City Employees in Bargaining Unit Positions Represented By a Particular Union
The requester, on behalf of an advocacy organization, sought the names, job titles, and work contact information of city employees covered by a specific union's collective bargaining agreement, which the city denied as prohibited disclosure of union-membership information. The Public Access Counselor held that identifying which employees belong to that particular bargaining unit would necessarily reveal protected information about union membership and the union's identity under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The city's denial was upheld and no violation was found.

Determination letters

Central School District No. 104 improperly withheld notice to remedy for teacher performance
A newspaper requested a notice to remedy that was attached to a school board resolution, but the district withheld it, claiming it was a confidential performance evaluation. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau ruled that the notice to remedy is not a 'performance evaluation' under the School Code or the Personnel Record Review Act because it addresses specific instances of misconduct rather than a comprehensive periodic evaluation. Therefore, the district improperly denied the request.

Chicago Public Schools improperly redacted student cell size data under privacy exemptions
A reporter asked Chicago Public Schools for data showing which grammar schools students came from to attend selective high schools. The school district hid some of the numbers, claiming that showing small groups of students might reveal their identities. The Attorney General's office concluded that the district improperly redacted that information.

Springfield Police Department properly withheld body camera recordings under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage, but the City of Springfield denied the request. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed with the City, finding that the requester was not authorized to receive the footage under the specific rules of the Illinois Body Camera Act. Consequently, the case was closed with no violation found.

Frankfort School District improperly withheld non-disciplinary personnel complaints
A requester asked a school district for complaints and disciplinary records involving staff members. The district refused to provide them, claiming they were protected by law. The Attorney General's office reviewed the records and found that some of the documents were not actually disciplinary records, so the district must release them.

Chicago Police Department properly denied body camera recordings under FOIA and Body Camera Act
An attorney sought body-camera recordings of a traffic accident on behalf of a client, which the police department withheld under the Body Camera Act. The PAC determined the client did not appear on the recordings and was therefore not the "subject of the encounter" entitled to obtain them, and the recordings were not otherwise flagged for release under the Act's disclosure triggers. The department's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois State Police properly denied traffic stop data request under 7.5(k)
A requester asked the Illinois State Police for detailed records of traffic stops in Boone County, including information that could identify drivers and officers. The Attorney General's office found that state law specifically prohibits the release of this identifying information. Therefore, the police were correct to deny the request, and the case is closed.

Wauconda School District 118 partially violated FOIA in redacting settlement agreement as student records
A reporter asked a school district for a copy of a legal settlement agreement involving a student. The school district blacked out large portions, claiming they were protected student records under state and federal law. The Illinois Attorney General's office reviewed the document and found that the district did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that all of the redacted information was exempt from disclosure, noting that some limited information did not appear to be individually attributable to any particular student. The determination does not order the district to release any specific information.

Plainfield CCSD 202 properly withheld teacher notes under student records exemption
A requester asked a school district for teachers' notes about student behavior. The school district refused, arguing that the request was too broad and that the records contained private student information. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by student privacy laws and closed the case.

Cook County School District 130 did not violate FOIA by withholding union membership data
The Freedom Foundation asked Cook County School District 130 for a list of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 73, including their names and job details. The school district refused to provide this information, citing privacy and labor laws. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district, ruling that state law protects this type of union-related employee information from being released through a FOIA request because disclosing which employees are covered by the agreement would necessarily reveal union membership or status.

DeKalb County Housing Authority directed to release personnel file footnotes, upheld driver's license redactions
A requester asked the DeKalb County Housing Authority for personnel files of three employees, and later submitted requests for the same records for six other employees. The Housing Authority released some records but redacted many categories, including footnotes, employment applications, retirement investment elections, social security cards, driver's licenses, and middle initials. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the redactions and determined that the footnotes were not private information under FOIA and directed the Housing Authority to provide unredacted copies of those footnotes. The Bureau also found that driver's license numbers, birthdates, and signatures were properly redacted, but did not explicitly rule on the remaining contested categories such as middle initials, employment applications, resumes, references, and retirement investment elections.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied records without written authorization
The requester sought Department of Aging records concerning two named individuals without submitting the written authorization, evidence of guardianship or agency, and sworn statement of purpose that the department's rules require before releasing confidential adult-protective-services records. The PAC determined that because the requester did not provide the required documentation, the department's denial complied with the confidentiality provisions of the Adult Protective Services Act. The department did not improperly deny the request.

City of Bloomington did not violate FOIA by redacting body camera audio
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police incident at a YMCA, but the City redacted parts of the audio. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the City was legally allowed to hide those portions to protect the privacy of the people speaking to the police. This means the City followed the law and does not have to release the redacted audio.

City of Elmhurst properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A mother requested a police report regarding an incident involving her son, but the City denied the request because the records involved juvenile suspects. The Attorney General's office agreed with the City, explaining that state law strictly protects the confidentiality of juvenile police records, even from the parents of victims. Consequently, the City was legally required to withhold the information.

City of Bloomington improperly redacted body camera footage under 7(1)(c) and 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police encounter, but the City of Bloomington blurred out much of the video, claiming privacy exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the footage and decided the City went too far, as the video showed a public interaction that did not involve highly personal or private behavior. The City was told that it could not legally hide the identity of the person involved in that specific encounter.

Illinois Department of Human Services denial of home care worker personal info under section 7.5(zz) closed without action
The Freedom Foundation asked the Illinois Department of Human Services for a list of personal details about home care workers, including their names, ages, and hire dates. The Department refused to provide this information, arguing that a state law protecting labor relations information prohibited the disclosure. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and decided not to take any further action, effectively closing the matter.

Chicago Human Resources properly withheld employee lists under 7.5(zz)
A requester asked for lists of city motor truck drivers, but the City denied the request, arguing that state law prohibits the release of this specific information. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed that the City was legally allowed to withhold the records under a specific FOIA exemption. This means the City does not have to provide the requested lists.

Will County Sheriff's Office properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A requester asked the Will County Sheriff's Office for police records and video footage related to a specific case. The Sheriff's Office refused to release the files, and the Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the records were protected by law because they involved a juvenile. This means the public cannot access these specific records due to strict privacy rules regarding juvenile law enforcement files.

Illinois State Police properly withheld FOID card data under 7.5(v)
A journalist requested state-wide data on Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card holders broken down by location and year. The Illinois State Police denied the request, arguing that state law specifically prohibits the release of this information. The Attorney General's office agreed with the police, finding that the law exempts this specific data from public disclosure.

University of Illinois not required to create aggregated survey data under FOIA
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.

Galesburg Police Department properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body and dash camera footage from a September 2023 accident from the Galesburg Police Department. The department initially said the footage was unavailable due to a system issue, and later stated the video had been automatically deleted after 90 days. The Illinois Attorney General's office determined that, even if the footage existed, the requester was not entitled to it under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act because the recording captured only post-incident footage and was not flagged for disclosure. The matter is closed, and the department was advised to follow up on whether any squad car video could be recovered.

Illinois State Police properly denied FOID info request under 7.5(v) privacy exemption
A citizen requested their own FOID card records from the Illinois State Police, but the agency denied the request citing a privacy exemption. The Attorney General's office closed the case, finding no further action warranted because the exemption does not allow individuals to obtain their own FOID information through FOIA. The office noted that FOID cardholders may obtain their FOID card applications and revocation letters through the Firearms Services Bureau, and that ISP's response included instructions to access the Bureau's website for FOID information.

Chicago Park District properly withheld performance evaluations under Personnel Record Review Act
A former employee asked the Chicago Park District for copies of their past performance evaluations. The PAC explained that while employees have a right to see their own personnel files under a different law, FOIA specifically forbids public bodies from releasing performance evaluations. Because the law prohibits these records from being released through a FOIA request, the PAC closed the case.

Chicago Public Schools did not violate FOIA by withholding OIG laptop inventory data under 7.5(h)
The requester sought a school-by-school breakdown of the roughly 77,505 lost or stolen technology devices cited in a CPS Inspector General report, and the district's IT department provided a different, non-matching current dataset instead. The PAC determined that dataset was not responsive, and that the actual responsive records - the raw asset-management data CPS provided to and the OIG analyzed for its report - were properly exempt as inspector-general investigatory records. The district's ultimate withholding of the responsive data did not violate FOIA, though its search should have identified the correct dataset.

PAC closes case: Chicago Public Schools teacher evaluation records exempt from disclosure
A requester asked Chicago Public Schools for teacher evaluation data, hoping that removing personal names would make the records public. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district that these specific evaluation records are protected by law and cannot be released, even if names are removed. Consequently, the PAC closed the case without requiring the district to provide the documents.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied APSA records under confidentiality provisions
A citizen requested records from the Illinois Department on Aging concerning allegations of elder abuse or isolation. The Department refused to release the documents, stating they are confidential by law. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the records are legally protected and cannot be released without specific authorization.

Lake County Forest Preserve District improperly denied I-Pass records under multiple FOIA exemptions
A requester asked for I-Pass records related to a specific person, but the Lake County Forest Preserve District refused, claiming the records were exempt under several FOIA exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the District did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records were exempt under sections 7(1)(c), 7.5(w), 7(1)(d)(i), or 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA. The determination found that the District improperly denied the request.

Libertyville School District No. 70 properly withheld student incident reports under ISSRA and FOIA 7.5(r)
A citizen asked a school district for reports on student fights and disciplinary actions. The school district refused to provide them, arguing that even if names were removed, the details would still allow people to identify the students involved. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by privacy laws and closed the case.

Village of Skokie properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage of a meeting between two police officers from the Village of Skokie. The Village denied the request, and the Public Access Counselor agreed, finding that state law restricts access to such footage unless the requester is a subject of the encounter or meets specific legal criteria. Because the requester did not meet these criteria, the Village was legally permitted to withhold the video.

Village of Bolingbrook properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage of an incident they had reported to the Village of Bolingbrook. The Village denied the request, stating that the requester was not the person captured in the video and therefore not entitled to it. The Attorney General's office agreed, noting that state law strictly limits who can access body camera footage and that public interest does not override these specific privacy restrictions.

Chicago Police Department properly withheld School Absentee Reports under 7.5(bb) and Juvenile Court Act
This determination addresses whether the Chicago Police Department properly denied a FOIA request for School Absentee Reports under 5 ILCS 140/7.5(bb), which exempts records whose disclosure is prohibited by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. The Public Access Bureau held that CPD did not improperly deny the request, concluding that School Absentee Reports relate to minors taken into custody or limited custody under the Juvenile Court Act, and that such records are confidential except by court order, so no further action was warranted. The reasoning establishes that a police department may withhold records under section 7.5(bb) where the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions (705 ILCS 405/5-905(1) and 705 ILCS 405/3-4(g)) apply to the minors described in the records, even if similar records were previously disclosed. The public body involved was the Chicago Police Department, and the records at issue were School Absentee Reports.

Court cases

Jason F. Woolsey v. The Illinois State Police (2024 IL App (4th) 210467-UB)
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that section 7.5(v) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act prohibits the Illinois State Police from disclosing Firearm Owners Identification Card information, even to the applicant themselves. Consequently, the court vacated the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Statutory exemptions. To the extent provided for by the statutes referenced below, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) All information determined to be confidential under Section 4002 of the Technology Advancement and Development Act. (b) Library circulation and order records identifying library users with specific materials under the Library Records Confidentiality Act. (c) Applications, related documents, and medical records received by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board and any and all documents or other records prepared by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board or its staff relating to applications it has received. (d) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives relating to known or suspected cases of sexually transmitted infection or any information the disclosure of which is restricted under the Illinois Sexually Transmitted Infection Control Act. (e) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 30 of the Radon Industry Licensing Act. (f) Firm performance evaluations under Section 55 of the Architectural, Engineering, and Land Surveying Qualifications Based Selection Act. (g) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 50 of the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Act. (h) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, and records of any lawfully created State or local inspector general's office that would be exempt if created or obtained by an Executive Inspector General's office under that Act. (i) Information contained in a local emergency energy plan submitted to a municipality in accordance with a local emergency energy plan ordinance that is adopted under Section 11-21.5-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (j) Information and data concerning the distribution of surcharge moneys collected and remitted by carriers under the Emergency Telephone System Act. (k) Law enforcement officer identification information or driver identification information compiled by a law enforcement agency or the Department of Transportation under Section 11-212 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (l) Records and information provided to a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (m) Information provided to the predatory lending database created pursuant to Article 3 of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act, except to the extent authorized under that Article. (n) Defense budgets and petitions for certification of compensation and expenses for court appointed trial counsel as provided under Sections 10 and 15 of the Capital Crimes Litigation Act (repealed). This subsection (n) shall apply until the conclusion of the trial of the case, even if the prosecution chooses not to pursue the death penalty prior to trial or sentencing. (o) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4 of the Illinois Health and Hazardous Substances Registry Act. (p) Security portions of system safety program plans, investigation reports, surveys, schedules, lists, data, or information compiled, collected, or prepared by or for the Department of Transportation under Sections 2705-300 and 2705-616 of the Department of Transportation Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois, the Regional Transportation Authority under Section 2.11 of the Regional Transportation Authority Act, or the St. Clair County Transit District under the Bi-State Transit Safety Act (repealed). (q) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Personnel Record Review Act. (r) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Illinois School Student Records Act. (s) Information the disclosure of which is restricted under Section 5-108 of the Public Utilities Act. (t) (Blank). (u) Records and information provided to an independent team of experts under the Developmental Disability and Mental Health Safety Act (also known as Brian's Law). (v) Names and information of people who have applied for or received Firearm Owner's Identification Cards under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or applied for or received a concealed carry license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, unless otherwise authorized by the Firearm Concealed Carry Act; and databases under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, records of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, and law enforcement agency objections under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (v-5) Records of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board that are exempted from disclosure under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (w) Personally identifiable information which is exempted from disclosure under subsection (g) of Section 19.1 of the Toll Highway Act. (x) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 5-1014.3 of the Counties Code or Section 8-11-21 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (y) Confidential information under the Adult Protective Services Act and its predecessor enabling statute, the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act, including information about the identity and administrative finding against any caregiver of a verified and substantiated decision of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation of an eligible adult maintained in the Registry established under Section 7.5 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (z) Records and information provided to a fatality review team or the Illinois Fatality Review Team Advisory Council under Section 15 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (aa) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2.37 of the Wildlife Code. (bb) Information which is or was prohibited from disclosure by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (cc) Recordings made under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (dd) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 45 of the Condominium and Common Interest Community Ombudsperson Act. (ee) Information that is exempted from disclosure under Section 30.1 of the Pharmacy Practice Act. (ff) Information that is exempted from disclosure under the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. (gg) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 7-603.5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (hh) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 1A-16.7 of the Election Code. (ii) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (jj) Information and reports that are required to be submitted to the Department of Labor by registering day and temporary labor service agencies but are exempt from disclosure under subsection (a-1) of Section 45 of the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. (kk) Information prohibited from disclosure under the Seizure and Forfeiture Reporting Act. (ll) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (mm) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 4.2 of the Crime Victims Compensation Act. (nn) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 70 of the Higher Education Student Assistance Act. (oo) Communications, notes, records, and reports arising out of a peer support counseling session prohibited from disclosure under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (pp) Names and all identifying information relating to an employee of an emergency services provider or law enforcement agency under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (qq) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives collected under the Reproductive Health Act. (rr) Information that is exempt from disclosure under the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. (ss) Data reported by an employer to the Department of Human Rights pursuant to Section 2-108 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (tt) Recordings made under the Children's Advocacy Center Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (uu) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the Sexual Assault Evidence Submission Act. (vv) Information that is exempt from disclosure under subsections (f) and (j) of Section 5-36 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ww) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 16.8 of the State Treasurer Act. (xx) Information that is exempt from disclosure or information that shall not be made public under the Illinois Insurance Code. (yy) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. (zz) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. (aaa) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 1-167 of the Illinois Pension Code. (bbb) Information that is prohibited from disclosure by the Illinois Police Training Act and the Illinois State Police Act. (ccc) Records exempt from disclosure under Section 2605-304 of the Illinois State Police Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (ddd) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 35 of the Address Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Human Trafficking, or Stalking Act. (eee) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (b) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (fff) Images from cameras under the Expressway Camera Act. This subsection (fff) is inoperative on and after July 1, 2025. (ggg) Information prohibited from disclosure under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Section 14 of the Nurse Agency Licensing Act. (hhh) Information submitted to the Illinois State Police in an affidavit or application for an assault weapon endorsement, assault weapon attachment endorsement, .50 caliber rifle endorsement, or .50 caliber cartridge endorsement under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (iii) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the School Safety Drill Act. (jjj) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 30 of the Insurance Data Security Law. (kkk) Confidential business information prohibited from disclosure under Section 45 of the Paint Stewardship Act. (lll) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 2-3.196 of the School Code. (mmm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (e) of Section 1-129 of the Illinois Power Agency Act. (nnn) Materials received by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity that are confidential under the Music and Musicians Tax Credit and Jobs Act. (ooo) Data or information provided pursuant to Section 20 of the Statewide Recycling Needs and Assessment Act. (ppp) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 28-11 of the Lawful Health Care Activity Act. (qqq) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 7-101 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (rrr) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4-2 of the Uniform Money Transmission Modernization Act. (sss) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act. (ttt) Audio recordings made under Section 30 of the Illinois State Police Act, except to the extent authorized under that Section. (uuu) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 30-5 of the Digital Assets Regulation Act. (Source: P.A. 103-8, eff. 6-7-23; 103-34, eff. 6-9-23; 103-142, eff. 1-1-24; 103-372, eff. 1-1-24; 103-472, eff. 8-1-24; 103-508, eff. 8-4-23; 103-580, eff. 12-8-23; 103-592, eff. 6-7-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-636, eff. 7-1-24; 103-724, eff. 1-1-25; 103-786, eff. 8-7-24; 103-859, eff. 8-9-24; 103-991, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1049, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1081, eff. 3-21-25; 104-428, eff. 8-18-25.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-441)

Breakdown by specific citation: 7.5(cc) (Law enforcement body-camera recordings): 12 · 7.5(q) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(q)): 5 · 7.5(r) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(r)): 5 · 7.5(bb) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(bb)): 4 · 7.5(zz) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(zz)): 3 · 7.5(v) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(v)): 3 · 7.5(y) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(y)): 2 · 7.5(k) (Law enforcement officer or driver identification info compiled under the Illinois Vehicle Code): 1 · 7.5 (Exempt under another statute (cites Sec. 7.5's cross-reference list as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 1 · 7.5(yy): 1 · 7.5(h) (Exempt under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (including inspector general office records)): 1 · 7.5(w) (Personally identifiable toll-account info exempted under the Toll Highway Act): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Section 7.5(zz) of FOIA Exempts from Disclosure Information Identifying City Employees in Bargaining Unit Positions Represented By a Particular Union
The requester, on behalf of an advocacy organization, sought the names, job titles, and work contact information of city employees covered by a specific union's collective bargaining agreement, which the city denied as prohibited disclosure of union-membership information. The Public Access Counselor held that identifying which employees belong to that particular bargaining unit would necessarily reveal protected information about union membership and the union's identity under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The city's denial was upheld and no violation was found.

Determination letters

Central School District No. 104 improperly withheld notice to remedy for teacher performance
A newspaper requested a notice to remedy that was attached to a school board resolution, but the district withheld it, claiming it was a confidential performance evaluation. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau ruled that the notice to remedy is not a 'performance evaluation' under the School Code or the Personnel Record Review Act because it addresses specific instances of misconduct rather than a comprehensive periodic evaluation. Therefore, the district improperly denied the request.

Chicago Public Schools improperly redacted student cell size data under privacy exemptions
A reporter asked Chicago Public Schools for data showing which grammar schools students came from to attend selective high schools. The school district hid some of the numbers, claiming that showing small groups of students might reveal their identities. The Attorney General's office concluded that the district improperly redacted that information.

Springfield Police Department properly withheld body camera recordings under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage, but the City of Springfield denied the request. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed with the City, finding that the requester was not authorized to receive the footage under the specific rules of the Illinois Body Camera Act. Consequently, the case was closed with no violation found.

Frankfort School District improperly withheld non-disciplinary personnel complaints
A requester asked a school district for complaints and disciplinary records involving staff members. The district refused to provide them, claiming they were protected by law. The Attorney General's office reviewed the records and found that some of the documents were not actually disciplinary records, so the district must release them.

Chicago Police Department properly denied body camera recordings under FOIA and Body Camera Act
An attorney sought body-camera recordings of a traffic accident on behalf of a client, which the police department withheld under the Body Camera Act. The PAC determined the client did not appear on the recordings and was therefore not the "subject of the encounter" entitled to obtain them, and the recordings were not otherwise flagged for release under the Act's disclosure triggers. The department's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois State Police properly denied traffic stop data request under 7.5(k)
A requester asked the Illinois State Police for detailed records of traffic stops in Boone County, including information that could identify drivers and officers. The Attorney General's office found that state law specifically prohibits the release of this identifying information. Therefore, the police were correct to deny the request, and the case is closed.

Wauconda School District 118 partially violated FOIA in redacting settlement agreement as student records
A reporter asked a school district for a copy of a legal settlement agreement involving a student. The school district blacked out large portions, claiming they were protected student records under state and federal law. The Illinois Attorney General's office reviewed the document and found that the district did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that all of the redacted information was exempt from disclosure, noting that some limited information did not appear to be individually attributable to any particular student. The determination does not order the district to release any specific information.

Plainfield CCSD 202 properly withheld teacher notes under student records exemption
A requester asked a school district for teachers' notes about student behavior. The school district refused, arguing that the request was too broad and that the records contained private student information. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by student privacy laws and closed the case.

Cook County School District 130 did not violate FOIA by withholding union membership data
The Freedom Foundation asked Cook County School District 130 for a list of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 73, including their names and job details. The school district refused to provide this information, citing privacy and labor laws. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district, ruling that state law protects this type of union-related employee information from being released through a FOIA request because disclosing which employees are covered by the agreement would necessarily reveal union membership or status.

DeKalb County Housing Authority directed to release personnel file footnotes, upheld driver's license redactions
A requester asked the DeKalb County Housing Authority for personnel files of three employees, and later submitted requests for the same records for six other employees. The Housing Authority released some records but redacted many categories, including footnotes, employment applications, retirement investment elections, social security cards, driver's licenses, and middle initials. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the redactions and determined that the footnotes were not private information under FOIA and directed the Housing Authority to provide unredacted copies of those footnotes. The Bureau also found that driver's license numbers, birthdates, and signatures were properly redacted, but did not explicitly rule on the remaining contested categories such as middle initials, employment applications, resumes, references, and retirement investment elections.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied records without written authorization
The requester sought Department of Aging records concerning two named individuals without submitting the written authorization, evidence of guardianship or agency, and sworn statement of purpose that the department's rules require before releasing confidential adult-protective-services records. The PAC determined that because the requester did not provide the required documentation, the department's denial complied with the confidentiality provisions of the Adult Protective Services Act. The department did not improperly deny the request.

City of Bloomington did not violate FOIA by redacting body camera audio
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police incident at a YMCA, but the City redacted parts of the audio. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the City was legally allowed to hide those portions to protect the privacy of the people speaking to the police. This means the City followed the law and does not have to release the redacted audio.

City of Elmhurst properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A mother requested a police report regarding an incident involving her son, but the City denied the request because the records involved juvenile suspects. The Attorney General's office agreed with the City, explaining that state law strictly protects the confidentiality of juvenile police records, even from the parents of victims. Consequently, the City was legally required to withhold the information.

City of Bloomington improperly redacted body camera footage under 7(1)(c) and 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police encounter, but the City of Bloomington blurred out much of the video, claiming privacy exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the footage and decided the City went too far, as the video showed a public interaction that did not involve highly personal or private behavior. The City was told that it could not legally hide the identity of the person involved in that specific encounter.

Illinois Department of Human Services denial of home care worker personal info under section 7.5(zz) closed without action
The Freedom Foundation asked the Illinois Department of Human Services for a list of personal details about home care workers, including their names, ages, and hire dates. The Department refused to provide this information, arguing that a state law protecting labor relations information prohibited the disclosure. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and decided not to take any further action, effectively closing the matter.

Chicago Human Resources properly withheld employee lists under 7.5(zz)
A requester asked for lists of city motor truck drivers, but the City denied the request, arguing that state law prohibits the release of this specific information. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed that the City was legally allowed to withhold the records under a specific FOIA exemption. This means the City does not have to provide the requested lists.

Will County Sheriff's Office properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A requester asked the Will County Sheriff's Office for police records and video footage related to a specific case. The Sheriff's Office refused to release the files, and the Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the records were protected by law because they involved a juvenile. This means the public cannot access these specific records due to strict privacy rules regarding juvenile law enforcement files.

Illinois State Police properly withheld FOID card data under 7.5(v)
A journalist requested state-wide data on Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card holders broken down by location and year. The Illinois State Police denied the request, arguing that state law specifically prohibits the release of this information. The Attorney General's office agreed with the police, finding that the law exempts this specific data from public disclosure.

University of Illinois not required to create aggregated survey data under FOIA
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.

Galesburg Police Department properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body and dash camera footage from a September 2023 accident from the Galesburg Police Department. The department initially said the footage was unavailable due to a system issue, and later stated the video had been automatically deleted after 90 days. The Illinois Attorney General's office determined that, even if the footage existed, the requester was not entitled to it under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act because the recording captured only post-incident footage and was not flagged for disclosure. The matter is closed, and the department was advised to follow up on whether any squad car video could be recovered.

Illinois State Police properly denied FOID info request under 7.5(v) privacy exemption
A citizen requested their own FOID card records from the Illinois State Police, but the agency denied the request citing a privacy exemption. The Attorney General's office closed the case, finding no further action warranted because the exemption does not allow individuals to obtain their own FOID information through FOIA. The office noted that FOID cardholders may obtain their FOID card applications and revocation letters through the Firearms Services Bureau, and that ISP's response included instructions to access the Bureau's website for FOID information.

Chicago Park District properly withheld performance evaluations under Personnel Record Review Act
A former employee asked the Chicago Park District for copies of their past performance evaluations. The PAC explained that while employees have a right to see their own personnel files under a different law, FOIA specifically forbids public bodies from releasing performance evaluations. Because the law prohibits these records from being released through a FOIA request, the PAC closed the case.

Chicago Public Schools did not violate FOIA by withholding OIG laptop inventory data under 7.5(h)
The requester sought a school-by-school breakdown of the roughly 77,505 lost or stolen technology devices cited in a CPS Inspector General report, and the district's IT department provided a different, non-matching current dataset instead. The PAC determined that dataset was not responsive, and that the actual responsive records - the raw asset-management data CPS provided to and the OIG analyzed for its report - were properly exempt as inspector-general investigatory records. The district's ultimate withholding of the responsive data did not violate FOIA, though its search should have identified the correct dataset.

PAC closes case: Chicago Public Schools teacher evaluation records exempt from disclosure
A requester asked Chicago Public Schools for teacher evaluation data, hoping that removing personal names would make the records public. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district that these specific evaluation records are protected by law and cannot be released, even if names are removed. Consequently, the PAC closed the case without requiring the district to provide the documents.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied APSA records under confidentiality provisions
A citizen requested records from the Illinois Department on Aging concerning allegations of elder abuse or isolation. The Department refused to release the documents, stating they are confidential by law. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the records are legally protected and cannot be released without specific authorization.

Lake County Forest Preserve District improperly denied I-Pass records under multiple FOIA exemptions
A requester asked for I-Pass records related to a specific person, but the Lake County Forest Preserve District refused, claiming the records were exempt under several FOIA exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the District did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records were exempt under sections 7(1)(c), 7.5(w), 7(1)(d)(i), or 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA. The determination found that the District improperly denied the request.

Libertyville School District No. 70 properly withheld student incident reports under ISSRA and FOIA 7.5(r)
A citizen asked a school district for reports on student fights and disciplinary actions. The school district refused to provide them, arguing that even if names were removed, the details would still allow people to identify the students involved. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by privacy laws and closed the case.

Village of Skokie properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage of a meeting between two police officers from the Village of Skokie. The Village denied the request, and the Public Access Counselor agreed, finding that state law restricts access to such footage unless the requester is a subject of the encounter or meets specific legal criteria. Because the requester did not meet these criteria, the Village was legally permitted to withhold the video.

Village of Bolingbrook properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage of an incident they had reported to the Village of Bolingbrook. The Village denied the request, stating that the requester was not the person captured in the video and therefore not entitled to it. The Attorney General's office agreed, noting that state law strictly limits who can access body camera footage and that public interest does not override these specific privacy restrictions.

Chicago Police Department properly withheld School Absentee Reports under 7.5(bb) and Juvenile Court Act
This determination addresses whether the Chicago Police Department properly denied a FOIA request for School Absentee Reports under 5 ILCS 140/7.5(bb), which exempts records whose disclosure is prohibited by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. The Public Access Bureau held that CPD did not improperly deny the request, concluding that School Absentee Reports relate to minors taken into custody or limited custody under the Juvenile Court Act, and that such records are confidential except by court order, so no further action was warranted. The reasoning establishes that a police department may withhold records under section 7.5(bb) where the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions (705 ILCS 405/5-905(1) and 705 ILCS 405/3-4(g)) apply to the minors described in the records, even if similar records were previously disclosed. The public body involved was the Chicago Police Department, and the records at issue were School Absentee Reports.

Court cases

Jason F. Woolsey v. The Illinois State Police (2024 IL App (4th) 210467-UB)
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that section 7.5(v) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act prohibits the Illinois State Police from disclosing Firearm Owners Identification Card information, even to the applicant themselves. Consequently, the court vacated the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Statutory exemptions. To the extent provided for by the statutes referenced below, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) All information determined to be confidential under Section 4002 of the Technology Advancement and Development Act. (b) Library circulation and order records identifying library users with specific materials under the Library Records Confidentiality Act. (c) Applications, related documents, and medical records received by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board and any and all documents or other records prepared by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board or its staff relating to applications it has received. (d) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives relating to known or suspected cases of sexually transmitted infection or any information the disclosure of which is restricted under the Illinois Sexually Transmitted Infection Control Act. (e) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 30 of the Radon Industry Licensing Act. (f) Firm performance evaluations under Section 55 of the Architectural, Engineering, and Land Surveying Qualifications Based Selection Act. (g) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 50 of the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Act. (h) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, and records of any lawfully created State or local inspector general's office that would be exempt if created or obtained by an Executive Inspector General's office under that Act. (i) Information contained in a local emergency energy plan submitted to a municipality in accordance with a local emergency energy plan ordinance that is adopted under Section 11-21.5-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (j) Information and data concerning the distribution of surcharge moneys collected and remitted by carriers under the Emergency Telephone System Act. (k) Law enforcement officer identification information or driver identification information compiled by a law enforcement agency or the Department of Transportation under Section 11-212 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (l) Records and information provided to a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (m) Information provided to the predatory lending database created pursuant to Article 3 of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act, except to the extent authorized under that Article. (n) Defense budgets and petitions for certification of compensation and expenses for court appointed trial counsel as provided under Sections 10 and 15 of the Capital Crimes Litigation Act (repealed). This subsection (n) shall apply until the conclusion of the trial of the case, even if the prosecution chooses not to pursue the death penalty prior to trial or sentencing. (o) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4 of the Illinois Health and Hazardous Substances Registry Act. (p) Security portions of system safety program plans, investigation reports, surveys, schedules, lists, data, or information compiled, collected, or prepared by or for the Department of Transportation under Sections 2705-300 and 2705-616 of the Department of Transportation Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois, the Regional Transportation Authority under Section 2.11 of the Regional Transportation Authority Act, or the St. Clair County Transit District under the Bi-State Transit Safety Act (repealed). (q) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Personnel Record Review Act. (r) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Illinois School Student Records Act. (s) Information the disclosure of which is restricted under Section 5-108 of the Public Utilities Act. (t) (Blank). (u) Records and information provided to an independent team of experts under the Developmental Disability and Mental Health Safety Act (also known as Brian's Law). (v) Names and information of people who have applied for or received Firearm Owner's Identification Cards under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or applied for or received a concealed carry license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, unless otherwise authorized by the Firearm Concealed Carry Act; and databases under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, records of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, and law enforcement agency objections under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (v-5) Records of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board that are exempted from disclosure under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (w) Personally identifiable information which is exempted from disclosure under subsection (g) of Section 19.1 of the Toll Highway Act. (x) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 5-1014.3 of the Counties Code or Section 8-11-21 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (y) Confidential information under the Adult Protective Services Act and its predecessor enabling statute, the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act, including information about the identity and administrative finding against any caregiver of a verified and substantiated decision of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation of an eligible adult maintained in the Registry established under Section 7.5 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (z) Records and information provided to a fatality review team or the Illinois Fatality Review Team Advisory Council under Section 15 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (aa) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2.37 of the Wildlife Code. (bb) Information which is or was prohibited from disclosure by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (cc) Recordings made under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (dd) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 45 of the Condominium and Common Interest Community Ombudsperson Act. (ee) Information that is exempted from disclosure under Section 30.1 of the Pharmacy Practice Act. (ff) Information that is exempted from disclosure under the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. (gg) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 7-603.5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (hh) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 1A-16.7 of the Election Code. (ii) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (jj) Information and reports that are required to be submitted to the Department of Labor by registering day and temporary labor service agencies but are exempt from disclosure under subsection (a-1) of Section 45 of the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. (kk) Information prohibited from disclosure under the Seizure and Forfeiture Reporting Act. (ll) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (mm) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 4.2 of the Crime Victims Compensation Act. (nn) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 70 of the Higher Education Student Assistance Act. (oo) Communications, notes, records, and reports arising out of a peer support counseling session prohibited from disclosure under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (pp) Names and all identifying information relating to an employee of an emergency services provider or law enforcement agency under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (qq) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives collected under the Reproductive Health Act. (rr) Information that is exempt from disclosure under the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. (ss) Data reported by an employer to the Department of Human Rights pursuant to Section 2-108 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (tt) Recordings made under the Children's Advocacy Center Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (uu) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the Sexual Assault Evidence Submission Act. (vv) Information that is exempt from disclosure under subsections (f) and (j) of Section 5-36 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ww) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 16.8 of the State Treasurer Act. (xx) Information that is exempt from disclosure or information that shall not be made public under the Illinois Insurance Code. (yy) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. (zz) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. (aaa) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 1-167 of the Illinois Pension Code. (bbb) Information that is prohibited from disclosure by the Illinois Police Training Act and the Illinois State Police Act. (ccc) Records exempt from disclosure under Section 2605-304 of the Illinois State Police Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (ddd) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 35 of the Address Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Human Trafficking, or Stalking Act. (eee) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (b) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (fff) Images from cameras under the Expressway Camera Act. This subsection (fff) is inoperative on and after July 1, 2025. (ggg) Information prohibited from disclosure under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Section 14 of the Nurse Agency Licensing Act. (hhh) Information submitted to the Illinois State Police in an affidavit or application for an assault weapon endorsement, assault weapon attachment endorsement, .50 caliber rifle endorsement, or .50 caliber cartridge endorsement under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (iii) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the School Safety Drill Act. (jjj) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 30 of the Insurance Data Security Law. (kkk) Confidential business information prohibited from disclosure under Section 45 of the Paint Stewardship Act. (lll) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 2-3.196 of the School Code. (mmm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (e) of Section 1-129 of the Illinois Power Agency Act. (nnn) Materials received by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity that are confidential under the Music and Musicians Tax Credit and Jobs Act. (ooo) Data or information provided pursuant to Section 20 of the Statewide Recycling Needs and Assessment Act. (ppp) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 28-11 of the Lawful Health Care Activity Act. (qqq) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 7-101 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (rrr) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4-2 of the Uniform Money Transmission Modernization Act. (sss) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act. (ttt) Audio recordings made under Section 30 of the Illinois State Police Act, except to the extent authorized under that Section. (uuu) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 70 of the End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act. (Source: P.A. 103-8, eff. 6-7-23; 103-34, eff. 6-9-23; 103-142, eff. 1-1-24; 103-372, eff. 1-1-24; 103-472, eff. 8-1-24; 103-508, eff. 8-4-23; 103-580, eff. 12-8-23; 103-592, eff. 6-7-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-636, eff. 7-1-24; 103-724, eff. 1-1-25; 103-786, eff. 8-7-24; 103-859, eff. 8-9-24; 103-991, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1049, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1081, eff. 3-21-25; 104-441, eff. 9-12-26.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-457)

Breakdown by specific citation: 7.5(cc) (Law enforcement body-camera recordings): 12 · 7.5(q) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(q)): 5 · 7.5(r) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(r)): 5 · 7.5(bb) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(bb)): 4 · 7.5(zz) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(zz)): 3 · 7.5(v) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(v)): 3 · 7.5(y) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(y)): 2 · 7.5(k) (Law enforcement officer or driver identification info compiled under the Illinois Vehicle Code): 1 · 7.5 (Exempt under another statute (cites Sec. 7.5's cross-reference list as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 1 · 7.5(yy): 1 · 7.5(h) (Exempt under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (including inspector general office records)): 1 · 7.5(w) (Personally identifiable toll-account info exempted under the Toll Highway Act): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Section 7.5(zz) of FOIA Exempts from Disclosure Information Identifying City Employees in Bargaining Unit Positions Represented By a Particular Union
The requester, on behalf of an advocacy organization, sought the names, job titles, and work contact information of city employees covered by a specific union's collective bargaining agreement, which the city denied as prohibited disclosure of union-membership information. The Public Access Counselor held that identifying which employees belong to that particular bargaining unit would necessarily reveal protected information about union membership and the union's identity under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The city's denial was upheld and no violation was found.

Determination letters

Central School District No. 104 improperly withheld notice to remedy for teacher performance
A newspaper requested a notice to remedy that was attached to a school board resolution, but the district withheld it, claiming it was a confidential performance evaluation. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau ruled that the notice to remedy is not a 'performance evaluation' under the School Code or the Personnel Record Review Act because it addresses specific instances of misconduct rather than a comprehensive periodic evaluation. Therefore, the district improperly denied the request.

Chicago Public Schools improperly redacted student cell size data under privacy exemptions
A reporter asked Chicago Public Schools for data showing which grammar schools students came from to attend selective high schools. The school district hid some of the numbers, claiming that showing small groups of students might reveal their identities. The Attorney General's office concluded that the district improperly redacted that information.

Springfield Police Department properly withheld body camera recordings under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage, but the City of Springfield denied the request. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed with the City, finding that the requester was not authorized to receive the footage under the specific rules of the Illinois Body Camera Act. Consequently, the case was closed with no violation found.

Frankfort School District improperly withheld non-disciplinary personnel complaints
A requester asked a school district for complaints and disciplinary records involving staff members. The district refused to provide them, claiming they were protected by law. The Attorney General's office reviewed the records and found that some of the documents were not actually disciplinary records, so the district must release them.

Chicago Police Department properly denied body camera recordings under FOIA and Body Camera Act
An attorney sought body-camera recordings of a traffic accident on behalf of a client, which the police department withheld under the Body Camera Act. The PAC determined the client did not appear on the recordings and was therefore not the "subject of the encounter" entitled to obtain them, and the recordings were not otherwise flagged for release under the Act's disclosure triggers. The department's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois State Police properly denied traffic stop data request under 7.5(k)
A requester asked the Illinois State Police for detailed records of traffic stops in Boone County, including information that could identify drivers and officers. The Attorney General's office found that state law specifically prohibits the release of this identifying information. Therefore, the police were correct to deny the request, and the case is closed.

Wauconda School District 118 partially violated FOIA in redacting settlement agreement as student records
A reporter asked a school district for a copy of a legal settlement agreement involving a student. The school district blacked out large portions, claiming they were protected student records under state and federal law. The Illinois Attorney General's office reviewed the document and found that the district did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that all of the redacted information was exempt from disclosure, noting that some limited information did not appear to be individually attributable to any particular student. The determination does not order the district to release any specific information.

Plainfield CCSD 202 properly withheld teacher notes under student records exemption
A requester asked a school district for teachers' notes about student behavior. The school district refused, arguing that the request was too broad and that the records contained private student information. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by student privacy laws and closed the case.

Cook County School District 130 did not violate FOIA by withholding union membership data
The Freedom Foundation asked Cook County School District 130 for a list of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 73, including their names and job details. The school district refused to provide this information, citing privacy and labor laws. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district, ruling that state law protects this type of union-related employee information from being released through a FOIA request because disclosing which employees are covered by the agreement would necessarily reveal union membership or status.

DeKalb County Housing Authority directed to release personnel file footnotes, upheld driver's license redactions
A requester asked the DeKalb County Housing Authority for personnel files of three employees, and later submitted requests for the same records for six other employees. The Housing Authority released some records but redacted many categories, including footnotes, employment applications, retirement investment elections, social security cards, driver's licenses, and middle initials. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the redactions and determined that the footnotes were not private information under FOIA and directed the Housing Authority to provide unredacted copies of those footnotes. The Bureau also found that driver's license numbers, birthdates, and signatures were properly redacted, but did not explicitly rule on the remaining contested categories such as middle initials, employment applications, resumes, references, and retirement investment elections.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied records without written authorization
The requester sought Department of Aging records concerning two named individuals without submitting the written authorization, evidence of guardianship or agency, and sworn statement of purpose that the department's rules require before releasing confidential adult-protective-services records. The PAC determined that because the requester did not provide the required documentation, the department's denial complied with the confidentiality provisions of the Adult Protective Services Act. The department did not improperly deny the request.

City of Bloomington did not violate FOIA by redacting body camera audio
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police incident at a YMCA, but the City redacted parts of the audio. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the City was legally allowed to hide those portions to protect the privacy of the people speaking to the police. This means the City followed the law and does not have to release the redacted audio.

City of Elmhurst properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A mother requested a police report regarding an incident involving her son, but the City denied the request because the records involved juvenile suspects. The Attorney General's office agreed with the City, explaining that state law strictly protects the confidentiality of juvenile police records, even from the parents of victims. Consequently, the City was legally required to withhold the information.

City of Bloomington improperly redacted body camera footage under 7(1)(c) and 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police encounter, but the City of Bloomington blurred out much of the video, claiming privacy exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the footage and decided the City went too far, as the video showed a public interaction that did not involve highly personal or private behavior. The City was told that it could not legally hide the identity of the person involved in that specific encounter.

Illinois Department of Human Services denial of home care worker personal info under section 7.5(zz) closed without action
The Freedom Foundation asked the Illinois Department of Human Services for a list of personal details about home care workers, including their names, ages, and hire dates. The Department refused to provide this information, arguing that a state law protecting labor relations information prohibited the disclosure. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and decided not to take any further action, effectively closing the matter.

Chicago Human Resources properly withheld employee lists under 7.5(zz)
A requester asked for lists of city motor truck drivers, but the City denied the request, arguing that state law prohibits the release of this specific information. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed that the City was legally allowed to withhold the records under a specific FOIA exemption. This means the City does not have to provide the requested lists.

Will County Sheriff's Office properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A requester asked the Will County Sheriff's Office for police records and video footage related to a specific case. The Sheriff's Office refused to release the files, and the Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the records were protected by law because they involved a juvenile. This means the public cannot access these specific records due to strict privacy rules regarding juvenile law enforcement files.

Illinois State Police properly withheld FOID card data under 7.5(v)
A journalist requested state-wide data on Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card holders broken down by location and year. The Illinois State Police denied the request, arguing that state law specifically prohibits the release of this information. The Attorney General's office agreed with the police, finding that the law exempts this specific data from public disclosure.

University of Illinois not required to create aggregated survey data under FOIA
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.

Galesburg Police Department properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body and dash camera footage from a September 2023 accident from the Galesburg Police Department. The department initially said the footage was unavailable due to a system issue, and later stated the video had been automatically deleted after 90 days. The Illinois Attorney General's office determined that, even if the footage existed, the requester was not entitled to it under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act because the recording captured only post-incident footage and was not flagged for disclosure. The matter is closed, and the department was advised to follow up on whether any squad car video could be recovered.

Illinois State Police properly denied FOID info request under 7.5(v) privacy exemption
A citizen requested their own FOID card records from the Illinois State Police, but the agency denied the request citing a privacy exemption. The Attorney General's office closed the case, finding no further action warranted because the exemption does not allow individuals to obtain their own FOID information through FOIA. The office noted that FOID cardholders may obtain their FOID card applications and revocation letters through the Firearms Services Bureau, and that ISP's response included instructions to access the Bureau's website for FOID information.

Chicago Park District properly withheld performance evaluations under Personnel Record Review Act
A former employee asked the Chicago Park District for copies of their past performance evaluations. The PAC explained that while employees have a right to see their own personnel files under a different law, FOIA specifically forbids public bodies from releasing performance evaluations. Because the law prohibits these records from being released through a FOIA request, the PAC closed the case.

Chicago Public Schools did not violate FOIA by withholding OIG laptop inventory data under 7.5(h)
The requester sought a school-by-school breakdown of the roughly 77,505 lost or stolen technology devices cited in a CPS Inspector General report, and the district's IT department provided a different, non-matching current dataset instead. The PAC determined that dataset was not responsive, and that the actual responsive records - the raw asset-management data CPS provided to and the OIG analyzed for its report - were properly exempt as inspector-general investigatory records. The district's ultimate withholding of the responsive data did not violate FOIA, though its search should have identified the correct dataset.

PAC closes case: Chicago Public Schools teacher evaluation records exempt from disclosure
A requester asked Chicago Public Schools for teacher evaluation data, hoping that removing personal names would make the records public. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district that these specific evaluation records are protected by law and cannot be released, even if names are removed. Consequently, the PAC closed the case without requiring the district to provide the documents.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied APSA records under confidentiality provisions
A citizen requested records from the Illinois Department on Aging concerning allegations of elder abuse or isolation. The Department refused to release the documents, stating they are confidential by law. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the records are legally protected and cannot be released without specific authorization.

Lake County Forest Preserve District improperly denied I-Pass records under multiple FOIA exemptions
A requester asked for I-Pass records related to a specific person, but the Lake County Forest Preserve District refused, claiming the records were exempt under several FOIA exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the District did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records were exempt under sections 7(1)(c), 7.5(w), 7(1)(d)(i), or 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA. The determination found that the District improperly denied the request.

Libertyville School District No. 70 properly withheld student incident reports under ISSRA and FOIA 7.5(r)
A citizen asked a school district for reports on student fights and disciplinary actions. The school district refused to provide them, arguing that even if names were removed, the details would still allow people to identify the students involved. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by privacy laws and closed the case.

Village of Skokie properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage of a meeting between two police officers from the Village of Skokie. The Village denied the request, and the Public Access Counselor agreed, finding that state law restricts access to such footage unless the requester is a subject of the encounter or meets specific legal criteria. Because the requester did not meet these criteria, the Village was legally permitted to withhold the video.

Village of Bolingbrook properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage of an incident they had reported to the Village of Bolingbrook. The Village denied the request, stating that the requester was not the person captured in the video and therefore not entitled to it. The Attorney General's office agreed, noting that state law strictly limits who can access body camera footage and that public interest does not override these specific privacy restrictions.

Chicago Police Department properly withheld School Absentee Reports under 7.5(bb) and Juvenile Court Act
This determination addresses whether the Chicago Police Department properly denied a FOIA request for School Absentee Reports under 5 ILCS 140/7.5(bb), which exempts records whose disclosure is prohibited by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. The Public Access Bureau held that CPD did not improperly deny the request, concluding that School Absentee Reports relate to minors taken into custody or limited custody under the Juvenile Court Act, and that such records are confidential except by court order, so no further action was warranted. The reasoning establishes that a police department may withhold records under section 7.5(bb) where the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions (705 ILCS 405/5-905(1) and 705 ILCS 405/3-4(g)) apply to the minors described in the records, even if similar records were previously disclosed. The public body involved was the Chicago Police Department, and the records at issue were School Absentee Reports.

Court cases

Jason F. Woolsey v. The Illinois State Police (2024 IL App (4th) 210467-UB)
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that section 7.5(v) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act prohibits the Illinois State Police from disclosing Firearm Owners Identification Card information, even to the applicant themselves. Consequently, the court vacated the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Statutory exemptions. To the extent provided for by the statutes referenced below, the following shall be exempt from inspection and copying: (a) All information determined to be confidential under Section 4002 of the Technology Advancement and Development Act. (b) Library circulation and order records identifying library users with specific materials under the Library Records Confidentiality Act. (c) Applications, related documents, and medical records received by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board and any and all documents or other records prepared by the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Board or its staff relating to applications it has received. (d) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives relating to known or suspected cases of sexually transmitted infection or any information the disclosure of which is restricted under the Illinois Sexually Transmitted Infection Control Act. (e) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 30 of the Radon Industry Licensing Act. (f) Firm performance evaluations under Section 55 of the Architectural, Engineering, and Land Surveying Qualifications Based Selection Act. (g) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 50 of the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Act. (h) Information the disclosure of which is exempted under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, and records of any lawfully created State or local inspector general's office that would be exempt if created or obtained by an Executive Inspector General's office under that Act. (i) Information contained in a local emergency energy plan submitted to a municipality in accordance with a local emergency energy plan ordinance that is adopted under Section 11-21.5-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (j) Information and data concerning the distribution of surcharge moneys collected and remitted by carriers under the Emergency Telephone System Act. (k) Law enforcement officer identification information or driver identification information compiled by a law enforcement agency or the Department of Transportation under Section 11-212 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (l) Records and information provided to a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (m) Information provided to the predatory lending database created pursuant to Article 3 of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act, except to the extent authorized under that Article. (n) Defense budgets and petitions for certification of compensation and expenses for court appointed trial counsel as provided under Sections 10 and 15 of the Capital Crimes Litigation Act (repealed). This subsection (n) shall apply until the conclusion of the trial of the case, even if the prosecution chooses not to pursue the death penalty prior to trial or sentencing. (o) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4 of the Illinois Health and Hazardous Substances Registry Act. (p) Security portions of system safety program plans, investigation reports, surveys, schedules, lists, data, or information compiled, collected, or prepared by or for the Department of Transportation under Sections 2705-300 and 2705-616 of the Department of Transportation Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois, the Northern Illinois Transit Authority under Section 2.11 of the Northern Illinois Transit Authority Act, or the St. Clair County Transit District under the Bi-State Transit Safety Act (repealed). (q) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Personnel Record Review Act. (r) Information prohibited from being disclosed by the Illinois School Student Records Act. (s) Information the disclosure of which is restricted under Section 5-108 of the Public Utilities Act. (t) (Blank). (u) Records and information provided to an independent team of experts under the Developmental Disability and Mental Health Safety Act (also known as Brian's Law). (v) Names and information of people who have applied for or received Firearm Owner's Identification Cards under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or applied for or received a concealed carry license under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, unless otherwise authorized by the Firearm Concealed Carry Act; and databases under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, records of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, and law enforcement agency objections under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (v-5) Records of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board that are exempted from disclosure under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (w) Personally identifiable information which is exempted from disclosure under subsection (g) of Section 19.1 of the Toll Highway Act. (x) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 5-1014.3 of the Counties Code or Section 8-11-21 of the Illinois Municipal Code. (y) Confidential information under the Adult Protective Services Act and its predecessor enabling statute, the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act, including information about the identity and administrative finding against any caregiver of a verified and substantiated decision of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation of an eligible adult maintained in the Registry established under Section 7.5 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (z) Records and information provided to a fatality review team or the Illinois Fatality Review Team Advisory Council under Section 15 of the Adult Protective Services Act. (aa) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2.37 of the Wildlife Code. (bb) Information which is or was prohibited from disclosure by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (cc) Recordings made under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (dd) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 45 of the Condominium and Common Interest Community Ombudsperson Act. (ee) Information that is exempted from disclosure under Section 30.1 of the Pharmacy Practice Act. (ff) Information that is exempted from disclosure under the Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. (gg) Information that is prohibited from being disclosed under Section 7-603.5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code. (hh) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 1A-16.7 of the Election Code. (ii) Information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (jj) Information and reports that are required to be submitted to the Department of Labor by registering day and temporary labor service agencies but are exempt from disclosure under subsection (a-1) of Section 45 of the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act. (kk) Information prohibited from disclosure under the Seizure and Forfeiture Reporting Act. (ll) Information the disclosure of which is restricted and exempted under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (mm) Records that are exempt from disclosure under Section 4.2 of the Crime Victims Compensation Act. (nn) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 70 of the Higher Education Student Assistance Act. (oo) Communications, notes, records, and reports arising out of a peer support counseling session prohibited from disclosure under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (pp) Names and all identifying information relating to an employee of an emergency services provider or law enforcement agency under the First Responders Suicide Prevention Act. (qq) Information and records held by the Department of Public Health and its authorized representatives collected under the Reproductive Health Act. (rr) Information that is exempt from disclosure under the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. (ss) Data reported by an employer to the Department of Human Rights pursuant to Section 2-108 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (tt) Recordings made under the Children's Advocacy Center Act, except to the extent authorized under that Act. (uu) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the Sexual Assault Evidence Submission Act. (vv) Information that is exempt from disclosure under subsections (f) and (j) of Section 5-36 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (ww) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 16.8 of the State Treasurer Act. (xx) Information that is exempt from disclosure or information that shall not be made public under the Illinois Insurance Code. (yy) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. (zz) Information prohibited from being disclosed under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. (aaa) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 1-167 of the Illinois Pension Code. (bbb) Information that is prohibited from disclosure by the Illinois Police Training Act and the Illinois State Police Act. (ccc) Records exempt from disclosure under Section 2605-304 of the Illinois State Police Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (ddd) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 35 of the Address Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Human Trafficking, or Stalking Act. (eee) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (b) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (fff) Images from cameras under the Expressway Camera Act. This subsection (fff) is inoperative on and after July 1, 2025. (ggg) Information prohibited from disclosure under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Section 14 of the Nurse Agency Licensing Act. (hhh) Information submitted to the Illinois State Police in an affidavit or application for an assault weapon endorsement, assault weapon attachment endorsement, .50 caliber rifle endorsement, or .50 caliber cartridge endorsement under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (iii) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 50 of the School Safety Drill Act. (jjj) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 30 of the Insurance Data Security Law. (kkk) Confidential business information prohibited from disclosure under Section 45 of the Paint Stewardship Act. (lll) Data exempt from disclosure under Section 2-3.196 of the School Code. (mmm) Information prohibited from being disclosed under subsection (e) of Section 1-129 of the Illinois Power Agency Act. (nnn) Materials received by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity that are confidential under the Music and Musicians Tax Credit and Jobs Act. (ooo) Data or information provided pursuant to Section 20 of the Statewide Recycling Needs and Assessment Act. (ppp) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 28-11 of the Lawful Health Care Activity Act. (qqq) Information that is exempt from disclosure under Section 7-101 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. (rrr) Information prohibited from being disclosed under Section 4-2 of the Uniform Money Transmission Modernization Act. (sss) Information exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act. (ttt) Audio recordings made under Section 30 of the Illinois State Police Act, except to the extent authorized under that Section. (Source: P.A. 103-8, eff. 6-7-23; 103-34, eff. 6-9-23; 103-142, eff. 1-1-24; 103-372, eff. 1-1-24; 103-472, eff. 8-1-24; 103-508, eff. 8-4-23; 103-580, eff. 12-8-23; 103-592, eff. 6-7-24; 103-605, eff. 7-1-24; 103-636, eff. 7-1-24; 103-724, eff. 1-1-25; 103-786, eff. 8-7-24; 103-859, eff. 8-9-24; 103-991, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1049, eff. 8-9-24; 103-1081, eff. 3-21-25; 104-457, eff. 6-1-26.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 7.5(cc) (Law enforcement body-camera recordings): 12 · 7.5(q) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(q)): 5 · 7.5(r) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(r)): 5 · 7.5(bb) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(bb)): 4 · 7.5(zz) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(zz)): 3 · 7.5(v) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(v)): 3 · 7.5(y) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(y)): 2 · 7.5(k) (Law enforcement officer or driver identification info compiled under the Illinois Vehicle Code): 1 · 7.5 (Exempt under another statute (cites Sec. 7.5's cross-reference list as a whole without naming a specific subsection)): 1 · 7.5(yy): 1 · 7.5(h) (Exempt under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (including inspector general office records)): 1 · 7.5(w) (Personally identifiable toll-account info exempted under the Toll Highway Act): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Section 7.5(zz) of FOIA Exempts from Disclosure Information Identifying City Employees in Bargaining Unit Positions Represented By a Particular Union
The requester, on behalf of an advocacy organization, sought the names, job titles, and work contact information of city employees covered by a specific union's collective bargaining agreement, which the city denied as prohibited disclosure of union-membership information. The Public Access Counselor held that identifying which employees belong to that particular bargaining unit would necessarily reveal protected information about union membership and the union's identity under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The city's denial was upheld and no violation was found.

Determination letters

Central School District No. 104 improperly withheld notice to remedy for teacher performance
A newspaper requested a notice to remedy that was attached to a school board resolution, but the district withheld it, claiming it was a confidential performance evaluation. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau ruled that the notice to remedy is not a 'performance evaluation' under the School Code or the Personnel Record Review Act because it addresses specific instances of misconduct rather than a comprehensive periodic evaluation. Therefore, the district improperly denied the request.

Chicago Public Schools improperly redacted student cell size data under privacy exemptions
A reporter asked Chicago Public Schools for data showing which grammar schools students came from to attend selective high schools. The school district hid some of the numbers, claiming that showing small groups of students might reveal their identities. The Attorney General's office concluded that the district improperly redacted that information.

Springfield Police Department properly withheld body camera recordings under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage, but the City of Springfield denied the request. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed with the City, finding that the requester was not authorized to receive the footage under the specific rules of the Illinois Body Camera Act. Consequently, the case was closed with no violation found.

Frankfort School District improperly withheld non-disciplinary personnel complaints
A requester asked a school district for complaints and disciplinary records involving staff members. The district refused to provide them, claiming they were protected by law. The Attorney General's office reviewed the records and found that some of the documents were not actually disciplinary records, so the district must release them.

Chicago Police Department properly denied body camera recordings under FOIA and Body Camera Act
An attorney sought body-camera recordings of a traffic accident on behalf of a client, which the police department withheld under the Body Camera Act. The PAC determined the client did not appear on the recordings and was therefore not the "subject of the encounter" entitled to obtain them, and the recordings were not otherwise flagged for release under the Act's disclosure triggers. The department's withholding did not violate FOIA.

Illinois State Police properly denied traffic stop data request under 7.5(k)
A requester asked the Illinois State Police for detailed records of traffic stops in Boone County, including information that could identify drivers and officers. The Attorney General's office found that state law specifically prohibits the release of this identifying information. Therefore, the police were correct to deny the request, and the case is closed.

Wauconda School District 118 partially violated FOIA in redacting settlement agreement as student records
A reporter asked a school district for a copy of a legal settlement agreement involving a student. The school district blacked out large portions, claiming they were protected student records under state and federal law. The Illinois Attorney General's office reviewed the document and found that the district did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that all of the redacted information was exempt from disclosure, noting that some limited information did not appear to be individually attributable to any particular student. The determination does not order the district to release any specific information.

Plainfield CCSD 202 properly withheld teacher notes under student records exemption
A requester asked a school district for teachers' notes about student behavior. The school district refused, arguing that the request was too broad and that the records contained private student information. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by student privacy laws and closed the case.

Cook County School District 130 did not violate FOIA by withholding union membership data
The Freedom Foundation asked Cook County School District 130 for a list of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 73, including their names and job details. The school district refused to provide this information, citing privacy and labor laws. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district, ruling that state law protects this type of union-related employee information from being released through a FOIA request because disclosing which employees are covered by the agreement would necessarily reveal union membership or status.

DeKalb County Housing Authority directed to release personnel file footnotes, upheld driver's license redactions
A requester asked the DeKalb County Housing Authority for personnel files of three employees, and later submitted requests for the same records for six other employees. The Housing Authority released some records but redacted many categories, including footnotes, employment applications, retirement investment elections, social security cards, driver's licenses, and middle initials. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the redactions and determined that the footnotes were not private information under FOIA and directed the Housing Authority to provide unredacted copies of those footnotes. The Bureau also found that driver's license numbers, birthdates, and signatures were properly redacted, but did not explicitly rule on the remaining contested categories such as middle initials, employment applications, resumes, references, and retirement investment elections.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied records without written authorization
The requester sought Department of Aging records concerning two named individuals without submitting the written authorization, evidence of guardianship or agency, and sworn statement of purpose that the department's rules require before releasing confidential adult-protective-services records. The PAC determined that because the requester did not provide the required documentation, the department's denial complied with the confidentiality provisions of the Adult Protective Services Act. The department did not improperly deny the request.

City of Bloomington did not violate FOIA by redacting body camera audio
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police incident at a YMCA, but the City redacted parts of the audio. The Attorney General's office reviewed the request and found that the City was legally allowed to hide those portions to protect the privacy of the people speaking to the police. This means the City followed the law and does not have to release the redacted audio.

City of Elmhurst properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A mother requested a police report regarding an incident involving her son, but the City denied the request because the records involved juvenile suspects. The Attorney General's office agreed with the City, explaining that state law strictly protects the confidentiality of juvenile police records, even from the parents of victims. Consequently, the City was legally required to withhold the information.

City of Bloomington improperly redacted body camera footage under 7(1)(c) and 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage from a police encounter, but the City of Bloomington blurred out much of the video, claiming privacy exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the footage and decided the City went too far, as the video showed a public interaction that did not involve highly personal or private behavior. The City was told that it could not legally hide the identity of the person involved in that specific encounter.

Illinois Department of Human Services denial of home care worker personal info under section 7.5(zz) closed without action
The Freedom Foundation asked the Illinois Department of Human Services for a list of personal details about home care workers, including their names, ages, and hire dates. The Department refused to provide this information, arguing that a state law protecting labor relations information prohibited the disclosure. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and decided not to take any further action, effectively closing the matter.

Chicago Human Resources properly withheld employee lists under 7.5(zz)
A requester asked for lists of city motor truck drivers, but the City denied the request, arguing that state law prohibits the release of this specific information. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed that the City was legally allowed to withhold the records under a specific FOIA exemption. This means the City does not have to provide the requested lists.

Will County Sheriff's Office properly withheld juvenile police records under 7.5(bb)
A requester asked the Will County Sheriff's Office for police records and video footage related to a specific case. The Sheriff's Office refused to release the files, and the Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the records were protected by law because they involved a juvenile. This means the public cannot access these specific records due to strict privacy rules regarding juvenile law enforcement files.

Illinois State Police properly withheld FOID card data under 7.5(v)
A journalist requested state-wide data on Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card holders broken down by location and year. The Illinois State Police denied the request, arguing that state law specifically prohibits the release of this information. The Attorney General's office agreed with the police, finding that the law exempts this specific data from public disclosure.

University of Illinois not required to create aggregated survey data under FOIA
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.

Galesburg Police Department properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body and dash camera footage from a September 2023 accident from the Galesburg Police Department. The department initially said the footage was unavailable due to a system issue, and later stated the video had been automatically deleted after 90 days. The Illinois Attorney General's office determined that, even if the footage existed, the requester was not entitled to it under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act because the recording captured only post-incident footage and was not flagged for disclosure. The matter is closed, and the department was advised to follow up on whether any squad car video could be recovered.

Illinois State Police properly denied FOID info request under 7.5(v) privacy exemption
A citizen requested their own FOID card records from the Illinois State Police, but the agency denied the request citing a privacy exemption. The Attorney General's office closed the case, finding no further action warranted because the exemption does not allow individuals to obtain their own FOID information through FOIA. The office noted that FOID cardholders may obtain their FOID card applications and revocation letters through the Firearms Services Bureau, and that ISP's response included instructions to access the Bureau's website for FOID information.

Chicago Park District properly withheld performance evaluations under Personnel Record Review Act
A former employee asked the Chicago Park District for copies of their past performance evaluations. The PAC explained that while employees have a right to see their own personnel files under a different law, FOIA specifically forbids public bodies from releasing performance evaluations. Because the law prohibits these records from being released through a FOIA request, the PAC closed the case.

Chicago Public Schools did not violate FOIA by withholding OIG laptop inventory data under 7.5(h)
The requester sought a school-by-school breakdown of the roughly 77,505 lost or stolen technology devices cited in a CPS Inspector General report, and the district's IT department provided a different, non-matching current dataset instead. The PAC determined that dataset was not responsive, and that the actual responsive records - the raw asset-management data CPS provided to and the OIG analyzed for its report - were properly exempt as inspector-general investigatory records. The district's ultimate withholding of the responsive data did not violate FOIA, though its search should have identified the correct dataset.

PAC closes case: Chicago Public Schools teacher evaluation records exempt from disclosure
A requester asked Chicago Public Schools for teacher evaluation data, hoping that removing personal names would make the records public. The Attorney General's office agreed with the school district that these specific evaluation records are protected by law and cannot be released, even if names are removed. Consequently, the PAC closed the case without requiring the district to provide the documents.

Illinois Department on Aging properly denied APSA records under confidentiality provisions
A citizen requested records from the Illinois Department on Aging concerning allegations of elder abuse or isolation. The Department refused to release the documents, stating they are confidential by law. The Attorney General's office agreed with the Department, concluding that the records are legally protected and cannot be released without specific authorization.

Lake County Forest Preserve District improperly denied I-Pass records under multiple FOIA exemptions
A requester asked for I-Pass records related to a specific person, but the Lake County Forest Preserve District refused, claiming the records were exempt under several FOIA exemptions. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and concluded that the District did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records were exempt under sections 7(1)(c), 7.5(w), 7(1)(d)(i), or 7(1)(d)(vi) of FOIA. The determination found that the District improperly denied the request.

Libertyville School District No. 70 properly withheld student incident reports under ISSRA and FOIA 7.5(r)
A citizen asked a school district for reports on student fights and disciplinary actions. The school district refused to provide them, arguing that even if names were removed, the details would still allow people to identify the students involved. The Attorney General's office agreed that the records are protected by privacy laws and closed the case.

Village of Skokie properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested body camera footage of a meeting between two police officers from the Village of Skokie. The Village denied the request, and the Public Access Counselor agreed, finding that state law restricts access to such footage unless the requester is a subject of the encounter or meets specific legal criteria. Because the requester did not meet these criteria, the Village was legally permitted to withhold the video.

Village of Bolingbrook properly withheld body camera footage under 7.5(cc)
A citizen requested police body camera footage of an incident they had reported to the Village of Bolingbrook. The Village denied the request, stating that the requester was not the person captured in the video and therefore not entitled to it. The Attorney General's office agreed, noting that state law strictly limits who can access body camera footage and that public interest does not override these specific privacy restrictions.

Chicago Police Department properly withheld School Absentee Reports under 7.5(bb) and Juvenile Court Act
This determination addresses whether the Chicago Police Department properly denied a FOIA request for School Absentee Reports under 5 ILCS 140/7.5(bb), which exempts records whose disclosure is prohibited by the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. The Public Access Bureau held that CPD did not improperly deny the request, concluding that School Absentee Reports relate to minors taken into custody or limited custody under the Juvenile Court Act, and that such records are confidential except by court order, so no further action was warranted. The reasoning establishes that a police department may withhold records under section 7.5(bb) where the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions (705 ILCS 405/5-905(1) and 705 ILCS 405/3-4(g)) apply to the minors described in the records, even if similar records were previously disclosed. The public body involved was the Chicago Police Department, and the records at issue were School Absentee Reports.

Court cases

Jason F. Woolsey v. The Illinois State Police (2024 IL App (4th) 210467-UB)
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that section 7.5(v) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act prohibits the Illinois State Police from disclosing Firearm Owners Identification Card information, even to the applicant themselves. Consequently, the court vacated the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

(Repealed). (Source: P.A. 100-555, eff. 11-16-17. Repealed by P.A. 100-731, eff. 1-1-19 .)

(Repealed). (Source: P.A. 85-1357. Repealed by P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Duty to Respond to a FOIA Request for Records ofa City Appointed Board and Related to City -Owned Property
The requester sought agendas and minutes for meetings of the city's municipal airport, and the city's FOIA officer told her the airport was a separate entity without its own FOIA officer and directed her to a newly elected airport board member, after which no substantive response followed. The Public Access Counselor held that because the city owns the airport, appoints its board, and has designated only one FOIA officer for its departments and boards, the city's FOIA officer remained obligated to respond, and referring the requester elsewhere did not satisfy FOIA. The city was directed to produce the requested agendas and minutes.

Purpose of Request Invalid Basis On Which to Withhold Public Records
The requester, a local news outlet, sought a log of FOIA requests filed with the county clerk's office and the county's responses over an eight-week period, and the county denied the request in its entirety, arguing it did not serve FOIA's purpose because it sought information about other requesters rather than about government conduct. The Public Access Counselor held that FOIA does not allow a public body to deny a request based on its view of the requester's purpose, apart from fee-waiver or commercial-purpose determinations, though the county could redact other requesters' identifying information to protect their privacy. The county was directed to produce the requested log.

Disclosure of Police Dashboard Camera Video, Dispatch Audio, and Written Critique
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought squad car video, dispatch audio, and a written critique concerning a fatal police chase, which a sheriff's office withheld on the ground that disclosure could taint the jury pool in a related pending civil wrongful-death lawsuit. The Public Access Counselor held that the sheriff's office's assertion was conclusory and failed to explain with specific facts how disclosure of records -- most of which did not even depict the crash, and a critique containing no detailed narrative or witness statements -- would create a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial. The sheriff's office was directed to disclose the requested records.

Records maintained online. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act to the contrary, a public body is not required to copy a public record that is published on the public body's website. The public body shall notify the requester that the public record is available online and direct the requester to the website where the record can be reasonably accessed. (b) If the person requesting the public record is unable to reasonably access the record online after being directed to the website pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section, the requester may re-submit his or her request for the record stating his or her inability to reasonably access the record online, and the public body shall make the requested record available for inspection or copying as provided in Section 3 of this Act. (Source: P.A. 98-1129, eff. 12-3-14.)

Determination letters

Village of Lemont violated FOIA by directing requester to website for records not reasonably accessible online
A requester asked the Village of Lemont for a large volume of property records, but the Village only provided a website link and claimed the rest of the request was too burdensome. The Attorney General's office ruled that the Village could not simply point to a website for records that were not actually available online. The Village was required to provide copies of the specific documents that were not reasonably accessible through their website.

Village of Tinley Park did not violate FOIA by providing YouTube link to meeting video
A citizen asked the Village of Tinley Park for a copy of a recorded board meeting, but the Village only provided a link to the video on YouTube. The citizen complained that this did not provide reasonable access to the record. The Attorney General's office ruled that directing a requester to a publicly available online video is a sufficient way to provide access under FOIA.

Office of the Attorney General did not violate FOIA by directing incarcerated requester to website without statutory process
An incarcerated person asked for paper copies of documents that were available on the Attorney General's website. The Attorney General's office told the requester to look online, but the requester did not follow the specific legal steps required to ask for paper copies when they cannot access the internet. Because the requester skipped these steps, the PAC closed the case without finding a violation.

City of Harrisburg failed to properly direct FOIA requester to records on website
A citizen asked the City of Harrisburg for financial records, and the City told him to look on their website without providing a specific link or instructions. The PAC found that while the City eventually provided the records, they failed to follow the law requiring them to clearly direct the requester to where the documents are located online. The case was closed because the requester ultimately received the information.

Court cases

Garlick v. Naperville Township (2017 IL App (2d) 170025)
The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint where the plaintiff sought a real-property database in a specific native file format. The court held that the township satisfied its obligations by providing access to the data via a website and offering a sortable spreadsheet, noting that FOIA is not the proper forum to litigate third-party intellectual property or copyright claims.

(from Ch. 116, par. 209)

(a) Each public body denying a request for public records shall notify the requester in writing of the decision to deny the request, the reasons for the denial, including a detailed factual basis for the application of any exemption claimed, and the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. Each notice of denial by a public body shall also inform such person of the right to review by the Public Access Counselor and provide the address and phone number for the Public Access Counselor. Each notice of denial shall inform such person of his right to judicial review under Section 11 of this Act. (b) When a request for public records is denied on the grounds that the records are exempt under Section 7 of this Act, the notice of denial shall specify the exemption claimed to authorize the denial and the specific reasons for the denial, including a detailed factual basis and a citation to supporting legal authority. Copies of all notices of denial shall be retained by each public body in a single central office file that is open to the public and indexed according to the type of exemption asserted and, to the extent feasible, according to the types of records requested. (c) Any person making a request for public records shall be deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies with respect to that request if the public body fails to act within the time periods provided in Section 3 of this Act. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 9: 99 · 9(a): 2

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Under Section 3(d) of FOIA, Public Bodies Must Respond to a Request for Records Within Five Business Days After Receipt of the Request
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of school-level statistics on student discipline and police involvement from a school district, which acknowledged the request but never issued a proper written response within the required five business days, instead only partially replying weeks later after the requester escalated to the Public Access Counselor. The Attorney General held that the school district's delay amounted to a denial by operation of law, and that because it failed to properly extend the response time or assert an undue-burden objection, it could not later charge fees or treat the request as unduly burdensome. The school district was directed to fully comply with the original request.

Classification as a "Recurrent Requester" under Section 2(g) of FOIA
A village government classified the requester and her spouse as "recurrent requesters" under FOIA's newly enacted volume-based thresholds, based on the combined number of records requests the two had submitted, and responded on a 21-business-day timeline instead of the standard five days. The Public Access Counselor held that the village improperly aggregated the requester's and her spouse's separate requests into a single count, that neither individually nor combined did their submissions meet any of the statutory recurrent-requester thresholds, and that the village further violated FOIA's notice requirements by failing to explain its reasoning within the required timeframe. The village government was directed to stop treating the requester's future submissions as recurrent-requester requests absent a proper statutory basis.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of legal invoices reflecting a school district's expenses in several lawsuits, and the school district withheld the invoices in full, asserting attorney-client privilege. The Public Access Counselor held that while some invoice descriptions could reveal privileged communications and could be redacted, generic descriptions of the work performed, attorneys' initials, time spent, and billed amounts are not privileged and must be disclosed. The school district was directed to release the non-exempt portions of the invoices, since withholding the records in their entirety violated FOIA's requirement to redact only the exempt information and produce the rest.

Production of Records to the Public Access Counselor
The requester sought a state licensing agency's complete investigative file on a real estate licensee, after the agency had previously been directed, in response to an earlier related request, to release the same file for failing to prove it was exempt, but did not comply. The agency again refused to respond to the new request, refused to provide the Public Access Counselor with copies of the records for review, and continued to assert without adequate support that the file was exempt as an investigative, confidential, or law-enforcement record. The Public Access Counselor held that the agency violated FOIA's response deadlines, notice requirements, and its duty to cooperate with review, and again directed it to produce the file, redacting only genuinely private third-party information.

‘ Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought a school district's emergency management plans and related records, and the school district never responded at all, either to comply, deny, or extend the deadline within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the school district's total failure to respond constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The school district was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue timely responses to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought village hall surveillance footage, police department records, meeting minutes, and building access logs, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor over several months. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a village government's financial records, including its checkbook register, treasurer's reports, and attorney invoices, and the village never responded at all, despite the Public Access Counselor's follow-up inquiry going unanswered as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, also finding the village appeared to lack a properly designated FOIA officer as the law requires. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, designate and identify a FOIA officer, and post the required public notice of its request procedures.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of travel and credit-card expense records for a public university's board members and president, later amending the request to broaden its scope, and the university never responded to either version despite repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's silence on the amended request constituted a denial under FOIA, since the requester had explicitly superseded his original request with the amended one. The university was directed to produce all records responsive to the amended request, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Furnish Non-Exempt Records and to Issue a Written Denial For Any Records Not Provided
The requester, a journalist, submitted five detailed requests to a city government for records concerning a defunct development project, including financial records, contracts, and loan documents, and the city produced only a small fraction of what was sought without formally denying the rest or negotiating any extension. The Public Access Counselor held that the city's partial, unexplained response constituted a denial under FOIA, since it neither complied fully, properly extended its deadline, nor issued the required written denial identifying which records were being withheld and why. The city government was directed to produce all remaining non-exempt records and to provide a proper written explanation for any records it withholds.

Duty to Disclose Public Records in the Possession of a Public Body
The requester sought records showing how much money was collected during a university's homecoming dance and how those funds were handled. The university denied the request, arguing the records belonged to its Student Government Association, which it claimed was not a "public body" subject to FOIA. The PAC held that this argument was irrelevant, because the records were in the university's possession and control—held in a university-controlled account and overseen by university staff—and therefore pertained to the transaction of public business by the university itself. The PAC ruled that the university violated FOIA and ordered it to release the records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a newspaper reporter, submitted a records request to the city government seeking permit, licensing, and inspection records related to a specific business entity. The city government never responded—did not comply with, extend the time for, or deny the request within five business days, and did not even respond to the Public Access Bureau's inquiries during the review process. The PAC held that under the Freedom of Information Act, a public body's failure to timely respond is itself treated as a denial, and ordered the city government to produce the responsive records (with only permissible redactions) and to respond promptly to future requests. Because the city government failed to respond within the required timeframe, it was also barred from charging copying fees or claiming the request was unduly burdensome.

Failure to Respond to FOIA Request; Extension of the Response Period
The requester, a labor union representative, sought records concerning which employment positions were included in or excluded from collective bargaining agreements, and the university neither complied with, denied, nor properly extended the deadline for the request within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's eventual partial response, sent only after the requester followed up for months, did not cure its initial failure to timely respond, and that a public body cannot unilaterally and indefinitely extend its response time even where the requester agreed to one extension. The university was directed to produce the remaining responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions of private information.

Failure to Respond to FOIA Requests Robert E. Bionaz, Ph.D. 8720 South Utica Avenue Evergreen Park, [Hinois 60805
The requester, a university professor, sought certain records the university is required to maintain, and the university never responded at all, ignoring the Public Access Bureau's follow-up letters as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's total silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating the requirement to comply, extend, or deny within five business days. The university was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions of private information, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought worksheets and communications concerning police intelligence-gathering on First Amendment-related activities and groups including Black Lives Matter and Ferguson-related protests, and the police department never substantively responded, telling the Public Access Bureau months later only that the request remained "open." The Public Access Counselor held that the police department's prolonged silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating the requirement to comply, extend, or deny within five business days. The police department was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a range of personnel-related records, including a principal and social worker's emails and phone/text records, hiring-system data, and old interview reports, and the school district properly notified him it was extending its response time but then never actually responded, even after two follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Bureau. The Public Access Counselor held that failing to respond within the extended period, like failing to respond at all, constitutes a denial under FOIA. The school district was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests; Duty To Provide Timely Notification ofExtension For Responding to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought current and historical police staffing levels by district and all personnel transfer orders since an earlier request, and the police department sent an extension notice after the five-business-day deadline had already passed, then never substantively responded despite the requester's repeated follow-ups. The Public Access Counselor held that an extension notice sent after the statutory deadline does not validly extend the response period, so the department's prolonged silence constituted a denial under FOIA. The police department was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a range of village financial records, including employee and elected officials' salaries, contractor payments, legal fees, and money owed to the village by elected officials, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring two follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Bureau. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's total silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating the requirement to comply, extend, or deny within five business days. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Disclosure of E-Mails from Public Employees’ Personal E-Mail Accounts Pertaining to Transaction of Public Business; Duty to Conduct Reasonable Search for Responsive Records
The requester, a news organization, sought emails from named police officers' work and personal accounts relating to a fatal police shooting, and the police department produced dozens of official-account emails but never sought records from officers' personal accounts and searched using only a single term. The Public Access Counselor held that personal-account emails documenting public business are public records the department cannot decline to search for, and that limiting the search to one proper name was not reasonably calculated to locate all responsive records given other likely references to the incident. The police department was directed to search personal accounts and expand its search terms, then produce any additional responsive records.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought invoices, payment records, and a contract concerning a specific consulting firm, and the school district's automated system acknowledged the request and claimed a short extension but the district then never substantively responded. The Public Access Counselor held that failing to comply, deny, or reach a further written extension agreement within the extended period constituted a denial under FOIA. The school district was directed to produce the requested records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought correspondence and application records concerning a specific developer and project, and the housing authority contacted him to clarify the scope of his request but then never substantively responded despite repeated follow-up emails. The Public Access Counselor held that even treating the clarified, narrowed request as restarting the response clock, the housing authority's continued silence violated the requirement to comply, deny, or extend within five business days. The housing authority was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Disclosure of Public Employees' Compensation
The requester sought the names, titles, and dollar amounts of employee bonuses funded by a reallocation of a raise the housing authority's board had approved, and the housing authority denied the request in full, citing personal-privacy and personnel-record exemptions and arguing the requester's past FOIA use amounted to harassment. The Public Access Counselor held that bonus compensation paid from public funds is expressly subject to disclosure regardless of privacy or personnel-record concerns, and that FOIA does not allow a public body to withhold records based on its view of why the requester wants them. The housing authority was directed to disclose records showing the bonuses paid to each employee.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a reporter, sought a police report concerning a vehicle pursuit that ended in a crash, and the city never responded to the request or to the Public Access Bureau's repeated inquiries, despite a city official's assurance that the matter would be handled. The Public Access Counselor held that the city's prolonged silence constituted a denial in violation of FOIA's response requirements. The city was directed to produce the requested report, subject only to permissible redactions.

Basis for Withholding Police Investigatory Records
The requester sought a copy of a specific field report, and the state police agency withheld it in full, asserting that disclosure would interfere with a pending or contemplated law-enforcement proceeding. The Public Access Counselor held that a bare assertion that an investigation remains open, without any factual explanation of how disclosure would interfere with a proceeding, does not meet the agency's burden under that exemption. The state police agency was directed to disclose the field report, redacting only private information and dates of birth.

Statistical Data is Not Exempt from ° Disclosure under Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA
The requester sought raw traffic-count data collected during roadway monitoring, and the village withheld its entire preliminary traffic study as predecisional and deliberative. The Public Access Counselor held that purely factual data, such as vehicle counts, is not exempt as deliberative material unless it is inextricably intertwined with a public body's decision-making process, and the village had not shown that the counts revealed anything about its reasoning. The village was directed to disclose the specific pages of the study containing the requested traffic counts.

Financial Terms of Contracts, Billing Invoices, and Budget Documents Related to a Public Body's Use of Public Funds Are Not Exempt under Section 7(1)(g) of FOIA
The requester, a city clerk, sought contracts, invoices, and annual budgets involving the sanitary district's private wastewater-management contractor, and the district redacted substantial financial terms, invoice amounts, and budget figures, citing a confidentiality clause in its contract and the commercial-information exemption. The Public Access Counselor held that the confidentiality clause did not apply because none of the information had been marked confidential as the clause required and the clause itself excluded information required to be disclosed by law, and that because the records concerned the district's receipt and use of public funds, they were independently subject to disclosure under FOIA's public-funds provision and the Illinois Constitution. The sanitary district was directed to disclose the redacted and withheld records, including its budget ordinances.

Disclosure of Information Related to State Employees Designated as Essential
The requester, a wire-service reporter, sought records showing the job titles, locations, and numbers of employees the department deems essential during a pay interruption, and the department denied the request without acknowledging whether responsive records existed, first asserting attorney-client and deliberative-process exemptions and then withdrawing and reasserting different grounds. The Public Access Counselor held that a denial must state whether records exist and provide a detailed factual basis for any claimed exemption, and that the department's shifting, conclusory assertions did not establish that the requested staffing list was privileged or predecisional. The department of corrections was directed to disclose the requested records.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a business journal reporter, sought a deputy governor's emails and a forward-looking schedule, and the governor's office acknowledged the request by phone but never provided a substantive response despite nearly two months of follow-up emails. The Public Access Counselor held that the office's failure to comply, deny, or extend the response period in writing violated FOIA. The governor's office was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought city credit-card and cell-phone statements and proof of officials' Open Meetings Act and FOIA training, and although the city's attorney told the Public Access Bureau that records had been mailed to the requester, the city never confirmed this in writing and the requester repeatedly reported receiving nothing. The Public Access Counselor held that, on the record presented, the city had not shown it complied with, denied, or properly extended the request within the statutory period, violating FOIA. The city was directed to produce the requested records, subject only to limited private-information redactions.

Duty to Respond to a FOIA Request for Records ofa City Appointed Board and Related to City -Owned Property
The requester sought agendas and minutes for meetings of the city's municipal airport, and the city's FOIA officer told her the airport was a separate entity without its own FOIA officer and directed her to a newly elected airport board member, after which no substantive response followed. The Public Access Counselor held that because the city owns the airport, appoints its board, and has designated only one FOIA officer for its departments and boards, the city's FOIA officer remained obligated to respond, and referring the requester elsewhere did not satisfy FOIA. The city was directed to produce the requested agendas and minutes.

Disclosure of Contractor's Employees’ Names in Certified Payroll Records
The requester, a construction-industry monitoring organization, sought certified payroll records for a public works contractor, and the city disclosed the records but redacted the contractor employees' names along with the addresses and identification numbers the certified-payroll statute specifically requires be redacted. The Public Access Counselor held that names are not among the categories of information the statute allows a public body to redact from certified payroll records, and that the city had not separately shown disclosure of the names would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy given the strong public interest in payroll compliance. The city was directed to disclose the contractor employees' names.

Determination letters

Chicago Legislative Reference Bureau violated FOIA by omitting denier's name and title
A requester asked for records from the City of Chicago's Legislative Reference Bureau, but the Bureau denied the request without listing the name and title of the person who made the decision. The Attorney General's office agreed that this violated the law, which requires public bodies to identify the specific person responsible for a denial. The case was closed because the PAC determined a formal binding opinion was not necessary.

Illinois Housing Development Authority permissibly withheld pending project records but faulted for procedural denial
A citizen requested documents regarding a housing project application, but the Illinois Housing Development Authority refused to release them. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and found that the agency was allowed to withhold the records. However, the agency was reminded that their denial letter did not follow all the legal requirements for explaining why a request was rejected.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Public Access Counselor; opinions. (a) A person whose request to inspect or copy a public record is denied by a public body, except the General Assembly and committees, commissions, and agencies thereof, may file a request for review with the Public Access Counselor established in the Office of the Attorney General not later than 60 days after the date of the final denial. The request for review must be in writing, signed by the requester, and include (i) a copy of the request for access to records and (ii) any responses from the public body. (b) A person whose request to inspect or copy a public record is made for a commercial purpose as defined in subsection (c-10) of Section 2 of this Act may not file a request for review with the Public Access Counselor. A person whose request to inspect or copy a public record was treated by the public body as a request for a commercial purpose under Section 3.1 of this Act may file a request for review with the Public Access Counselor for the limited purpose of reviewing whether the public body properly determined that the request was made for a commercial purpose. (b-5) A person whose request to inspect or copy a public record was treated by a public body, except the General Assembly and committees, commissions, and agencies thereof, as a voluminous request under Section 3.6 of this Act may file a request for review with the Public Access Counselor for the purpose of reviewing whether the public body properly determined that the request was a voluminous request. (c) Upon receipt of a request for review, the Public Access Counselor shall determine whether further action is warranted. If the Public Access Counselor determines that the alleged violation is unfounded, he or she shall so advise the requester and the public body and no further action shall be undertaken. In all other cases, the Public Access Counselor shall forward a copy of the request for review to the public body within 7 business days after receipt and shall specify the records or other documents that the public body shall furnish to facilitate the review. Within 7 business days after receipt of the request for review, the public body shall provide copies of records requested and shall otherwise fully cooperate with the Public Access Counselor. If a public body fails to furnish specified records pursuant to this Section, or if otherwise necessary, the Attorney General may issue a subpoena to any person or public body having knowledge of or records pertaining to a request for review of a denial of access to records under the Act. Records or documents obtained by the Public Access Counselor from a public body for the purpose of addressing a request for review under this Section may not be disclosed to the public, including the requester, by the Public Access Counselor. These records, while in the possession of the Public Access Counselor, are exempt under this Act from disclosure by the Public Access Counselor. (d) Within 7 business days after it receives a copy of a request for review and request for production of records from the Public Access Counselor, the public body may, but is not required to, answer the allegations of the request for review. The answer may take the form of a letter, brief, or memorandum. 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. The requester may, but is not required to, respond in writing to the answer within 7 business days and shall provide a copy of the response to the public body. (e) In addition to the request for review, and the answer and the response thereto, if any, a requester or a public body may furnish affidavits or records concerning any matter germane to the review. (f) Unless the Public Access Counselor extends the time by no more than 30 business days by sending written notice to the requester and the public body that includes a statement of the reasons for the extension in the notice, or decides to address the matter without the issuance of a binding opinion, the Attorney General shall examine the issues and the records, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall issue to the requester and the public body an opinion in response to the request for review within 60 days after its receipt. The opinion shall be binding upon both the requester and the public body, subject to administrative review under Section 11.5. In responding to any request under this Section 9.5, the Attorney General may exercise his or her discretion and choose to resolve a request for review by mediation or by a means other than the issuance of a binding opinion. The decision not to issue a binding opinion shall not be reviewable. Upon receipt of a binding opinion concluding that a violation of this Act has occurred, the public body shall either take necessary action immediately to comply with the directive of the opinion or shall initiate administrative review under Section 11.5. If the opinion concludes that no violation of the Act has occurred, the requester may initiate administrative review under Section 11.5. A public body and any officer or employee of a public body that discloses records in accordance with an opinion of the Attorney General is immune from all liabilities by reason thereof and shall not be liable for penalties under this Act. (g) If the requester files suit under Section 11 with respect to the same denial that is the subject of a pending request for review, the requester shall notify the Public Access Counselor, and the Public Access Counselor shall take no further action with respect to the request for review and shall so notify the public body. (h) The Attorney General may also issue advisory opinions to public bodies regarding compliance with this Act. A review may be initiated upon receipt of a written request from the head of the public body or its attorney, which shall contain sufficient accurate facts from which a determination can be made. The Public Access Counselor may request additional information from the public body in order to assist in the review. A public body that relies in good faith on an advisory opinion of the Attorney General in responding to a request is not liable for penalties under this Act, so long as the facts upon which the opinion is based have been fully and fairly disclosed to the Public Access Counselor. (Source: P.A. 103-69, eff. 1-1-24; 104-438, eff. 1-1-26.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 9.5: 9 · 9.5(g): 1

Determination letters

PAC cannot review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
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.

PAC declines to review University of Illinois FOIA denial for commercial purpose
A business owner requested training materials from the University of Illinois to help his company win a government contract. The Attorney General's office declined to review the University's refusal to provide these documents because the law prohibits the PAC from intervening in FOIA disputes involving commercial requests. The requester must now pursue the matter through the court system if they wish to challenge the denial.

University of Illinois FOIA extension not ripe for PAC review because request not yet denied
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.

Will County State's Attorney's Office improperly denied FOIA request citing court order
A reporter sought communications between the state's attorney's office and a judge in a high-profile case, which the office denied citing court orders it said prohibited disclosure. The PAC determined that none of the court orders actually barred the office from releasing the records - one order only impounded copies filed with the court, and a later order expressly noted the records could still be sought through FOIA or from the office directly - so the denial was improper. The office was directed to issue a new response applying any FOIA exemptions narrowly and disclosing all non-exempt material.

Chief Procurement Office for General Services commercial purpose FOIA denial not reviewable by PAC
A company requested emails from a state office regarding a cancelled bid, but the office denied the request. When the company asked the Attorney General's office to review the denial, the PAC determined it could not help because the request was for a commercial purpose. Under Illinois law, the PAC does not have the authority to resolve disputes over commercial FOIA requests.

PAC lacks authority to review commercial-purpose FOIA denial by Chief Procurement Office
This determination addresses whether the Public Access Counselor could review a public body's FOIA denial under 5 ILCS 140/9.5(a) when the underlying request was made for a commercial purpose. The Public Access Bureau held that it lacked authority to review the denial because section 9.5(b) of FOIA bars PAC review of requests made for a commercial purpose, and the requester's confirmation that the records were sought for use in a bid protest established that the request was commercial in nature. The Bureau reasoned that a request seeking records to support a business's bid protest or effort to obtain/retain a contract qualifies as a commercial-purpose request under section 2(c-10), even if the request was not marked as commercial when submitted. As a result, the Bureau did not evaluate the exemptions the Chief Procurement Office for General Services had cited to withhold the e-mails, and it closed the file, noting the requester could instead pursue relief through a lawsuit under section 11 of FOIA.

PAC declines to decide Aurora Downtown's public body status due to pending litigation
A former board member asked the Illinois Attorney General's office to decide if the organization 'Aurora Downtown' must follow state transparency laws. The Attorney General's office declined to intervene because the same question is already being decided in a pending lawsuit. As a result, the office closed the file without making a formal determination.

Shelby County State's Attorney's Office: PAC ceases review after requester files section 11 lawsuit
This letter addresses when the Public Access Counselor must cease review under FOIA section 9.5(g). The Public Access Bureau held that because the requester filed a lawsuit under section 11 of FOIA challenging the same denial that was the subject of a pending Request for Review, section 9.5(g) required the Bureau to take no further action on the review and to close the file. The rule: once a requester sues under section 11 over the same denial at issue in a pending PAC review, the Public Access Counselor is statutorily barred from continuing its administrative review of that matter. The public body involved was a county state's attorney's office, and the underlying dispute concerned a partial denial of a FOIA request for records.

PAC closes complaint against Central School District 301 over board discussion of FOIA fees
A citizen complained to the Attorney General's office that a school board discussed charging illegal fees for FOIA requests and publicly named people who file many requests. The PAC explained that it only has the authority to review actual denials of records requests, not general board discussions or policies that haven't resulted in a specific denial. Consequently, the PAC closed the matter without finding a violation.

Sangamon County Sheriff's Office FOIA lawsuit ends PAC administrative review
A reporter's FOIA request for review was pending before the PAC when the reporter filed suit in court over the same denial. Because FOIA requires the Public Access Counselor to take no further action on a request for review once the requester sues over the same denial, the PAC closed the file without reaching the merits.

(Repealed). (Source: P.A. 83-1013. Repealed by P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

(from Ch. 116, par. 211)

(a) Any person denied access to inspect or copy any public record by a public body may file suit for injunctive or declaratory relief. (a-5) In accordance with Section 11.6 of this Act, a requester may file an action to enforce a binding opinion issued under Section 9.5 of this Act. (b) Where the denial is from a public body of the State, suit may be filed in the circuit court for the county where the public body has its principal office or where the person denied access resides. (c) Where the denial is from a municipality or other public body, except as provided in subsection (b) of this Section, suit may be filed in the circuit court for the county where the public body is located. (d) The circuit court shall have the jurisdiction to enjoin the public body from withholding public records and to order the production of any public records improperly withheld from the person seeking access. If the public body can show that exceptional circumstances exist, and that the body is exercising due diligence in responding to the request, the court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the records. (e) On motion of the plaintiff, prior to or after in camera inspection, the court shall order the public body to provide an index of the records to which access has been denied. The index shall include the following: (i) A description of the nature or contents of each document withheld, or each deletion from a released document, provided, however, that the public body shall not be required to disclose the information which it asserts is exempt; and (ii) A statement of the exemption or exemptions claimed for each such deletion or withheld document. (f) In any action considered by the court, the court shall consider the matter de novo, and shall conduct such in camera examination of the requested records as it finds appropriate to determine if such records or any part thereof may be withheld under any provision of this Act. The burden shall be on the public body to establish that its refusal to permit public inspection or copying is in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving that it is exempt by clear and convincing evidence. (g) In the event of noncompliance with an order of the court to disclose, the court may enforce its order against any public official or employee so ordered or primarily responsible for such noncompliance through the court's contempt powers. (h) Except as to causes the court considers to be of greater importance, proceedings arising under this Section shall take precedence on the docket over all other causes and be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way. (i) If a person seeking the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record prevails in a proceeding under this Section, the court shall award such person reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In determining what amount of attorney's fees is reasonable, the court shall consider the degree to which the relief obtained relates to the relief sought. The changes contained in this subsection apply to an action filed on or after January 1, 2010 (the effective date of Public Act 96-542). (j) If the court determines that a public body willfully and intentionally failed to comply with this Act, or otherwise acted in bad faith, the court shall also impose upon the public body a civil penalty of not less than $2,500 nor more than $5,000 for each occurrence. In assessing the civil penalty, the court shall consider in aggravation or mitigation the budget of the public body and whether the public body has previously been assessed penalties for violations of this Act. The court may impose an additional penalty of up to $1,000 for each day the violation continues if: (1) the public body fails to comply with the court's order after 30 days; (2) the court's order is not on appeal or stayed; and (3) the court does not grant the public body additional time to comply with the court's order to disclose public records. The changes contained in this subsection made by Public Act 96-542 apply to an action filed on or after January 1, 2010 (the effective date of Public Act 96-542). (k) The changes to this Section made by this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly apply to actions filed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly. (Source: P.A. 99-586, eff. 1-1-17; 99-642, eff. 7-28-16 .)

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Classification as a "Recurrent Requester" under Section 2(g) of FOIA
A village government classified the requester and her spouse as "recurrent requesters" under FOIA's newly enacted volume-based thresholds, based on the combined number of records requests the two had submitted, and responded on a 21-business-day timeline instead of the standard five days. The Public Access Counselor held that the village improperly aggregated the requester's and her spouse's separate requests into a single count, that neither individually nor combined did their submissions meet any of the statutory recurrent-requester thresholds, and that the village further violated FOIA's notice requirements by failing to explain its reasoning within the required timeframe. The village government was directed to stop treating the requester's future submissions as recurrent-requester requests absent a proper statutory basis.

Disclosure of Invoices for Legal Services
The requester sought copies of legal invoices reflecting a school district's expenses in several lawsuits, and the school district withheld the invoices in full, asserting attorney-client privilege. The Public Access Counselor held that while some invoice descriptions could reveal privileged communications and could be redacted, generic descriptions of the work performed, attorneys' initials, time spent, and billed amounts are not privileged and must be disclosed. The school district was directed to release the non-exempt portions of the invoices, since withholding the records in their entirety violated FOIA's requirement to redact only the exempt information and produce the rest.

Judicial Inquiry Board is Not a "Public Body" to which FOIA is Applicable
The requester sought records from a state judicial oversight board concerning the circumstances of a former judge's removal from the bench, and the board declined to respond, asserting it was not subject to FOIA at all because it operates as part of the judicial branch. The Public Access Counselor agreed, holding that FOIA's definition of "public body" covers only legislative, executive, and administrative bodies and specifically excludes the judiciary, and that the board's investigatory role in judicial discipline places it squarely within the judicial branch. Because the board is not subject to FOIA in the first place, no violation occurred and the request for review was denied.

‘ Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought a school district's emergency management plans and related records, and the school district never responded at all, either to comply, deny, or extend the deadline within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the school district's total failure to respond constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The school district was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to issue timely responses to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought village hall surveillance footage, police department records, meeting minutes, and building access logs, and the village government never responded at all, ignoring repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor over several months. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating both the response-deadline and written-denial-notice requirements. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought a village government's financial records, including its checkbook register, treasurer's reports, and attorney invoices, and the village never responded at all, despite the Public Access Counselor's follow-up inquiry going unanswered as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's complete silence constituted a denial under FOIA, also finding the village appeared to lack a properly designated FOIA officer as the law requires. The village government was directed to produce all responsive records, designate and identify a FOIA officer, and post the required public notice of its request procedures.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought several years of travel and credit-card expense records for a public university's board members and president, later amending the request to broaden its scope, and the university never responded to either version despite repeated follow-up inquiries from the Public Access Counselor. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's silence on the amended request constituted a denial under FOIA, since the requester had explicitly superseded his original request with the amended one. The university was directed to produce all records responsive to the amended request, subject only to permissible redactions, and to respond properly to future requests.

Duty to Disclose Public Records in the Possession of a Public Body
The requester sought records showing how much money was collected during a university's homecoming dance and how those funds were handled. The university denied the request, arguing the records belonged to its Student Government Association, which it claimed was not a "public body" subject to FOIA. The PAC held that this argument was irrelevant, because the records were in the university's possession and control—held in a university-controlled account and overseen by university staff—and therefore pertained to the transaction of public business by the university itself. The PAC ruled that the university violated FOIA and ordered it to release the records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a newspaper reporter, submitted a records request to the city government seeking permit, licensing, and inspection records related to a specific business entity. The city government never responded—did not comply with, extend the time for, or deny the request within five business days, and did not even respond to the Public Access Bureau's inquiries during the review process. The PAC held that under the Freedom of Information Act, a public body's failure to timely respond is itself treated as a denial, and ordered the city government to produce the responsive records (with only permissible redactions) and to respond promptly to future requests. Because the city government failed to respond within the required timeframe, it was also barred from charging copying fees or claiming the request was unduly burdensome.

Failure to Respond to FOIA Request; Extension of the Response Period
The requester, a labor union representative, sought records concerning which employment positions were included in or excluded from collective bargaining agreements, and the university neither complied with, denied, nor properly extended the deadline for the request within the required five business days. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's eventual partial response, sent only after the requester followed up for months, did not cure its initial failure to timely respond, and that a public body cannot unilaterally and indefinitely extend its response time even where the requester agreed to one extension. The university was directed to produce the remaining responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions of private information.

Failure to Respond to FOIA Requests Robert E. Bionaz, Ph.D. 8720 South Utica Avenue Evergreen Park, [Hinois 60805
The requester, a university professor, sought certain records the university is required to maintain, and the university never responded at all, ignoring the Public Access Bureau's follow-up letters as well. The Public Access Counselor held that the university's total silence constituted a denial under FOIA, violating the requirement to comply, extend, or deny within five business days. The university was directed to produce all responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions of private information, and to issue a proper written denial for any records it withholds.

Disclosure of E-Mails from Public Employees’ Personal E-Mail Accounts Pertaining to Transaction of Public Business; Duty to Conduct Reasonable Search for Responsive Records
The requester, a news organization, sought emails from named police officers' work and personal accounts relating to a fatal police shooting, and the police department produced dozens of official-account emails but never sought records from officers' personal accounts and searched using only a single term. The Public Access Counselor held that personal-account emails documenting public business are public records the department cannot decline to search for, and that limiting the search to one proper name was not reasonably calculated to locate all responsive records given other likely references to the incident. The police department was directed to search personal accounts and expand its search terms, then produce any additional responsive records.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a journalist, sought invoices, payment records, and a contract concerning a specific consulting firm, and the school district's automated system acknowledged the request and claimed a short extension but the district then never substantively responded. The Public Access Counselor held that failing to comply, deny, or reach a further written extension agreement within the extended period constituted a denial under FOIA. The school district was directed to produce the requested records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought correspondence and application records concerning a specific developer and project, and the housing authority contacted him to clarify the scope of his request but then never substantively responded despite repeated follow-up emails. The Public Access Counselor held that even treating the clarified, narrowed request as restarting the response clock, the housing authority's continued silence violated the requirement to comply, deny, or extend within five business days. The housing authority was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a reporter, sought a police report concerning a vehicle pursuit that ended in a crash, and the city never responded to the request or to the Public Access Bureau's repeated inquiries, despite a city official's assurance that the matter would be handled. The Public Access Counselor held that the city's prolonged silence constituted a denial in violation of FOIA's response requirements. The city was directed to produce the requested report, subject only to permissible redactions.

Statistical Data is Not Exempt from ° Disclosure under Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA
The requester sought raw traffic-count data collected during roadway monitoring, and the village withheld its entire preliminary traffic study as predecisional and deliberative. The Public Access Counselor held that purely factual data, such as vehicle counts, is not exempt as deliberative material unless it is inextricably intertwined with a public body's decision-making process, and the village had not shown that the counts revealed anything about its reasoning. The village was directed to disclose the specific pages of the study containing the requested traffic counts.

Financial Terms of Contracts, Billing Invoices, and Budget Documents Related to a Public Body's Use of Public Funds Are Not Exempt under Section 7(1)(g) of FOIA
The requester, a city clerk, sought contracts, invoices, and annual budgets involving the sanitary district's private wastewater-management contractor, and the district redacted substantial financial terms, invoice amounts, and budget figures, citing a confidentiality clause in its contract and the commercial-information exemption. The Public Access Counselor held that the confidentiality clause did not apply because none of the information had been marked confidential as the clause required and the clause itself excluded information required to be disclosed by law, and that because the records concerned the district's receipt and use of public funds, they were independently subject to disclosure under FOIA's public-funds provision and the Illinois Constitution. The sanitary district was directed to disclose the redacted and withheld records, including its budget ordinances.

Disclosure of Information Related to State Employees Designated as Essential
The requester, a wire-service reporter, sought records showing the job titles, locations, and numbers of employees the department deems essential during a pay interruption, and the department denied the request without acknowledging whether responsive records existed, first asserting attorney-client and deliberative-process exemptions and then withdrawing and reasserting different grounds. The Public Access Counselor held that a denial must state whether records exist and provide a detailed factual basis for any claimed exemption, and that the department's shifting, conclusory assertions did not establish that the requested staffing list was privileged or predecisional. The department of corrections was directed to disclose the requested records.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a business journal reporter, sought a deputy governor's emails and a forward-looking schedule, and the governor's office acknowledged the request by phone but never provided a substantive response despite nearly two months of follow-up emails. The Public Access Counselor held that the office's failure to comply, deny, or extend the response period in writing violated FOIA. The governor's office was directed to produce the responsive records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought city credit-card and cell-phone statements and proof of officials' Open Meetings Act and FOIA training, and although the city's attorney told the Public Access Bureau that records had been mailed to the requester, the city never confirmed this in writing and the requester repeatedly reported receiving nothing. The Public Access Counselor held that, on the record presented, the city had not shown it complied with, denied, or properly extended the request within the statutory period, violating FOIA. The city was directed to produce the requested records, subject only to limited private-information redactions.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought records of a city official's meeting schedule over a four-month period, and although the city clerk forwarded the request to the city attorney and later to a new city attorney, the city never provided a substantive response despite months of calls and letters from the Public Access Bureau. The Public Access Counselor held that this prolonged failure to respond violated FOIA's requirement to comply, deny, or extend within five business days. The city was directed to produce the requested records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Disclosure of Names of Municipal Water Account Holders
The requester, a school district checking who lived at a particular address, sought a copy of a specific water bill, and the city provided it but redacted the customer's name along with the mailing address and account number as private information. The Public Access Counselor held that a person's name is not among the "unique identifiers" that make information private under FOIA, and that because water bills document the city's receipt of public funds for utility services, the customer's name was independently subject to disclosure under FOIA's public-funds provision. The city was directed to disclose a copy of the bill showing the customer's name.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester submitted three requests seeking minutes and a recording of a fire department personnel meeting, fire department policies on hiring and discipline, and months of fire department meeting minutes, and the village never responded to any of them despite repeated inquiries from the Public Access Bureau and the requester. The Public Access Counselor held that the village's failure to comply, deny, or extend the response period in writing on all three requests violated FOIA. The village was directed to produce the requested records, subject only to permissible redactions.

Public Body's Burden when Denying a Request as an Unduly Burdensome Repeated Request
The requester, a reporter, sought records concerning a state prison agency's boot-camp-style incarceration program, and when she resubmitted the same request after her first request review was rejected as untimely, the agency denied the new request as an unduly burdensome repeated request. The Public Access Counselor held that a repeated-request denial is proper only if the agency actually provided all nonexempt responsive records or properly denied the earlier request, and the agency never demonstrated that it had done either -- nor explained how it searched for the specific records the requester said were missing. The agency was directed to conduct a thorough search for the missing records and issue a supplemental response, including a written denial for anything it withholds.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought law enforcement records concerning several named individuals and an address from a village police department, which never responded despite repeated emails and phone calls. The Public Access Counselor held that the department violated FOIA's requirement to comply with, extend, or deny a request within five business days, and that its silence also barred it from later treating the request as unduly burdensome. The department was directed to provide all records responsive to the request, subject only to permissible redactions under a proper written denial.

Disclosure of General Allegations Against Public Body in a Settlement Agreement
The requester, a union representative, sought a settlement agreement between a school district and a former principal, and the district redacted the description of the underlying claims as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Public Access Counselor held that settlement agreements are public records under FOIA, that the redacted language described the claims only in general terms that were not highly personal, and that the information bore on the public duties of a public employee, so the privacy exemption did not apply. The district was directed to provide an unredacted copy of the settlement agreement.

Improper Denial of a Request for Records as an Unduly Burdensome Repeated Request; Financial Terms Related to a Public Body's Use of Public Funds Are Not Exempt under Section 7(1)(g) of FOIA
The requester, a physician, sought a contract amendment showing the fixed monthly rate a county health system paid a mental health provider per enrollee, records she had previously been given in redacted form; the county system denied her renewed request as an unduly burdensome repeated request. The Public Access Counselor held that a repeated-request denial requires the agency to have already properly provided or denied the same records, which the county system had not done, and separately held that the payment rate was a public-funds record not shown to qualify as exempt trade secret or commercial information. The county system was directed to provide the requester with the amendment showing the rate.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought property tax exemption records, including completed exemption applications, for a specific parcel from a county assessor's office, which never responded despite the requester's repeated follow-up and the FOIA officer's assurance that a response was coming. The Public Access Counselor held that the assessor's office violated FOIA's requirement to comply with, extend, or deny a request within five business days, which also barred it from later treating the request as unduly burdensome. The assessor's office was directed to provide all records responsive to the request, subject only to permissible redactions under a proper written denial.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester sought seven categories of records concerning a specific vehicle accident from a police department, which acknowledged receipt but never issued a substantive response, citing body-worn camera video still under internal review months later. The Public Access Counselor held that the department violated FOIA's requirement to comply with, extend, or deny a request within five business days, which also barred it from later treating the request as unduly burdensome. The department was directed to provide all records responsive to the request, subject only to permissible redactions under a proper written denial.

Disclosure of Records of Traffic Crashes Involving Minor Passengers
The requester, a law firm representing an injured driver, sought a traffic crash report that a police department withheld in full under the Juvenile Court Act because minor passengers were listed in the report, even though none of them had been investigated, arrested, or taken into custody. The Public Access Counselor held that the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provision applies to law enforcement records concerning minors who were investigated, arrested, or taken into custody, not to routine accident reports that merely list minors as passengers or witnesses, so the exemption did not apply. The department was directed to provide the requested crash report.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Administrative review. A binding opinion issued by the Attorney General shall be considered a final decision of an administrative agency, for purposes of administrative review under the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/Art. III). An action for administrative review of a binding opinion of the Attorney General shall be commenced in Cook or Sangamon County. An advisory opinion issued to a public body shall not be considered a final decision of the Attorney General for purposes of this Section. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

Noncompliance with binding opinion. (a) The requester may file an action under Section 11 and there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public body willfully and intentionally failed to comply with this Act for purposes of subsection (j) of Section 11 if: (1) the Attorney General issues a binding opinion pursuant to Section 9.5; (2) the public body does not file for administrative review of the binding opinion within 35 days after the binding opinion is served on the public body; and (3) the public body does not comply with the binding opinion within 35 days after the binding opinion is served on the public body. For purposes of this subsection (a), service of the binding opinion shall be by personal delivery or by depositing the opinion in the United States mail as provided in Section 3-103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (b) The presumption in subsection (a) may be rebutted by the public body showing that it is making a good faith effort to comply with the binding opinion, but compliance was not possible within the 35-day time frame. (c) This Section applies to binding opinions of the Attorney General requested or issued on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly. (Source: P.A. 99-586, eff. 1-1-17 .) Footer Disclaimer This site is maintained for the Illinois General Assembly by the Legislative Information System, 705 Stratton Building, Springfield, Illinois 62706. Contact ILGA Webmaster ILGA.gov uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse ILGA.gov you consent to our use of cookies. Read About Cookies ILGA.GOV 2026 ILGA.gov | All Rights Reserved | ADA | Disclaimers | Learn This site is maintained for the Illinois General Assembly by the Legislative Information System, 705 Stratton Building, Springfield, Illinois 62706. Contact ILGA Webmaster ILGA.gov uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse ILGA.gov you consent to our use of cookies. Read About Cookies ILGA.GOV 2026 ILGA.gov | All Rights Reserved | ADA | Disclaimers | Learn

(from Ch. 102, par. 41)

Policy. It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business. In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The General Assembly further declares it to be the public policy of this State that its citizens shall be given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way. Exceptions to the public's right to attend exist only in those limited circumstances where the General Assembly has specifically determined that the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals would be clearly in danger of unwarranted invasion. To implement this policy, the General Assembly declares: (1) it is the intent of this Act to protect the citizen's right to know; and (2) the provisions for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings. (Source: P.A. 88-621, eff. 1-1-95 .)

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Judicial Inquiry Board is Not a "Public Body" to which FOIA is Applicable
The requester sought records from a state judicial oversight board concerning the circumstances of a former judge's removal from the bench, and the board declined to respond, asserting it was not subject to FOIA at all because it operates as part of the judicial branch. The Public Access Counselor agreed, holding that FOIA's definition of "public body" covers only legislative, executive, and administrative bodies and specifically excludes the judiciary, and that the board's investigatory role in judicial discipline places it squarely within the judicial branch. Because the board is not subject to FOIA in the first place, no violation occurred and the request for review was denied.

Duty to Inform the Public of the Nature of the Business under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
A requester alleged that the school district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by voting in open session to dismiss an employee identified only as "Employee A," without naming the employee, after discussing the matter in closed session. The PAC held that while boards may discuss personnel performance issues in closed session, any final action—like a vote to dismiss—must occur in open session and be preceded by a public recital sufficient to inform the public of the actual business being conducted. Because the board withheld the employee's identity, citing privacy concerns, the public could not understand the real effect of the vote (for example, whether the action concerned a support staffer, teacher, or administrator), so the board failed to meet this disclosure requirement. The PAC directed the school district to reconsider its final action and, going forward, to include the employee's name and other identifying information when taking such final action in open session.

Amending Agenda During 48-Hour Posting Period
The requester alleged that the township board violated the Open Meetings Act by amending its meeting agenda less than 48 hours before a scheduled meeting, removing two action items and moving them to executive session instead. The PAC held that no violation occurred, reasoning that the Act requires 48 hours' notice of matters on which final action will be taken, but does not require a public body to act on every listed item or prohibit it from revising an agenda to delete items due to changed circumstances. Because the public still received proper advance notice of the matters actually acted upon, and the board's update actually improved transparency, the PAC found the township board's agenda amendment complied with the law.

Improper Discussion of Salary Increases for City Employees in a Closed Meeting
The requester, a newspaper publisher, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss and then approved an across-the-board cost-of-living raise for city employees under the exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the specific-employees exception does not extend to a general budgetary discussion affecting a broad category of employees, and that a second exception the city council later invoked for salary schedules could not be relied on because it had not been publicly cited at the time of the vote to close the meeting. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion and bring future meetings into compliance.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a board member, alleged that the village board voted to amend and approve a settlement agreement under a generic 'Old Business' agenda item that gave no notice the matter would be subject to final action, over the objection of the board's own attorney that the vote would be illegal. The Public Access Counselor held that an agenda item must disclose the general subject matter of any resolution or measure that will be finally acted on, and that 'Old Business' failed to do so here. The village board was directed to reconsider the settlement agreement at a properly noticed meeting.

Discussion of Legal Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
A county state's attorney, relaying citizen concerns, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss ending a decades-old revenue-sharing agreement with a neighboring town, citing probable litigation, even though the mayor had publicly said no lawsuit was expected. The Public Access Counselor held that the council's closed-session discussion focused on what to do about the agreement rather than on litigation strategy, and that the council had not shown it had reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand, so the litigation exception did not apply. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Disclosure of Recordings of Public Meetings
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought audio recordings of the housing authority board's open meetings from a given year, and the housing authority withheld them as preliminary, deliberative material. The Public Access Counselor held that a verbatim recording of a meeting that was open to the public is inherently subject to public scrutiny and is not the kind of predecisional record the deliberative-process exemption protects, regardless of the purpose for which the recording was made. The housing authority was directed to disclose the requested meeting recordings.

Discussion of the Conduct of a Public Body Member in Closed Session Pastor Marvin Hightower President Peoria NAACP P.O. Box 6002 Peoria, Illinois 61601
An advocacy organization alleged that a village board closed part of a meeting to discuss a board member's racially charged public comments, after an agenda item identified the matter for discussion, rather than address the issue openly. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the potentially applicable exceptions authorized the closed session: the specific-employees exception does not cover elected board members, the board lacked authority to remove one of its own members so the removal-of-office exception did not apply, and the board was not sitting in a quasi-adjudicative capacity when it discussed the comments. The village board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Improper Discussion of Budget and Layoffs in Closed Session
The requester, a faculty union president, sought review of a university board's closed session in which it discussed the university's budget and layoffs, arguing that the board improperly relied on the closed-session exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of budgetary matters or categories of employees, and that only a brief portion of the closed session concerning one employee's contract fell within the exception. The board was directed to disclose the recording and minutes of the closed-session discussion of budget and layoff matters, apart from the narrow, properly closed portion.

Discussion of the Duties and Salaries of Elected Officials in Closed Session
The requester, an elected county auditor, sought review after a county board committee entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the salaries and duties of independently elected county officials including herself. The Public Access Counselor held that elected officials such as a county auditor or coroner are not "employees" of the county for purposes of the specific-employees exception, since the county does not direct their work or have authority to remove them, so the closed session exceeded the scope of any applicable exception. The committee was directed to disclose the recording of the improperly closed portion of its meeting.

"Established" and Recorded Rules for Public Comment
The requester, a member of the public, sought review of a school district's board of education after it limited the public comment portion of its meeting to a total of 15 minutes and refused to let some attendees speak on a matter of public concern. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act because it applied an unestablished and unrecorded rule to restrict public comment; its policy manual set a per-speaker time limit but contained no 15-minute cumulative cap. The board was directed to refrain from applying unestablished and unrecorded rules to future public comment periods.

Public Recital of the Nature of the Matter Under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
The requester, a newspaper, sought review of a school board's vote to approve a resolution authorizing a formal disciplinary notice to a teacher after the board announced only the resolution's number and title before voting, and the superintendent stated the underlying details had been discussed only in closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement of a public recital sufficient to identify the business being conducted, because identifying an unnamed teacher subject to discipline did not give the public adequate notice of the transaction. The board was directed to reconsider and re-vote on the resolution at a properly noticed meeting that names the teacher and describes the action being taken.

Right to Address Public Officials at a Public Meeting
The requester, a member of the public who did not reside within the city, sought review after a mayor refused to let her speak during a city council's public comment period, telling her she had "no standing" because she was not a resident. The Public Access Counselor held that the council had no established and recorded rule restricting public comment to residents, and further concluded that even such a rule would violate the Open Meetings Act's right to address public officials. The council was directed to refrain from limiting public comment to city residents at future meetings.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not Sufficiently Identified on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, sought review of a city council's meeting agenda after the council voted to raise permit application fees fivefold under an agenda item that listed only an ordinance number and a municipal code section, without describing its subject matter. The Public Access Counselor held that the agenda violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final-action items disclose the general subject matter of the business to be conducted, since referencing only an ordinance and code section gave the public no indication that a fee increase was being considered. The council was directed to reconsider its action at a properly noticed meeting with an agenda that identifies the general subject matter of the ordinance.

Duty to Approve Meeting Minutes Within Time Period Specified by OMA
The requester, a resident, sought review after a village board of trustees approved the minutes of three earlier meetings held between two and three months after those meetings took place. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to approve minutes within 30 days of a meeting or by its second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later, rejecting the board's argument that an unusually heavy meeting schedule and staffing shortages excused the delay. The board was directed to develop protocols ensuring minutes are approved within the statutory deadline going forward.

South Loop Elementary School Local School Council violated OMA by discussing principal evaluation in closed session
The requester, a member of a school's local school council, sought review after the council entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the general process and timeline for evaluating the school's principal rather than the principal's individual performance. The Public Access Counselor held that the closed-session exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of evaluation procedures applicable to a category of employees, so the council violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be open unless a narrow exception applies. The council was directed to disclose the recording of the unauthorized portions of its closed-session discussion.

Requirement for the Public to Contemporaneously Hear All Discussion, Testimony, and Roll Call Votes in a Meeting Held Remotely Pursuant to a Public Health Emergency
The requester alleged that a village board of trustees muted part of the open-session discussion during a remotely held meeting without ever announcing it was entering closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that because members of the public could not hear the muted discussion between village officials, the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that a remote meeting allow the public to contemporaneously hear all discussion. The board was directed to make the complete verbatim recording of the open-session portion of the meeting publicly available.

Improper Discussion of Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
The requester, a resident with an ongoing property dispute involving a sewer easement, alleged that a city council improperly discussed the matter in closed session under the exception for probable or imminent litigation. The Public Access Counselor held that the council never made or recorded a finding that litigation was probable or imminent as the exception requires, and that its discussion concerned the underlying dispute rather than litigation strategy. The council was directed to disclose the portion of the closed-session recording and minutes concerning the resident's property.

Duty to Make Verbatim Recordings of Closed Sessions of Committee Meetings
The requester, a public transit district employee, alleged that a personnel committee failed to make a verbatim recording of its closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to record all closed sessions, a violation the committee itself acknowledged after discovering its recorder had not been turned on. The committee was directed to adopt procedures to ensure all future closed sessions are properly recorded.

Proper Remote Meeting During a Public Health Emergency
The requester, a resident, alleged that a school board's decision to hold a meeting remotely via Zoom during the pandemic was really a pretext to avoid members of the public who had been disruptive at an earlier in-person meeting. The Public Access Counselor found that the board satisfied every requirement for a proper remote meeting, including an active disaster declaration, the board president's documented determination that an in-person meeting was imprudent because of a mask-related disturbance at the prior meeting, and a livestream that let the public hear the entire meeting. No violation was found.

Improper Private Meeting
The requester, a library board trustee, alleged that a majority of a quorum of library district trustees held an undisclosed "meet and greet" with staff that amounted to a closed meeting without proper notice. The Public Access Counselor held that because the gathering involved an interactive, collective discussion of library business such as staffing and taxes, it constituted a "meeting" under the Open Meetings Act regardless of its informal label. The library board was directed to make the video recording of the gathering public and to approve written minutes for it.

Improper Closed Session Discussion of Removing Book from Curriculum
The requester, a resident, alleged that a school board improperly discussed removing a book from an English class curriculum in closed session after a parent's grievance about the book reached the board. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the personnel, quasi-adjudicative, or student-placement exceptions the board cited authorized closing the meeting, because the board was actually deliberating on a curriculum decision affecting students generally rather than a specific employee's conduct or an individual student. The board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording, with only the brief portions naming a specific student redacted, and to revise its closed-session minutes to meaningfully summarize the discussion.

Taking Final Action in Closed Session
The requester, a resident, alleged that a city council authorized an exclusive real estate brokerage agreement for city office space during closed session rather than voting on it in open session. The Public Access Counselor held that the verbatim recording showed the council's city manager sought and received the council's approval to execute the agreement in closed session, which constituted final action barred from occurring outside of open session regardless of the dollar amount involved. The city council was directed to reconsider and take final action on the agreement in open session after an adequate public recital.

Attendance by Means Other Than Physical Presence Because of Employment Purposes; Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, alleged that a village board improperly let its president attend meetings remotely for work reasons and separately approved a truck purchase that was not disclosed on the meeting agenda. The Public Access Counselor held that the president's work-related travel properly justified his remote attendance under the Open Meetings Act, but that the board violated the Act by voting to purchase the truck without first listing that action's general subject matter on the agenda. Because the board had already re-noticed and re-voted on the truck purchase by the time of this opinion, no further remedy was ordered for that violation.

Duty to Make Meetings Convenient and Open to the Public
Several residents alleged that a village board's meetings were not convenient and open to the public because of inadequate seating and an intimidating security presence, including street and parking-lot barricades that stranded elderly and disabled residents outside. The Public Access Counselor held that the board took no steps to accommodate the crowds it knew to expect and instead added unjustified security restrictions, violating the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be convenient and open to the public. The board was directed to hold future meetings in adequately sized, accessible locations and to refrain from unnecessary security measures that impede public attendance.

Notice of a Change in Regular Meeting Dates
The requester, a resident, alleged that a village board changed its regular meeting dates without providing the ten-day newspaper notice of that change required by the Open Meetings Act. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated section 2.03 of OMA because listing the new meeting dates on utility bills and a newspaper article about the change did not satisfy the required newspaper-publication notice. Because the board had since published proper legal notice of the changed schedule, no further remedy was ordered.

Informal Committee of City is Subsidiary Body
The requester, a resident, alleged that a city's pool-building committee, composed of city officials and citizens appointed by the mayor, had been meeting privately without complying with the Open Meetings Act. The Public Access Counselor held that, based on the governmental function the committee performed and the degree of city control over it, the committee was a subsidiary body of the city subject to all of OMA's requirements. The committee was directed to ensure future meetings comply with OMA, including proper notice, minutes, and public comment, and to complete OMA training.

Improper Private Meeting
The requester alleged that a county board held an improper private meeting when a majority of a quorum of its members attended an informational presentation on a proposed energy project hosted by a private company. The Public Access Counselor held that because the members engaged in an interactive discussion with the company about a project affecting the county, the gathering constituted a "meeting" subject to the Open Meetings Act despite lacking formal notice. The board was directed to generate minutes summarizing the presentation or have the company recreate it at a properly noticed open meeting.

Improper Closed Session Discussion of Overdue Loans
The requester, a village trustee, alleged that a village board's mayor cited a "personnel" closed-session exception but then discussed businesses' overdue tax-increment-financing loans instead. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's procedure for entering closed session by failing to publicly cite and record the actual exception relied upon, and that the loan discussion was not shown to involve probable or imminent litigation as later claimed. The board was directed to make the closed-session recording of that discussion publicly available.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not Sufficiently Identified on Meeting Agenda
The requester alleged that a village board voted to terminate a police officer's employment under a meeting agenda item that listed only "Personnel issues" without identifying the employee's category or type of personnel action. The Public Access Counselor held that this generic listing failed to satisfy the Open Meetings Act's requirement that an agenda set forth the general subject matter of anticipated final action with sufficient detail to inform the public. The board was directed to re-vote on the termination after posting an agenda that identifies the category of employee and type of personnel action.

Determination letters

Champaign School Board did not violate OMA via email discussions on appointments
A citizen alleged that a school board president's e-mails to board members about committee assignments constituted an improper private deliberation and final action under the Open Meetings Act. The PAC found that most of the e-mails involved fewer than a majority of a quorum, that the president's e-mails to a majority of a quorum did not elicit any deliberative responses from other members, and that a tentative e-mail statement about appointments was not final action because the board later voted on those matters in open session. The PAC found no violation but cautioned the board to be mindful of OMA when discussing public business by e-mail between meetings.

PAC lacks authority to review Chicago committee quorum dispute under OMA
This determination addresses whether the Chicago City Council's Committee on Housing and Real Estate violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by voting on agenda items during a December 6, 2018 meeting despite an alleged lack of quorum. The Public Access Counselor concluded that the information provided gave no basis to find an OMA violation, reasoning that OMA governs meeting transparency but does not set or enforce the number of members required to constitute a quorum for a public body to take action -- that issue is governed by the body's own governing rules and other statutes, not OMA. The letter noted that OMA's physical-presence quorum requirement (section 7(a)) relates specifically to remote/audio-video participation under section 2.01, which was not alleged here. Because the Public Access Bureau's authority is limited to alleged OMA and FOIA violations, it lacked authority to review compliance with the City Council's own governing rules regarding quorum size, and the matter was closed with no further action.

Village of Albany Board cleared of unnoted closed meeting violation
A local official complained that members of the Village Board held secret, private meetings to discuss village business. The Attorney General's office investigated but found there wasn't enough evidence to prove that an illegal meeting took place. The office closed the case but reminded the Board to be careful about how they communicate to ensure they follow open meeting laws.

City of Washington City Council advised on audibility requirements under Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that they could not hear the proceedings at City of Washington council meetings due to poor audio quality in the meeting venues. The Attorney General's office provided guidance, explaining that the Open Meetings Act requires public bodies to provide reasonable access to meetings, which includes taking reasonable measures to ensure proceedings are audible to the public. The office recommended that the City Council review the concerns and consider measures such as changing the meeting location or using microphones, but did not make any finding of a violation.

Morton School Board did not violate OMA by failing to admonish speakers or by overcrowded meeting space
A citizen complained that a school board meeting was overcrowded and that the board failed to stop offensive comments made by members of the public. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and concluded that the board did not violate the Open Meetings Act, as public bodies are not required to censor public comments or guarantee seating for all attendees. Consequently, the case was closed with no further action taken.

City of Leland Grove City Council violated OMA with private meeting that included mayor
This determination addresses whether a private gathering of the mayor, two City Council members, and two residents on February 8, 2024, to discuss a specific property constituted a 'meeting' under the Open Meetings Act's quorum requirements. The Public Access Bureau held that the City of Leland Grove City Council violated OMA because the gathering involved a majority of a quorum discussing public business without following OMA's notice and openness requirements. The Bureau reasoned that quorum for a non-home-rule municipality is defined by the Illinois Municipal Code, which includes the mayor within 'corporate authorities,' so the mayor counts toward a quorum regardless of local ordinance, Robert's Rules interpretation, or past practice claiming otherwise. As a remedy, the Bureau requested that the Council compile and make public minutes of the February 8, 2024 gathering, and it declined to issue a binding opinion, closing the matter with this non-binding determination letter.

Winnetka Park District Board did not violate OMA by deliberating censure outside meeting
A citizen alleged that the Winnetka Park District Board violated the Open Meetings Act by secretly deliberating about censuring a board member before their April 25, 2024, meeting. The Illinois Attorney General's office investigated and found that the information provided did not show that at least three board members held a group discussion or reached a consensus about the censure before the meeting. The determination concluded that the evidence did not indicate a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

(from Ch. 102, par. 41.01)

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Open Meetings Act. (Source: P.A. 82-378 .)

(from Ch. 102, par. 41.02)

For the purposes of this Act: "Meeting" means any gathering, whether in person or by video or audio conference, telephone call, electronic means (such as, without limitation, electronic mail, electronic chat, and instant messaging), or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication, of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business or, for a 5-member public body, a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business. Accordingly, for a 5-member public body, 3 members of the body constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of 3 members is necessary to adopt any motion, resolution, or ordinance, unless a greater number is otherwise required. "Public body" includes all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the State, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, except the General Assembly and committees or commissions thereof. "Public body" includes tourism boards and convention or civic center boards located in counties that are contiguous to the Mississippi River with populations of more than 250,000 but less than 300,000. "Public body" includes the Health Facilities and Services Review Board. "Public body" does not include a child death review team or the Illinois Child Death Review Teams Executive Council established under the Child Death Review Team Act, an ethics commission acting under the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, a regional youth advisory board or the Statewide Youth Advisory Board established under the Department of Children and Family Services Statewide Youth Advisory Board Act, the Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal, or the regional interagency fatality review teams and the Illinois Fatality Review Team Advisory Council established under the Adult Protective Services Act. (Source: P.A. 103-626, eff. 1-1-25 .)

Determination letters

McHenry County Committee violated OMA by holding private meeting on redistricting
A reporter alleged that county board members held a private meeting to discuss redistricting maps before an official committee meeting. The Attorney General's office found that this gathering met the legal definition of a 'meeting' and violated state law because it was not open to the public, lacked proper notice, and was not recorded. Because the meeting already occurred and no official action was taken, the PAC closed the file with a warning to the board to follow OMA rules in the future.

RTAC of Region 11 is a public body subject to the Open Meetings Act
A reporter challenged whether Regional Trauma Advisory Committees (RTACs) were required to follow the Open Meetings Act. The Attorney General's office decided that these committees are indeed public bodies and must hold open meetings, provide public notice, and keep minutes. This means these committees can no longer conduct their business in private.

Mokena Community Park District OMA email meeting complaint insufficient evidence
A board member complained that the Park District board was conducting public business through private emails, which would violate the Open Meetings Act's requirement for public discussion. The Attorney General's office investigated but could not find enough evidence to prove that an illegal 'meeting' occurred. The office warned the board that using email to discuss public business among a majority of members risks violating the law.

City of Chicago Health in All Policies Task Force ruled a public body under Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that a City of Chicago task force was not following open meeting laws. The Attorney General's office agreed, ruling that the task force is a 'public body' and must follow rules like providing public notice, keeping minutes, and allowing public comment. The task force was instructed to follow these rules for all future meetings.

DeKalb County Enterprise Zone Advisory Board is a public body subject to the Open Meetings Act
A news organization complained that the DeKalb County Enterprise Zone Advisory Board refused to allow the public to attend its meetings, claiming it wasn't a 'public body.' The Attorney General's office disagreed, ruling that the Board is subject to the Open Meetings Act and must hold open meetings, provide public notice, and keep minutes. The Board was instructed to comply with these requirements for all future meetings.

Norridge School District 80 task force is not a public body under OMA
A citizen complained that a school district task force held a private meeting that should have been open to the public. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that this specific task force is not a 'public body' under the law. Because it is not a public body, the group is not required to follow the Open Meetings Act rules regarding public access.

Norridge School District 80's Superintendent's Task Force not a public body under OMA
A citizen complained that a school district task force held a private meeting that should have been open to the public. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that this specific task force is not a 'public body' under the law. Because it is not a public body, the group is not required to follow the Open Meetings Act rules regarding public access.

NIU Board of Trustees Executive Committee did not violate OMA at joint sessions
A citizen complained to the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau that two members of the Northern Illinois University Board of Trustees' Executive Committee violated the Open Meetings Act by meeting privately with members of the NIU Foundation and Alumni Association. The Bureau investigated and found that although the two members constituted a majority of a quorum of the Executive Committee, the joint sessions were informational only—no public business was discussed or deliberated. Therefore, the Bureau concluded that no violation occurred and the case was closed.

Bilingual Parent Advisory Committee not a public body under OMA
A parent advocacy group alleged that a school district's Bilingual Parent Advisory Committee violated the Open Meetings Act by not allowing public comment at two 2017 meetings. The PAC determined that the Committee did not meet the criteria for an advisory body under the Act because it operates autonomously under its own authorizing statute rather than as part of the district's formal governance structure. Because the Committee is not a public body subject to the Act, the PAC did not need to decide whether those specific meetings violated the Open Meetings Act.

PAC unable to confirm village water/sewer committee violated OMA over private culvert inspection
A resident complained that village committee members met at his home to discuss public business without following open meeting rules like posting an agenda or taking minutes. The Attorney General's office investigated but could not confirm that a formal meeting took place. They advised the village to have members visit sites individually in the future to avoid accidentally triggering open meeting requirements.

City of Naperville did not violate OMA because evaluation committee is not a public body
A citizen complained that a city committee evaluating redevelopment bids held private meetings in violation of the Open Meetings Act. The Attorney General's office investigated and determined that this specific committee was not a 'public body' under the law. Consequently, the committee was not required to follow open meeting rules, and no violation occurred.

School District 59 board emails not a meeting under Open Meetings Act
A reporter alleged that a school board was illegally conducting public business through private emails. The Attorney General's office reviewed the emails and concluded they did not count as a 'meeting' under the law. Therefore, no violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred.

Fosterburg Water District Board retreat not proven a meeting under OMA
A citizen complained that a water district board held a private 'retreat' without following public meeting rules. The Attorney General's office investigated but found no proof that the board members actually discussed official government business during the event. Because there was no evidence of a formal meeting, the office closed the case without finding a violation.

East Dundee Board did not violate OMA by attending public forum without deliberation
A state representative complained that village board members held an illegal private meeting by attending public forums about a local referendum. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that simply attending a public event does not count as an official board meeting, provided the members do not deliberate on public business among themselves. Therefore, no laws were broken.

Village of Wheeling Mayor's breakfast speech not a meeting under OMA
This determination addresses whether the Open Meetings Act's notice and access requirements applied to a Chamber of Commerce breakfast event where the Village of Wheeling Village President and the Prospect Heights Mayor gave 'State of the Village and City' addresses. The Public Access Bureau held that the information provided gave no basis to conclude the Village or its Board violated OMA, because there was no indication that a majority of a quorum of Board members attended and engaged in contemporaneous interactive communication about public business. A single member's speech at a not-for-profit organization's event does not itself trigger OMA. The matter was closed with no further action.

Illinois School for the Deaf Advisory Council did not violate OMA by speaking with reporter
A citizen complained that members of a public advisory council held an illegal secret meeting with a newspaper reporter. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that simply talking to a reporter does not count as a formal public meeting under the law. Therefore, no violation occurred, though the council was advised to be careful in the future.

Northern Illinois University President's Staff Committee not a public body under OMA
A citizen complained that a university committee was holding private meetings without following open meeting laws. The Attorney General's office investigated and decided that this specific committee is not a 'public body' under the law. This means the committee is not required to post agendas, keep minutes, or allow the public to attend its meetings.

NIU President's Staff Committee is not a public body under Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that a university committee was holding secret meetings without following open meeting laws. The Attorney General's office investigated and concluded that this specific committee is merely an advisory group to the university president and does not qualify as a 'public body' that must follow those laws. Therefore, the committee is not required to post agendas or keep minutes for public review.

City of Evanston did not violate OMA for community meeting without agenda
A resident complained that the Evanston City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a community meeting on May 20, 2019, about the Robert Crown Community Center without posting an agenda or following OMA requirements. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau investigated and found that although a majority of a quorum of council members attended, they did not engage in deliberative discussion of public business. Therefore, the event did not constitute a City Council meeting, and no violation occurred.

Chicago Crisis Intervention Advisory Committee violated OMA by holding meetings without notice
A requester alleged that the Chicago Crisis Intervention Advisory Committee and its subcommittees held meetings without public notice, agendas, or minutes, violating the Open Meetings Act. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the Advisory Committee is a public body subject to OMA and that it improperly held meetings without adhering to the Act's requirements. The source document does not specify any particular remedies or orders beyond that conclusion.

Village of Capron Board of Trustees violated OMA by holding private conference call meeting
A Village Trustee reported that the Village Board held a private conference call to discuss public business, which excluded the public and lacked proper notice. The Attorney General's office agreed that this call was an illegal meeting under the Open Meetings Act. The Board was instructed to create and release minutes of that meeting to fix the violation.

Violence Prevention Planning Committee not a public body under Open Meetings Act
A reporter requested that the Attorney General investigate whether a city committee was required to hold public meetings under the Open Meetings Act. The Attorney General's office concluded that the committee is not a 'public body' because it lacks the necessary government control or official advisory status. Consequently, the committee is not required to follow the open meeting rules.

Violence Prevention Planning Committee is not a public body subject to OMA
This determination letter addresses whether the Violence Prevention Planning Committee of the City of Chicago is a 'public body' subject to the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.02) with respect to its December 17, 2020 meeting. The Public Access Bureau held that the Committee is not a public body under OMA because it is neither an 'advisory body' nor a 'subsidiary body' of the Chicago City Council, the City's governing body. The Committee was created to advise the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Public Safety, not the City Council, and lacked a budget, binding authority, or deliberative/investigative functions, and government-affiliated members did not control it. Because OMA's public-body definition was not met, the Committee's meetings are not subject to OMA's open-meeting requirements, and the file was closed with no further action.

Cook County Board of Review commissioners' private amendment talks were subject to OMA
A complainant alleged that two Cook County Board of Review commissioners held private discussions about a proposed amendment to the Property Tax Code, arguing these should have been discussed in a public meeting. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau issued a determination under the Open Meetings Act, concluding that the discussions pertained to public business and were subject to OMA's requirements. The document contains legal analysis but does not explicitly state a finding of a violation or issue a specific order.

Arlington Heights Board no further action on informal straw poll meeting claim
A resident complained that the Village of Arlington Heights Board was using informal polls to decide on agenda items outside of public meetings. The Attorney General's office reviewed the claim and found no evidence that the Board held an illegal private meeting. Consequently, the office closed the case without taking further action.

Arlington Heights Board straw polls not proven to be illegal meeting
A citizen complained that the Village of Arlington Heights Board was using informal polls to decide on agenda items outside of public meetings. The Attorney General's office reviewed the claim and found no evidence that the Board held an illegal private meeting. Because the complaint lacked sufficient facts to prove a violation occurred, the office closed the case.

Community Unit School District No. 300 LGBTQ+ Parent Advisory Committee not a public body under OMA
A parent complained that they were barred from attending a school district's LGBTQ+ parent committee meeting. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the committee is an informal support group, not an official government body. Because it is not a 'public body,' it does not have to follow the state's open meeting laws.

Community Unit School District 300 LGBTQ+ Parent Advisory Committee not a public body under OMA
A parent complained that they were barred from attending a school district's LGBTQ+ parent committee meeting. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the committee is an informal support group, not an official government body. Because it is not a 'public body,' it does not have to follow the Open Meetings Act rules regarding public access.

Stevenson High School District 125 board town hall not a meeting under OMA
A citizen alleged that the Board of Education of Stevenson High School District 125 held an improper private meeting on March 16, 2023, during a Zoom town hall event attended by five board members. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau issued a formal determination under section 3.5(e) of the Open Meetings Act, finding that the gathering did not constitute a 'meeting' under OMA because the board members did not deliberate among themselves or gather information as a preliminary step to decision-making. The case was closed with that determination.

Cook County Board of Review did not violate OMA at budget hearing
A citizen complained that members of the Cook County Board of Review met improperly during a budget hearing. The Attorney General's office reviewed the video of the meeting and found no evidence that the Board members held a private discussion or deliberation. Therefore, the office closed the case without finding a violation.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Training. (a) Every public body shall designate employees, officers, or members to receive training on compliance with this Act. Each public body shall submit a list of designated employees, officers, or members to the Public Access Counselor. Within 6 months after January 1, 2010 (the effective date of Public Act 96-542), the designated employees, officers, and members must successfully complete an electronic training curriculum, developed and administered by the Public Access Counselor, and thereafter must successfully complete an annual training program. Thereafter, whenever a public body designates an additional employee, officer, or member to receive this training, that person must successfully complete the electronic training curriculum within 30 days after that designation. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, each elected or appointed member of a public body subject to this Act who is such a member on January 1, 2012 (the effective date of Public Act 97-504) must successfully complete the electronic training curriculum developed and administered by the Public Access Counselor. For these members, the training must be completed within one year after January 1, 2012 (the effective date of Public Act 97-504). Except as otherwise provided in this Section, each elected or appointed member of a public body subject to this Act who becomes such a member after January 1, 2012 (the effective date of Public Act 97-504) shall successfully complete the electronic training curriculum developed and administered by the Public Access Counselor. For these members, the training must be completed not later than the 90th day after the date the member: (1) takes the oath of office, if the member is required to take an oath of office to assume the person's duties as a member of the public body; or (2) otherwise assumes responsibilities as a member of the public body, if the member is not required to take an oath of office to assume the person's duties as a member of the governmental body. Each member successfully completing the electronic training curriculum shall file a copy of the certificate of completion with the public body. Completing the required training as a member of the public body satisfies the requirements of this Section with regard to the member's service on a committee or subcommittee of the public body and the member's ex officio service on any other public body. The failure of one or more members of a public body to complete the training required by this Section does not affect the validity of an action taken by the public body. An elected or appointed member of a public body subject to this Act who has successfully completed the training required under this subsection (b) and filed a copy of the certificate of completion with the public body is not required to subsequently complete the training required under this subsection (b). (c) An elected school board member may satisfy the training requirements of this Section by participating in a course of training sponsored or conducted by an organization created under Article 23 of the School Code. The course of training shall include, but not be limited to, instruction in: (1) the general background of the legal requirements for open meetings; (2) the applicability of this Act to public bodies; (3) procedures and requirements regarding quorums, notice, and record-keeping under this Act; (4) procedures and requirements for holding an open meeting and for holding a closed meeting under this Act; and (5) penalties and other consequences for failing to comply with this Act. If an organization created under Article 23 of the School Code provides a course of training under this subsection (c), it must provide a certificate of course completion to each school board member who successfully completes that course of training. (d) A commissioner of a drainage district may satisfy the training requirements of this Section by participating in a course of training sponsored or conducted by an organization that represents the drainage districts created under the Illinois Drainage Code. The course of training shall include, but not be limited to, instruction in: (1) the general background of the legal requirements for open meetings; (2) the applicability of this Act to public bodies; (3) procedures and requirements regarding quorums, notice, and record-keeping under this Act; (4) procedures and requirements for holding an open meeting and for holding a closed meeting under this Act; and (5) penalties and other consequences for failing to comply with this Act. If an organization that represents the drainage districts created under the Illinois Drainage Code provides a course of training under this subsection (d), it must provide a certificate of course completion to each commissioner who successfully completes that course of training. (e) A director of a soil and water conservation district may satisfy the training requirements of this Section by participating in a course of training sponsored or conducted by an organization that represents soil and water conservation districts created under the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act. The course of training shall include, but not be limited to, instruction in: (1) the general background of the legal requirements for open meetings; (2) the applicability of this Act to public bodies; (3) procedures and requirements regarding quorums, notice, and record-keeping under this Act; (4) procedures and requirements for holding an open meeting and for holding a closed meeting under this Act; and (5) penalties and other consequences for failing to comply with this Act. If an organization that represents the soil and water conservation districts created under the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act provides a course of training under this subsection (e), it must provide a certificate of course completion to each director who successfully completes that course of training. (f) An elected or appointed member of a public body of a park district, forest preserve district, or conservation district may satisfy the training requirements of this Section by participating in a course of training sponsored or conducted by an organization that represents the park districts created in the Park District Code. The course of training shall include, but not be limited to, instruction in: (1) the general background of the legal requirements for open meetings; (2) the applicability of this Act to public bodies; (3) procedures and requirements regarding quorums, notice, and record-keeping under this Act; (4) procedures and requirements for holding an open meeting and for holding a closed meeting under this Act; and (5) penalties and other consequences for failing to comply with this Act. If an organization that represents the park districts created in the Park District Code provides a course of training under this subsection (f), it must provide a certificate of course completion to each elected or appointed member of a public body who successfully completes that course of training. (g) An elected or appointed member of the board of trustees of a fire protection district may satisfy the training requirements of this Section by participating in a course of training sponsored or conducted by an organization that represents fire protection districts created under the Fire Protection District Act. The course of training shall include, but not be limited to, instruction in: (1) the general background of the legal requirements for open meetings; (2) the applicability of this Act to public bodies; (3) procedures and requirements regarding quorums, notice, and record-keeping under this Act; (4) procedures and requirements for holding an open meeting and for holding a closed meeting under this Act; and (5) penalties and other consequences for failing to comply with this Act. If an organization that represents fire protection districts organized under the Fire Protection District Act provides a course of training under this subsection (g), it must provide a certificate of course completion to each elected or appointed member of a board of trustees who successfully completes that course of training. (h) An elected or appointed member of a public body of a municipality may satisfy the training requirements of this Section by participating in a course of training sponsored or conducted by an organization that represents municipalities as designated in Section 1-8-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code. The course of training shall include, but not be limited to, instruction in: (1) the general background of the legal requirements for open meetings; (2) the applicability of this Act to public bodies; (3) procedures and requirements regarding quorums, notice, and record-keeping under this Act; (4) procedures and requirements for holding an open meeting and for holding a closed meeting under this Act; and (5) penalties and other consequences for failing to comply with this Act. If an organization that represents municipalities as designated in Section 1-8-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code provides a course of training under this subsection (h), it must provide a certificate of course completion to each elected or appointed member of a public body who successfully completes that course of training. (i) An elected or appointed member of a public body of a township may satisfy the training requirements of this Section by participating in a course of training sponsored or conducted by an organization that represents townships created under the Township Code. The course of training shall include, but shall not be limited to, instruction in: (1) the general background of the legal requirements for open meetings; (2) the applicability of this Act to public bodies; (3) procedures and requirements regarding quorums, notice, and recordkeeping under this Act; (4) procedures and requirements for holding an open meeting and for holding a closed meeting under this Act; and (5) penalties and other consequences for failing to comply with this Act. If an organization that represents townships created under the Township Code provides a course of training under this subsection, it must provide a certificate of course completion to each elected or appointed member of a public body who successfully completes that course of training. (Source: P.A. 104-438, eff. 1-1-26.)

Determination letters

Insufficient evidence Royal Lakes Board violated OMA on agenda items or training
Village officials alleged that the Board of Trustees voted on items that were not properly listed on the meeting agenda and that a specific trustee had not completed required legal training. The Attorney General's office investigated but found there was not enough evidence to prove these violations occurred. Consequently, the office closed the case without taking further action.

City of Earlville City Council violated OMA by holding meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three City Council members held a private gathering to discuss city business without public notice or minutes. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that this gathering violated the Open Meetings Act because it involved a majority of a quorum deliberating public business. The Bureau also noted an allegation that three aldermen failed to complete required OMA training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The letter cautions the City Council to comply with OMA in the future.

City of Earlville violated Open Meetings Act by holding three-alderman meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three city aldermen met privately to discuss city business without telling the public or recording what happened. The Attorney General's office agreed that this was an illegal meeting under the Open Meetings Act and found that the city council violated the Act by failing to provide notice and keep minutes. The office also noted an allegation that the aldermen had not completed required training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The office cautioned the city council to comply with the Act in the future.

Energy Code Advisory Council late on OMA electronic training, no further action warranted
A citizen complained that a state advisory council failed to provide proper public notice for meetings and did not follow training rules. The Attorney General's office found that the council was late in completing the required electronic training on the Open Meetings Act, but that no further action was warranted on the other allegations. The office noted the training was eventually completed and closed the matter without imposing any penalty.

Energy Code Advisory Council partially violated OMA by late electronic training
A citizen alleged that the Energy Code Advisory Council of the Illinois Capital Development Board violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to provide proper notice for meetings and by not completing required electronic training. The Attorney General's office determined that the council was late in completing the training requirements, but no further action was warranted on that issue or on the other allegations, including the notice claims, because the council met on an ad hoc basis and the office lacked authority to review alleged violations of other rules.

City of Colchester City Council did not violate OMA on agenda, public comment
A citizen alleged that a city council violated OMA by discussing matters not on a special-meeting agenda, mishandling public comment, engaging in post-adjournment discussions, and failing to complete member training on time. The PAC found no violation in the agenda, public-comment, or post-adjournment allegations, but determined that members who had not completed required OMA training within the statutory period violated OMA. Because the Act provides no penalty for late training, the Council was cautioned to comply prospectively.

(from Ch. 102, par. 42) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-438)

Open meetings. (a) Openness required. All meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public unless excepted in subsection (c) and closed in accordance with Section 2a. (b) Construction of exceptions. The exceptions contained in subsection (c) are in derogation of the requirement that public bodies meet in the open, and therefore, the exceptions are to be strictly construed, extending only to subjects clearly within their scope. The exceptions authorize but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included within an enumerated exception. (c) Exceptions. A public body may hold closed meetings to consider the following subjects: (1) The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees, specific individuals who serve as independent contractors in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or specific volunteers of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee, a specific individual who serves as an independent contractor in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or a volunteer of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity. However, a meeting to consider an increase in compensation to a specific employee of a public body that is subject to the Local Government Wage Increase Transparency Act may not be closed and shall be open to the public and posted and held in accordance with this Act. (2) Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees. (3) The selection of a person to fill a public office, as defined in this Act, including a vacancy in a public office, when the public body is given power to appoint under law or ordinance, or the discipline, performance or removal of the occupant of a public office, when the public body is given power to remove the occupant under law or ordinance. (4) Evidence or testimony presented in open hearing, or in closed hearing where specifically authorized by law, to a quasi-adjudicative body, as defined in this Act, provided that the body prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning. (4.5) Evidence or testimony presented to a school board regarding denial of admission to school events or property pursuant to Section 24-24 of the School Code, provided that the school board prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning. (5) The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired. (6) The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body. (7) The sale or purchase of securities, investments, or investment contracts. This exception shall not apply to the investment of assets or income of funds deposited into the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Trust Fund. (8) Security procedures, school building safety and security, and the use of personnel and equipment to respond to an actual, a threatened, or a reasonably potential danger to the safety of employees, students, staff, the public, or public property. (9) Student disciplinary cases. (10) The placement of individual students in special education programs and other matters relating to individual students. (11) Litigation, when an action against, affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting. (12) The establishment of reserves or settlement of claims as provided in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, if otherwise the disposition of a claim or potential claim might be prejudiced, or the review or discussion of claims, loss or risk management information, records, data, advice or communications from or with respect to any insurer of the public body or any intergovernmental risk management association or self insurance pool of which the public body is a member. (13) Conciliation of complaints of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, when closed meetings are authorized by the law or ordinance prescribing fair housing practices and creating a commission or administrative agency for their enforcement. (14) Informant sources, the hiring or assignment of undercover personnel or equipment, or ongoing, prior or future criminal investigations, when discussed by a public body with criminal investigatory responsibilities. (15) Professional ethics or performance when considered by an advisory body appointed to advise a licensing or regulatory agency on matters germane to the advisory body's field of competence. (16) Self evaluation, practices and procedures, or professional ethics, when meeting with a representative of a statewide or regional association of which the public body is a member. (17) The recruitment, credentialing, discipline or formal peer review of physicians or other health care professionals, or for the discussion of matters protected under the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including 42 C.F.R. Part 3 (73 FR 70732), or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 162, and 164, by a hospital, or other institution providing medical care, that is operated by the public body. (18) Deliberations for decisions of the Prisoner Review Board. (19) Review or discussion of applications received under the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Act. (20) The classification and discussion of matters classified as confidential or continued confidential by the State Government Suggestion Award Board. (21) Discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by Section 2.06. (22) Deliberations for decisions of the State Emergency Medical Services Disciplinary Review Board. (23) The operation by a municipality of a municipal utility or the operation of a municipal power agency or municipal natural gas agency when the discussion involves (i) contracts relating to the purchase, sale, or delivery of electricity or natural gas or (ii) the results or conclusions of load forecast studies. (24) Meetings of a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (25) Meetings of an independent team of experts under Brian's Law. (26) Meetings of a mortality review team appointed under the Department of Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team Act. (27) (Blank). (28) Correspondence and records (i) that may not be disclosed under Section 11-9 of the Illinois Public Aid Code or (ii) that pertain to appeals under Section 11-8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (29) Meetings between internal or external auditors and governmental audit committees, finance committees, and their equivalents, when the discussion involves internal control weaknesses, identification of potential fraud risk areas, known or suspected frauds, and fraud interviews conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards of the United States of America. (30) (Blank). (31) Meetings and deliberations for decisions of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (32) Meetings between the Regional Transportation Authority Board and its Service Boards when the discussion involves review by the Regional Transportation Authority Board of employment contracts under Section 28d of the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act and Sections 3A.18 and 3B.26 of the Regional Transportation Authority Act. (33) Those meetings or portions of meetings of the advisory committee and peer review subcommittee created under Section 320 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act during which specific controlled substance prescriber, dispenser, or patient information is discussed. (34) Meetings of the Tax Increment Financing Reform Task Force under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (35) Meetings of the group established to discuss Medicaid capitation rates under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (36) Those deliberations or portions of deliberations for decisions of the Illinois Gaming Board in which there is discussed any of the following: (i) personal, commercial, financial, or other information obtained from any source that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, or a trade secret; or (ii) information specifically exempted from the disclosure by federal or State law. (37) Deliberations for decisions of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, the Certification Review Panel, and the Illinois State Police Merit Board regarding certification and decertification. (38) Meetings of the Ad Hoc Statewide Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Board that occur in closed executive session under subsection (d) of Section 35 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (39) Meetings of the regional review teams under subsection (a) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (40) Meetings of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (d) Definitions. For purposes of this Section: "Employee" means a person employed by a public body whose relationship with the public body constitutes an employer-employee relationship under the usual common law rules, and who is not an independent contractor. "Public office" means a position created by or under the Constitution or laws of this State, the occupant of which is charged with the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of this State. The term "public office" shall include members of the public body, but it shall not include organizational positions filled by members thereof, whether established by law or by a public body itself, that exist to assist the body in the conduct of its business. "Quasi-adjudicative body" means an administrative body charged by law or ordinance with the responsibility to conduct hearings, receive evidence or testimony and make determinations based thereon, but does not include local electoral boards when such bodies are considering petition challenges. (e) Final action. No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted. (Source: P.A. 103-311, eff. 7-28-23; 103-626, eff. 1-1-25; 104-438, eff. 1-1-26.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-457, Article 10, Section 10-5)

Breakdown by specific citation: 2: 51 · 2(c)(1) (Employee/contractor appointment, discipline, or performance): 26 · 2(c) (General closed-session exceptions (cites Sec. 2(c) as a whole without naming a specific numbered exception)): 25 · 2(c)(11) (Pending, probable, or imminent litigation): 22 · 2(e) (Final action ban in closed session (no final action may be taken at a closed meeting)): 21 · 2(c)(5) (Purchase or lease of real property): 11 · 2(a) (Openness required (the basic open-meetings mandate, subject to the Sec. 2(c) exceptions)): 8 · 2(c)(6) (Setting a sale/lease price for public body's own property): 3 · 2(c)(4) (Evidence to a quasi-adjudicative body): 3 · 2(c)(16) (Self-evaluation with a statewide/regional association): 2 · 2(c)(3) (Filling a public office / removing an office-holder): 2 · 2a: 2 · 2(c)(2) (Collective negotiating matters / salary schedules): 1 · 2(c)(10) (Placement of individual students in special education): 1 · 2(c)(9) (Student disciplinary cases): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Improper Discussion in Closed Session of Budgetary Matters
The requester, a journalist, challenged a village government's practice of discussing its budget during personnel- and finance-committee sessions closed to the public under the Open Meetings Act's employee-related exception. The Public Access Counselor found that while some closed-session discussion of individual employees was proper, significant portions instead addressed general budgetary and staffing issues that fall outside that narrow exception and must be conducted in open session. The village government was directed to release the portions of its closed-session minutes covering the improperly closed budget discussions, redacting only the properly closed employee-specific portions.

Improper Discussion of Proposed Ordinance in Closed Session; Requirement to Recite and Record Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent; Requirement to Record Closed Sessions; Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited.
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for discussing a proposed landfill ordinance in a closed session under the Open Meetings Act's litigation exception. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee's closed-session discussion went beyond genuine probable-or-imminent litigation, that it failed to publicly state and record its factual basis for finding litigation likely, failed to make a required recording of the closed session, and appears to have reached a final decision on the ordinance in closed session rather than voting in open session as required. The county board was directed to release the improperly closed portions of its minutes, record all future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into full compliance with the Act.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited
The requester challenged a public university's governing board for voting, during a closed session, to terminate a tenured faculty member's employment. The Public Access Counselor's review of the closed-session recording confirmed the board voted on the termination behind closed doors and never disclosed or discussed the action once back in open session, in violation of the Open Meetings Act's prohibition on taking final action in closed session, which applies even to personnel matters. The university was directed to place the matter on a future open-session agenda, explain the proposed action to the public before any vote, and ensure future compliance.

Secret Ballots Prohibited
The requester challenged a county advisory board for using a secret paper ballot to select which candidate to recommend for a vacant board seat, with votes cast anonymously and dropped in a container before being tallied. The Public Access Counselor held that although the advisory board characterized the vote as a nonbinding "straw poll," selecting a single candidate to recommend was itself a final action under the Open Meetings Act, and that using a secret ballot for that decision violated the Act's requirement that public bodies act and deliberate openly, since the public could not see how any individual member voted. The advisory board was directed to conduct all future votes on Act-covered matters openly, disclosing each member's vote.

Requirement to Record and Enter Into Closed Meeting Minutes Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent.
The requester challenged a library board for closing part of a meeting to discuss a payment dispute with an employee benefit plan, arguing no litigation was actually threatened. The Public Access Counselor found the library board had a reasonable basis to believe litigation was probable, since it had received letters from the other party's attorney explicitly threatening suit, and that the closed-session discussion properly stayed within permissible litigation-strategy topics, but held that the board still violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to record and document that litigation-probable finding in its closed-session minutes as the Act requires. The library board was directed to amend its minutes to include that explanation and to record the required finding in all future closed sessions relying on the same exception.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited; Duty to Record Closed Meetings; Summary of Discussion Required in Minutes
The requester, a journalist, challenged a school district for having most of its board members sign a superintendent's separation agreement during a closed session before later ratifying it with a vote in open session. The Public Access Counselor held that while discussing the superintendent's employment in closed session was proper, signing the agreement behind closed doors was itself an improper final action, and that the subsequent open-session vote did not cure the violation because the board never informed the public of the agreement's actual terms, including a substantial lump-sum payment, before voting; the board also violated separate requirements to record its closed sessions and summarize their content in the minutes. The school district was directed to release a summary of the closed-session discussion, properly record and summarize future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into compliance.

Requirement to Publicly Recite Nature of Matter Being Considered and Other Information to Adequately Inform the Public of the Business Being Conducted Before Taking Final Action
The requester, a journalist, challenged the same school district's process for appointing an interim superintendent, arguing the board had effectively decided the appointment behind closed doors before its public vote. The Public Access Counselor found that the board's closed-session discussions were limited to preliminary steps, such as authorizing its attorney to gauge the candidate's interest and agreeing to place the matter on a future public agenda, and that its subsequent open-session vote was preceded by a substantive public discussion of the candidate's salary, duration, and duties. Because the board took no final action behind closed doors and adequately informed the public before voting, the Public Access Counselor found no violation of the Open Meetings Act's requirements.

A Public Body's Special Meeting Held Approximately 26 Miles from its Ordinary Meeting Location is Not "Convenient and Open" to the Public.
The requester alleged that the fire protection district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting at a location far outside the district's boundaries. The board's attorney argued the meeting was held at his law office in a nearby city to save on travel costs for legal consultation, and that it was properly noticed and involved no formal action. The Public Access Counselor held that the meeting location—about 26 miles from the district's usual meeting place, held at 9:00 a.m. on a weekday—violated the requirement that meetings be held somewhere "convenient and open" to the public, since the distance and timing would likely have deterred residents from attending, especially given the significant tax and bond issues discussed. The district was directed to hold all future meetings at locations that are genuinely convenient and open to the public, as required by law.

Duty to Inform the Public of the Nature of the Business under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
A requester alleged that the school district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by voting in open session to dismiss an employee identified only as "Employee A," without naming the employee, after discussing the matter in closed session. The PAC held that while boards may discuss personnel performance issues in closed session, any final action—like a vote to dismiss—must occur in open session and be preceded by a public recital sufficient to inform the public of the actual business being conducted. Because the board withheld the employee's identity, citing privacy concerns, the public could not understand the real effect of the vote (for example, whether the action concerned a support staffer, teacher, or administrator), so the board failed to meet this disclosure requirement. The PAC directed the school district to reconsider its final action and, going forward, to include the employee's name and other identifying information when taking such final action in open session.

Failure to Sufficiently Inform the Public of the Business Being Conducted before Taking Final Action
A journalist filed a request for review after a school district's board voted, during an open meeting, to approve a separation agreement with its former superintendent. The dispute centered on whether the board's brief public statement before the vote—naming the agreement and calling for a motion—satisfied the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final action be preceded by a public recital informing the public of the business being conducted. The Attorney General held that the board violated this requirement because it never disclosed key terms of the agreement, including a large lump-sum payment, and that merely posting the agreement on the school district's website beforehand did not substitute for a verbal public recital during the meeting itself. The board was directed to bring future meetings into compliance with these requirements.

Amending Agenda During 48-Hour Posting Period
The requester alleged that the township board violated the Open Meetings Act by amending its meeting agenda less than 48 hours before a scheduled meeting, removing two action items and moving them to executive session instead. The PAC held that no violation occurred, reasoning that the Act requires 48 hours' notice of matters on which final action will be taken, but does not require a public body to act on every listed item or prohibit it from revising an agenda to delete items due to changed circumstances. Because the public still received proper advance notice of the matters actually acted upon, and the board's update actually improved transparency, the PAC found the township board's agenda amendment complied with the law.

Improper Discussion of Financial Matters and Disposal of Property in a Closed Meeting
A requester alleged that a community college's board improperly closed part of a special meeting to discuss the college's financial condition, tuition, and possible sale or lease of college-owned property, citing the personnel and real estate purchase/lease exceptions of the Open Meetings Act. The Public Access Bureau reviewed the closed-session recording and found the board mainly discussed general budgetary and fiscal matters, which are not covered by the personnel exception even though they might eventually affect employees, and discussed selling or leasing college property, which falls outside the exception that only covers purchasing or leasing property for the board's own use. Because neither cited exception applied, the Attorney General concluded the board violated the Open Meetings Act and directed it to release the closed-session minutes, recording, and related materials to the public.

Failure to Cite Closed Session Exception; Improper Discussion of Proposed Police Services Contract in Closed Session; Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester alleged that a village government's board voted in closed session to disband its police department and enter into a new policing contract without properly noticing the topic. The Public Access Counselor found that the board failed to publicly cite and record the specific Open Meetings Act exception authorizing its closed session, that the closed-session discussion of a proposed police-services contract exceeded the narrow personnel exception it later invoked (since it concerned a contract's cost and scope rather than any individual employee's conduct), and that the meeting agenda's generic "Executive Session" listing did not give the public adequate notice that final action on the contract would be taken. The village government was directed to disclose the closed-session record, re-vote on the contract at a properly noticed meeting, and bring future meetings into compliance.

Failure to Cite an Applicable Exception Before Closing a Meeting to the Public; Improper Discussion ofa Hiring Freeze in a Closed Meeting
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for closing part of a meeting to discuss a hiring freeze and the elimination of an employee's position after citing only "personnel" as its reason. The Public Access Counselor held that a bare reference to "personnel" does not adequately disclose which Open Meetings Act exception authorizes a closed session, that discussing how eliminating a position would affect a specific employee fell within the personnel exception but that the broader hiring-freeze discussion did not qualify as a "collective negotiating" matter because the county was not then engaged in active bargaining with its unions. The county board was directed to disclose the closed-session minutes, subject to redacting one sentence naming a specific employee, and to comply with the Act's citation and recording requirements going forward.

Discussion of Legal Matters ° Under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
The requester challenged a village government's board for closing part of a meeting to discuss "pending/imminent litigation" over a bond sale, after she had publicly stated during the same meeting that her group was not pursuing any lawsuit. The Public Access Counselor held that the board's closed-session minutes never recorded a specific basis for finding litigation probable or imminent as the Open Meetings Act requires, and that the board's stated concern about other, unspecified possible legal challenges to the bond sale did not amount to reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand — the mere possibility that opponents might sue is not enough to invoke the litigation exception. The village government was directed to disclose the closed-session recording concerning the bond sale and to bring future meetings into compliance.

Improper Discussion of Salary Increases for City Employees in a Closed Meeting
The requester, a newspaper publisher, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss and then approved an across-the-board cost-of-living raise for city employees under the exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the specific-employees exception does not extend to a general budgetary discussion affecting a broad category of employees, and that a second exception the city council later invoked for salary schedules could not be relied on because it had not been publicly cited at the time of the vote to close the meeting. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion and bring future meetings into compliance.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a board member, alleged that the village board voted to amend and approve a settlement agreement under a generic 'Old Business' agenda item that gave no notice the matter would be subject to final action, over the objection of the board's own attorney that the vote would be illegal. The Public Access Counselor held that an agenda item must disclose the general subject matter of any resolution or measure that will be finally acted on, and that 'Old Business' failed to do so here. The village board was directed to reconsider the settlement agreement at a properly noticed meeting.

Right to Record an Open Meeting
The requester was barred from recording the open portion of a school board meeting because he asked permission roughly ten minutes beforehand rather than complying with the board's policy requiring 24 hours' advance notice, which the board defended in part by citing the presence of children in the meeting room. The Public Access Counselor held that the Open Meetings Act allows only recording rules reasonably designed to prevent disruption or protect safety, and that the board failed to explain why a blanket 24-hour notice requirement -- as opposed to a narrower rule addressing its stated concern -- was necessary when the requester sought no special accommodations. The school district was directed to revise its recording policy to comply with the Act.

Discussion of Legal Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
A county state's attorney, relaying citizen concerns, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss ending a decades-old revenue-sharing agreement with a neighboring town, citing probable litigation, even though the mayor had publicly said no lawsuit was expected. The Public Access Counselor held that the council's closed-session discussion focused on what to do about the agreement rather than on litigation strategy, and that the council had not shown it had reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand, so the litigation exception did not apply. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Disclosure of Recordings of Public Meetings
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought audio recordings of the housing authority board's open meetings from a given year, and the housing authority withheld them as preliminary, deliberative material. The Public Access Counselor held that a verbatim recording of a meeting that was open to the public is inherently subject to public scrutiny and is not the kind of predecisional record the deliberative-process exemption protects, regardless of the purpose for which the recording was made. The housing authority was directed to disclose the requested meeting recordings.

Discussion of the Conduct of a Public Body Member in Closed Session Pastor Marvin Hightower President Peoria NAACP P.O. Box 6002 Peoria, Illinois 61601
An advocacy organization alleged that a village board closed part of a meeting to discuss a board member's racially charged public comments, after an agenda item identified the matter for discussion, rather than address the issue openly. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the potentially applicable exceptions authorized the closed session: the specific-employees exception does not cover elected board members, the board lacked authority to remove one of its own members so the removal-of-office exception did not apply, and the board was not sitting in a quasi-adjudicative capacity when it discussed the comments. The village board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Improper Discussion of Budget and Layoffs in Closed Session
The requester, a faculty union president, sought review of a university board's closed session in which it discussed the university's budget and layoffs, arguing that the board improperly relied on the closed-session exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of budgetary matters or categories of employees, and that only a brief portion of the closed session concerning one employee's contract fell within the exception. The board was directed to disclose the recording and minutes of the closed-session discussion of budget and layoff matters, apart from the narrow, properly closed portion.

Discussion of the Duties and Salaries of Elected Officials in Closed Session
The requester, an elected county auditor, sought review after a county board committee entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the salaries and duties of independently elected county officials including herself. The Public Access Counselor held that elected officials such as a county auditor or coroner are not "employees" of the county for purposes of the specific-employees exception, since the county does not direct their work or have authority to remove them, so the closed session exceeded the scope of any applicable exception. The committee was directed to disclose the recording of the improperly closed portion of its meeting.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a resident, sought more than two years of village board and committee meeting recordings, minutes, and newsletters, but the village never responded despite months of follow-up emails, calls, and a voicemail from this office. The Public Access Counselor held that the village violated FOIA's requirement to comply with, extend, or deny a request within five business days, which also barred it from later treating the request as unduly burdensome. The village was directed to provide all records responsive to the request.

"Established" and Recorded Rules for Public Comment
The requester, a member of the public, sought review of a school district's board of education after it limited the public comment portion of its meeting to a total of 15 minutes and refused to let some attendees speak on a matter of public concern. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act because it applied an unestablished and unrecorded rule to restrict public comment; its policy manual set a per-speaker time limit but contained no 15-minute cumulative cap. The board was directed to refrain from applying unestablished and unrecorded rules to future public comment periods.

Public Recital of the Nature of the Matter Under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
The requester, a newspaper, sought review of a school board's vote to approve a resolution authorizing a formal disciplinary notice to a teacher after the board announced only the resolution's number and title before voting, and the superintendent stated the underlying details had been discussed only in closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement of a public recital sufficient to identify the business being conducted, because identifying an unnamed teacher subject to discipline did not give the public adequate notice of the transaction. The board was directed to reconsider and re-vote on the resolution at a properly noticed meeting that names the teacher and describes the action being taken.

Right to Address Public Officials at a Public Meeting
The requester, a member of the public who did not reside within the city, sought review after a mayor refused to let her speak during a city council's public comment period, telling her she had "no standing" because she was not a resident. The Public Access Counselor held that the council had no established and recorded rule restricting public comment to residents, and further concluded that even such a rule would violate the Open Meetings Act's right to address public officials. The council was directed to refrain from limiting public comment to city residents at future meetings.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not Sufficiently Identified on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, sought review of a city council's meeting agenda after the council voted to raise permit application fees fivefold under an agenda item that listed only an ordinance number and a municipal code section, without describing its subject matter. The Public Access Counselor held that the agenda violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final-action items disclose the general subject matter of the business to be conducted, since referencing only an ordinance and code section gave the public no indication that a fee increase was being considered. The council was directed to reconsider its action at a properly noticed meeting with an agenda that identifies the general subject matter of the ordinance.

Duty to Approve Meeting Minutes Within Time Period Specified by OMA
The requester, a resident, sought review after a village board of trustees approved the minutes of three earlier meetings held between two and three months after those meetings took place. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to approve minutes within 30 days of a meeting or by its second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later, rejecting the board's argument that an unusually heavy meeting schedule and staffing shortages excused the delay. The board was directed to develop protocols ensuring minutes are approved within the statutory deadline going forward.

South Loop Elementary School Local School Council violated OMA by discussing principal evaluation in closed session
The requester, a member of a school's local school council, sought review after the council entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the general process and timeline for evaluating the school's principal rather than the principal's individual performance. The Public Access Counselor held that the closed-session exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of evaluation procedures applicable to a category of employees, so the council violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be open unless a narrow exception applies. The council was directed to disclose the recording of the unauthorized portions of its closed-session discussion.

Determination letters

McHenry County Committee violated OMA by holding private meeting on redistricting
A reporter alleged that county board members held a private meeting to discuss redistricting maps before an official committee meeting. The Attorney General's office found that this gathering met the legal definition of a 'meeting' and violated state law because it was not open to the public, lacked proper notice, and was not recorded. Because the meeting already occurred and no official action was taken, the PAC closed the file with a warning to the board to follow OMA rules in the future.

Westmont School Board violated OMA by discussing general staffing strategy in closed session
A citizen complained that a school board discussed staffing and retirement issues behind closed doors. The Attorney General's office found that the board broke the law because they discussed general staffing plans, which must be done in public, rather than specific personnel matters. No further action was required because the board had already received training on the issue.

Waukegan School Board violated OMA by failing to provide notice or agenda for collective bargaining meeting
A school board held a private meeting to discuss teacher contract negotiations without telling the public or posting an agenda. The Attorney General's office ruled this was illegal because even if a meeting is meant to be private, the board must first hold a public meeting and follow proper procedures to move into a closed session. The board was warned to follow these rules in the future.

Republican precinct committeemen meeting not subject to Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that a political party meeting failed to follow Open Meetings Act rules regarding agendas and public participation. The Attorney General's office investigated and concluded that the meeting was a private political event, not a government meeting, and therefore the Open Meetings Act did not apply.

Hinsdale D86 school board did not violate OMA in closed self-evaluation session
A school board member complained that their board held a private meeting that was supposed to be about improving board procedures but was actually used to attack political opponents. The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and determined that the discussion was appropriate and stayed within the legal rules for closed-door self-evaluation meetings. As a result, no violation of the Open Meetings Act was found.

Maine Township Board violated OMA by failing to post meeting agenda
A citizen complained that the Maine Township Board of Trustees failed to post the agenda for a September 29, 2015 meeting on its website, and also held a series of 'agency funding hearings' without proper notice. The Attorney General's office found that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by not posting the agenda, but noted that the Board remedied that violation by re-voting on the actions at a later meeting. Regarding the funding hearings, the office analyzed whether they constituted 'meetings' under the Act but did not reach a final determination; it noted the Board's assertion that no deliberation occurred and that the hearings consisted of presentations and questions.

St. Clair County Board violated OMA by taking action on vague agenda items
A citizen complained that the St. Clair County Board voted on eight resolutions without telling the public what those resolutions were about. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the Board's agenda was too vague and that they did not explain the business being conducted during the meeting. The Board was advised to improve its future meeting practices to ensure the public is properly informed.

St. Clair County Board violated OMA by listing resolutions only by number on agenda
A citizen complained that the St. Clair County Board voted on eight resolutions that were only listed by number on the meeting agenda, without explaining what the resolutions were about. The Attorney General's office agreed, stating that public bodies must provide enough information on agendas and during meetings so the public understands what is being voted on. The Board was advised to improve its future practices to ensure transparency.

City of Earlville City Council violated OMA by holding meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three City Council members held a private gathering to discuss city business without public notice or minutes. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that this gathering violated the Open Meetings Act because it involved a majority of a quorum deliberating public business. The Bureau also noted an allegation that three aldermen failed to complete required OMA training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The letter cautions the City Council to comply with OMA in the future.

City of Earlville violated Open Meetings Act by holding three-alderman meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three city aldermen met privately to discuss city business without telling the public or recording what happened. The Attorney General's office agreed that this was an illegal meeting under the Open Meetings Act and found that the city council violated the Act by failing to provide notice and keep minutes. The office also noted an allegation that the aldermen had not completed required training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The office cautioned the city council to comply with the Act in the future.

Kankakee School District 111 Board violated Open Meetings Act by restricting public comment and failing to explain closed session
A citizen complained that a school board cut off his public comments and failed to explain why they were going into a private closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by enforcing a restriction on public comment that was not among its established and recorded rules, and by not adequately informing the public of the reason for entering a second closed session. The determination did not address whether the closed session itself was legally permitted or state any further action required.

North Maine Fire Protection District Board held improper closed meeting under OMA
This determination letter addresses whether a gathering of two of three Fire Protection District trustees on November 1, 2016 constituted an improper closed 'meeting' under OMA. The Public Access Bureau held that the Board held an improper closed meeting: a quorum of the three-member Board gathered for at least 15 minutes, opened a health-insurance proposal, and discussed it, which meets OMA's definition of 'meeting' regardless of whether a formal vote occurred. Because no final action was taken during that gathering, no remedial action was available, though the Bureau cautioned the Board against future discussions of public business outside properly noticed open meetings. The matter involved the Board of Trustees of the North Maine Fire Protection District and was closed without issuance of a binding opinion.

City of DeKalb did not violate OMA over unvoted separation agreement
A citizen complained that the City of DeKalb approved an employee's separation agreement behind closed doors without telling the public. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the City Council never actually voted on the agreement; instead, city staff handled it as a routine administrative matter. Because no public meeting action was required, the City did not break the law.

Oak Grove School Board improperly discussed kindergarten policy in closed session under litigation exception
A school board held a closed-door meeting to discuss kindergarten programming, claiming it was related to potential litigation. The Attorney General's office found this was a violation because the litigation exception only allows for discussing legal strategy, not the actual merits of the school policy. The Board was ordered to release the portions of the meeting minutes that discussed the policy itself.

Sleepy Hollow Board violated OMA by exceeding closed-session scope on cell tower lease price
A citizen complained that the Village of Sleepy Hollow Board of Trustees held closed-door meetings to discuss a cell tower lease, going beyond the legal limit of only discussing the price of the lease. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the meeting records and determined that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that exceeded the scope of the real estate lease price exception. The determination does not state that the file was closed or that any advisory was given.

Parkland College Board violated OMA by failing to provide 48 hours' notice for non-emergency meeting
Parkland College held an 'emergency' meeting without giving the public the required 48 hours' notice. The Attorney General's office found that the situation did not qualify as a true emergency, meaning the college broke the law by not providing proper notice. However, the office also ruled that the topics discussed during the meeting's private session were legally allowed to be discussed behind closed doors.

Swansea Board failed to recite matter before termination vote, cured by later meeting
A citizen complained that the Village of Swansea Board of Trustees voted to fire an employee without first telling the public what they were voting on, which is required by law. The Attorney General's office agreed that the Board failed to follow the rules during the first meeting. However, because the Board later held another meeting where they properly announced the vote before taking it, the issue was considered resolved.

Atlanta Public Library District Board did not violate OMA public recital requirement on Treasurer's Report
A citizen complained that a library board didn't explain clearly enough what they were voting on when they approved a Treasurer's Report during a meeting. The Attorney General's office reviewed the meeting recording and decided the board provided enough information to the public. The board was not required to explain the specific details of the report, so no violation occurred.

Washington County Hospital Board violated OMA by discussing mere possibility of litigation in closed session
A citizen complained that a hospital board held an illegal closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office found that while the board properly announced the closed session by citing the correct legal exceptions, it held an unauthorized discussion during that closed session. The discussion concerned potential litigation after a Medicare audit, but the board did not make a finding that litigation was probable or imminent, as required by the Open Meetings Act exception.

City of Sandwich City Council improperly terminated employee during closed session
A news reporter alleged that the City of Sandwich City Council improperly terminated an employee during a closed session. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau determined that the Council improperly took final action when it approved terminating an employee in closed session without first voting in open session after providing an adequate public recital of the matter. The Bureau also found that the Council's closed session discussions on four dates did not exceed the scope of the cited open meetings exceptions.

City of Carlinville City Council violated Open Meetings Act by meeting without public notice
A citizen complained that members of the Carlinville City Council met privately to discuss public business without telling the public, which is against the law. The Attorney General's office investigated and agreed that the Council broke the Open Meetings Act. The PAC ordered the Council to release the minutes of that meeting to the public.

City of Springfield City Council social gathering not a meeting under OMA
A reporter complained that a group of city aldermen held an illegal private meeting at a restaurant to collect campaign donations. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that while the aldermen were present, they did not conduct official city business or make decisions, so no violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred.

PAC finds insufficient evidence that Fosterburg Water District held a private meeting
A citizen complained that a water district held a private 'retreat' without following public meeting rules like posting agendas or allowing public attendance. The Attorney General's office investigated but found there wasn't enough evidence to prove that the board members actually discussed public business during the event. Consequently, the office closed the case without finding a violation.

Special Audit Committee of Saline County Board violated OMA by meeting on legal holiday
A citizen complained that a county committee held a special meeting on a legal holiday, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and that the courthouse was locked. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau found that the Special Audit Committee of the Saline County Board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting on a legal holiday when its regular meeting day did not fall on that holiday. The letter cautions the committee to follow the law in the future but does not impose any remedy because no final action was taken at the meeting.

Pekin City Council violated OMA by discussing city manager duties in closed session
A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council held a closed session to discuss bidding authorizations, which should have been public. The Illinois Attorney General's office found that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act, but not because of the bidding topic. Instead, the violation occurred because the Council discussed the city manager's general duties under a personnel exception that only allows discussion of specific employees' performance or conduct. The office asked the Council to release the relevant portion of the closed session minutes and recording to the public.

Pekin City Council violated OMA by discussing bidding process in closed session
A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council discussed bidding processes in a closed session, which should have been public. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's Office reviewed the matter and concluded that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the exception they cited. This means the Council failed to follow the law's requirement that public business be conducted openly.

School District U46 Board did not violate OMA by discussing social media in closed session
A school board member complained that her board held a secret meeting to discuss her social media posts under the guise of a 'self-evaluation.' The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and found that the board's discussion was actually focused on improving board procedures and interactions, which is allowed in a closed session. Therefore, the board did not break the law.

City of Peru Committee of Whole violated OMA by unauthorized closed session discussions
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's Committee of the Whole held closed sessions to discuss merging police departments, which is not allowed under the Open Meetings Act. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the committee held unauthorized closed session discussions during four meetings in 2017 and 2018, and that the closed session minutes for those meetings did not contain sufficient information about the matters discussed.

City of Peru Committee of the Whole violated OMA in closed police consolidation talks
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's committee held secret meetings to discuss merging police departments. The Attorney General's office found that these topics were not allowed to be discussed in private and that the city's meeting minutes were too vague to meet legal requirements. The city was instructed to revise its meeting minutes to provide a proper summary of what was discussed.

City of Peru Committee of the Whole violated OMA by discussing police consolidation in closed session
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's committee improperly discussed police department consolidation behind closed doors. The Attorney General's office concluded that the committee held unauthorized closed session discussions on that topic during four meetings in 2017 and 2018, and that the closed session minutes of those meetings do not contain sufficient information about the matters discussed.

Court cases

McKee v. The Board of Trustees of the Champaign Police Pension Fund ()
The court affirmed the denial of disability benefits, holding that the Board did not violate the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session pursuant to its rules and regulations. The court found no evidence of procedural impropriety regarding the Board's closed-session deliberations.

Galena Gazette Publications, Inc. v. County of Jo Daviess ()
The appellate court held that the defendants' closed sessions were properly conducted under the real estate acquisition exception of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5)). Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Barrington Hills ()
The court addressed a zoning dispute regarding the commercial boarding of horses. The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal, which the court found forfeited.

LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals (2011 IL App (1st) 100423)
The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal. The court held that the issue was forfeited because it was not raised before the Zoning Board or in the complaint for administrative review.

City of Bloomington v. Raoul (2021 IL App (4th) 190539)
The court held that the Bloomington City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing topics outside the scope of the litigation exception during a closed session. The court determined that the council's discussion focused on public relations and negotiation strategy rather than actual legal theories or litigation defenses, thereby exceeding the permitted scope of 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11).

Gosnell v. Hogan (179 ill-app-3d 161)
The court affirmed the denial of an injunction against a school board, holding that topics not specifically excepted under the Open Meetings Act may be discussed in closed session if they are germane and integral to an excepted topic, such as real estate acquisition. The court emphasized a practical, substantial compliance approach to interpreting the Act's exceptions.

Board of Education School District No. 67 v. Sikorski (214 ill-app-3d 945)
The court held that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding an executive session to discuss the postponement of a property sale. However, the court determined that the violation was cured and ratified by subsequent public meetings held by the Board.

Davis v. Board of Education of Farmer City-Mansfield Community Unit School District No. 17 (63 ill-app-3d 495)
The court addressed whether a school board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session to discuss the superintendent's employment. The court held that the board's actions regarding the superintendent's contract termination and salary reduction did not violate the Act's requirements for public meetings or final action procedures.

Scott v. Illinois State Police Merit Board (222 ill-app-3d 496)
The court held that the Board's meeting to discuss disciplinary action against the plaintiff fell within the Open Meetings Act exception for considering information regarding the employment or dismissal of an employee. Consequently, the Board did not violate the Act by conducting the meeting in the manner it did.

People ex rel. Ryan v. Village of Villa Park (212 ill-app-3d 187)
The court held that the Village of Villa Park violated the Open Meetings Act by holding closed sessions to discuss matters, such as traffic and infrastructure improvements, that did not fall under the real estate acquisition exception. The court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants and remanded with instructions to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, including injunctive and declaratory relief.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Open meetings. (a) Openness required. All meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public unless excepted in subsection (c) and closed in accordance with Section 2a. (b) Construction of exceptions. The exceptions contained in subsection (c) are in derogation of the requirement that public bodies meet in the open, and therefore, the exceptions are to be strictly construed, extending only to subjects clearly within their scope. The exceptions authorize but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included within an enumerated exception. (c) Exceptions. A public body may hold closed meetings to consider the following subjects: (1) The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees, specific individuals who serve as independent contractors in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or specific volunteers of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee, a specific individual who serves as an independent contractor in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or a volunteer of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity. However, a meeting to consider an increase in compensation to a specific employee of a public body that is subject to the Local Government Wage Increase Transparency Act may not be closed and shall be open to the public and posted and held in accordance with this Act. (2) Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees. (3) The selection of a person to fill a public office, as defined in this Act, including a vacancy in a public office, when the public body is given power to appoint under law or ordinance, or the discipline, performance or removal of the occupant of a public office, when the public body is given power to remove the occupant under law or ordinance. (4) Evidence or testimony presented in open hearing, or in closed hearing where specifically authorized by law, to a quasi-adjudicative body, as defined in this Act, provided that the body prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning. (4.5) Evidence or testimony presented to a school board regarding denial of admission to school events or property pursuant to Section 24-24 of the School Code, provided that the school board prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning. (5) The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired. (6) The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body. (7) The sale or purchase of securities, investments, or investment contracts. This exception shall not apply to the investment of assets or income of funds deposited into the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Trust Fund. (8) Security procedures, school building safety and security, and the use of personnel and equipment to respond to an actual, a threatened, or a reasonably potential danger to the safety of employees, students, staff, the public, or public property. (9) Student disciplinary cases. (10) The placement of individual students in special education programs and other matters relating to individual students. (11) Litigation, when an action against, affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting. (12) The establishment of reserves or settlement of claims as provided in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, if otherwise the disposition of a claim or potential claim might be prejudiced, or the review or discussion of claims, loss or risk management information, records, data, advice or communications from or with respect to any insurer of the public body or any intergovernmental risk management association or self-insurance pool of which the public body is a member. (13) Conciliation of complaints of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, when closed meetings are authorized by the law or ordinance prescribing fair housing practices and creating a commission or administrative agency for their enforcement. (14) Informant sources, the hiring or assignment of undercover personnel or equipment, or ongoing, prior or future criminal investigations, when discussed by a public body with criminal investigatory responsibilities. (15) Professional ethics or performance when considered by an advisory body appointed to advise a licensing or regulatory agency on matters germane to the advisory body's field of competence. (16) Self evaluation, practices and procedures or professional ethics, when meeting with a representative of a statewide association of which the public body is a member. (17) The recruitment, credentialing, discipline or formal peer review of physicians or other health care professionals, or for the discussion of matters protected under the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including 42 C.F.R. Part 3 (73 FR 70732), or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 162, and 164, by a hospital, or other institution providing medical care, that is operated by the public body. (18) Deliberations for decisions of the Prisoner Review Board. (19) Review or discussion of applications received under the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Act. (20) The classification and discussion of matters classified as confidential or continued confidential by the State Government Suggestion Award Board. (21) Discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by Section 2.06. (22) Deliberations for decisions of the State Emergency Medical Services Disciplinary Review Board. (23) The operation by a municipality of a municipal utility or the operation of a municipal power agency or municipal natural gas agency when the discussion involves (i) contracts relating to the purchase, sale, or delivery of electricity or natural gas or (ii) the results or conclusions of load forecast studies. (24) Meetings of a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (25) Meetings of an independent team of experts under Brian's Law. (26) Meetings of a mortality review team appointed under the Department of Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team Act. (27) (Blank). (28) Correspondence and records (i) that may not be disclosed under Section 11-9 of the Illinois Public Aid Code or (ii) that pertain to appeals under Section 11-8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (29) Meetings between internal or external auditors and governmental audit committees, finance committees, and their equivalents, when the discussion involves internal control weaknesses, identification of potential fraud risk areas, known or suspected frauds, and fraud interviews conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards of the United States of America. (30) (Blank). (31) Meetings and deliberations for decisions of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (32) Meetings between the Northern Illinois Transit Authority Board and its Service Boards when the discussion involves review by the Northern Illinois Transit Authority Board of employment contracts under Section 28d of the Chicago Transit Authority Act and Sections 3A.18 and 3B.26 of the Northern Illinois Transit Authority Act. (33) Those meetings or portions of meetings of the advisory committee and peer review subcommittee created under Section 320 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act during which specific controlled substance prescriber, dispenser, or patient information is discussed. (34) Meetings of the Tax Increment Financing Reform Task Force under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (35) Meetings of the group established to discuss Medicaid capitation rates under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (36) Those deliberations or portions of deliberations for decisions of the Illinois Gaming Board in which there is discussed any of the following: (i) personal, commercial, financial, or other information obtained from any source that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, or a trade secret; or (ii) information specifically exempted from the disclosure by federal or State law. (37) Deliberations for decisions of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, the Certification Review Panel, and the Illinois State Police Merit Board regarding certification and decertification. (38) Meetings of the Ad Hoc Statewide Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Board that occur in closed executive session under subsection (d) of Section 35 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (39) Meetings of the regional review teams under subsection (a) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (40) Meetings of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (d) Definitions. For purposes of this Section: "Employee" means a person employed by a public body whose relationship with the public body constitutes an employer-employee relationship under the usual common law rules, and who is not an independent contractor. "Public office" means a position created by or under the Constitution or laws of this State, the occupant of which is charged with the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of this State. The term "public office" shall include members of the public body, but it shall not include organizational positions filled by members thereof, whether established by law or by a public body itself, that exist to assist the body in the conduct of its business. "Quasi-adjudicative body" means an administrative body charged by law or ordinance with the responsibility to conduct hearings, receive evidence or testimony and make determinations based thereon, but does not include local electoral boards when such bodies are considering petition challenges. (e) Final action. No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted. (Source: P.A. 103-311, eff. 7-28-23; 103-626, eff. 1-1-25; 104-457, Article 10, Section 10-5, eff. 6-1-26.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-457, Article 15, Section 15-5)

Breakdown by specific citation: 2: 51 · 2(c)(1) (Employee/contractor appointment, discipline, or performance): 26 · 2(c) (General closed-session exceptions (cites Sec. 2(c) as a whole without naming a specific numbered exception)): 25 · 2(c)(11) (Pending, probable, or imminent litigation): 22 · 2(e) (Final action ban in closed session (no final action may be taken at a closed meeting)): 21 · 2(c)(5) (Purchase or lease of real property): 11 · 2(a) (Openness required (the basic open-meetings mandate, subject to the Sec. 2(c) exceptions)): 8 · 2(c)(6) (Setting a sale/lease price for public body's own property): 3 · 2(c)(4) (Evidence to a quasi-adjudicative body): 3 · 2(c)(16) (Self-evaluation with a statewide/regional association): 2 · 2(c)(3) (Filling a public office / removing an office-holder): 2 · 2a: 2 · 2(c)(2) (Collective negotiating matters / salary schedules): 1 · 2(c)(10) (Placement of individual students in special education): 1 · 2(c)(9) (Student disciplinary cases): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Improper Discussion in Closed Session of Budgetary Matters
The requester, a journalist, challenged a village government's practice of discussing its budget during personnel- and finance-committee sessions closed to the public under the Open Meetings Act's employee-related exception. The Public Access Counselor found that while some closed-session discussion of individual employees was proper, significant portions instead addressed general budgetary and staffing issues that fall outside that narrow exception and must be conducted in open session. The village government was directed to release the portions of its closed-session minutes covering the improperly closed budget discussions, redacting only the properly closed employee-specific portions.

Improper Discussion of Proposed Ordinance in Closed Session; Requirement to Recite and Record Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent; Requirement to Record Closed Sessions; Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited.
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for discussing a proposed landfill ordinance in a closed session under the Open Meetings Act's litigation exception. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee's closed-session discussion went beyond genuine probable-or-imminent litigation, that it failed to publicly state and record its factual basis for finding litigation likely, failed to make a required recording of the closed session, and appears to have reached a final decision on the ordinance in closed session rather than voting in open session as required. The county board was directed to release the improperly closed portions of its minutes, record all future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into full compliance with the Act.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited
The requester challenged a public university's governing board for voting, during a closed session, to terminate a tenured faculty member's employment. The Public Access Counselor's review of the closed-session recording confirmed the board voted on the termination behind closed doors and never disclosed or discussed the action once back in open session, in violation of the Open Meetings Act's prohibition on taking final action in closed session, which applies even to personnel matters. The university was directed to place the matter on a future open-session agenda, explain the proposed action to the public before any vote, and ensure future compliance.

Secret Ballots Prohibited
The requester challenged a county advisory board for using a secret paper ballot to select which candidate to recommend for a vacant board seat, with votes cast anonymously and dropped in a container before being tallied. The Public Access Counselor held that although the advisory board characterized the vote as a nonbinding "straw poll," selecting a single candidate to recommend was itself a final action under the Open Meetings Act, and that using a secret ballot for that decision violated the Act's requirement that public bodies act and deliberate openly, since the public could not see how any individual member voted. The advisory board was directed to conduct all future votes on Act-covered matters openly, disclosing each member's vote.

Requirement to Record and Enter Into Closed Meeting Minutes Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent.
The requester challenged a library board for closing part of a meeting to discuss a payment dispute with an employee benefit plan, arguing no litigation was actually threatened. The Public Access Counselor found the library board had a reasonable basis to believe litigation was probable, since it had received letters from the other party's attorney explicitly threatening suit, and that the closed-session discussion properly stayed within permissible litigation-strategy topics, but held that the board still violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to record and document that litigation-probable finding in its closed-session minutes as the Act requires. The library board was directed to amend its minutes to include that explanation and to record the required finding in all future closed sessions relying on the same exception.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited; Duty to Record Closed Meetings; Summary of Discussion Required in Minutes
The requester, a journalist, challenged a school district for having most of its board members sign a superintendent's separation agreement during a closed session before later ratifying it with a vote in open session. The Public Access Counselor held that while discussing the superintendent's employment in closed session was proper, signing the agreement behind closed doors was itself an improper final action, and that the subsequent open-session vote did not cure the violation because the board never informed the public of the agreement's actual terms, including a substantial lump-sum payment, before voting; the board also violated separate requirements to record its closed sessions and summarize their content in the minutes. The school district was directed to release a summary of the closed-session discussion, properly record and summarize future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into compliance.

Requirement to Publicly Recite Nature of Matter Being Considered and Other Information to Adequately Inform the Public of the Business Being Conducted Before Taking Final Action
The requester, a journalist, challenged the same school district's process for appointing an interim superintendent, arguing the board had effectively decided the appointment behind closed doors before its public vote. The Public Access Counselor found that the board's closed-session discussions were limited to preliminary steps, such as authorizing its attorney to gauge the candidate's interest and agreeing to place the matter on a future public agenda, and that its subsequent open-session vote was preceded by a substantive public discussion of the candidate's salary, duration, and duties. Because the board took no final action behind closed doors and adequately informed the public before voting, the Public Access Counselor found no violation of the Open Meetings Act's requirements.

A Public Body's Special Meeting Held Approximately 26 Miles from its Ordinary Meeting Location is Not "Convenient and Open" to the Public.
The requester alleged that the fire protection district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting at a location far outside the district's boundaries. The board's attorney argued the meeting was held at his law office in a nearby city to save on travel costs for legal consultation, and that it was properly noticed and involved no formal action. The Public Access Counselor held that the meeting location—about 26 miles from the district's usual meeting place, held at 9:00 a.m. on a weekday—violated the requirement that meetings be held somewhere "convenient and open" to the public, since the distance and timing would likely have deterred residents from attending, especially given the significant tax and bond issues discussed. The district was directed to hold all future meetings at locations that are genuinely convenient and open to the public, as required by law.

Duty to Inform the Public of the Nature of the Business under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
A requester alleged that the school district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by voting in open session to dismiss an employee identified only as "Employee A," without naming the employee, after discussing the matter in closed session. The PAC held that while boards may discuss personnel performance issues in closed session, any final action—like a vote to dismiss—must occur in open session and be preceded by a public recital sufficient to inform the public of the actual business being conducted. Because the board withheld the employee's identity, citing privacy concerns, the public could not understand the real effect of the vote (for example, whether the action concerned a support staffer, teacher, or administrator), so the board failed to meet this disclosure requirement. The PAC directed the school district to reconsider its final action and, going forward, to include the employee's name and other identifying information when taking such final action in open session.

Failure to Sufficiently Inform the Public of the Business Being Conducted before Taking Final Action
A journalist filed a request for review after a school district's board voted, during an open meeting, to approve a separation agreement with its former superintendent. The dispute centered on whether the board's brief public statement before the vote—naming the agreement and calling for a motion—satisfied the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final action be preceded by a public recital informing the public of the business being conducted. The Attorney General held that the board violated this requirement because it never disclosed key terms of the agreement, including a large lump-sum payment, and that merely posting the agreement on the school district's website beforehand did not substitute for a verbal public recital during the meeting itself. The board was directed to bring future meetings into compliance with these requirements.

Amending Agenda During 48-Hour Posting Period
The requester alleged that the township board violated the Open Meetings Act by amending its meeting agenda less than 48 hours before a scheduled meeting, removing two action items and moving them to executive session instead. The PAC held that no violation occurred, reasoning that the Act requires 48 hours' notice of matters on which final action will be taken, but does not require a public body to act on every listed item or prohibit it from revising an agenda to delete items due to changed circumstances. Because the public still received proper advance notice of the matters actually acted upon, and the board's update actually improved transparency, the PAC found the township board's agenda amendment complied with the law.

Improper Discussion of Financial Matters and Disposal of Property in a Closed Meeting
A requester alleged that a community college's board improperly closed part of a special meeting to discuss the college's financial condition, tuition, and possible sale or lease of college-owned property, citing the personnel and real estate purchase/lease exceptions of the Open Meetings Act. The Public Access Bureau reviewed the closed-session recording and found the board mainly discussed general budgetary and fiscal matters, which are not covered by the personnel exception even though they might eventually affect employees, and discussed selling or leasing college property, which falls outside the exception that only covers purchasing or leasing property for the board's own use. Because neither cited exception applied, the Attorney General concluded the board violated the Open Meetings Act and directed it to release the closed-session minutes, recording, and related materials to the public.

Failure to Cite Closed Session Exception; Improper Discussion of Proposed Police Services Contract in Closed Session; Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester alleged that a village government's board voted in closed session to disband its police department and enter into a new policing contract without properly noticing the topic. The Public Access Counselor found that the board failed to publicly cite and record the specific Open Meetings Act exception authorizing its closed session, that the closed-session discussion of a proposed police-services contract exceeded the narrow personnel exception it later invoked (since it concerned a contract's cost and scope rather than any individual employee's conduct), and that the meeting agenda's generic "Executive Session" listing did not give the public adequate notice that final action on the contract would be taken. The village government was directed to disclose the closed-session record, re-vote on the contract at a properly noticed meeting, and bring future meetings into compliance.

Failure to Cite an Applicable Exception Before Closing a Meeting to the Public; Improper Discussion ofa Hiring Freeze in a Closed Meeting
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for closing part of a meeting to discuss a hiring freeze and the elimination of an employee's position after citing only "personnel" as its reason. The Public Access Counselor held that a bare reference to "personnel" does not adequately disclose which Open Meetings Act exception authorizes a closed session, that discussing how eliminating a position would affect a specific employee fell within the personnel exception but that the broader hiring-freeze discussion did not qualify as a "collective negotiating" matter because the county was not then engaged in active bargaining with its unions. The county board was directed to disclose the closed-session minutes, subject to redacting one sentence naming a specific employee, and to comply with the Act's citation and recording requirements going forward.

Discussion of Legal Matters ° Under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
The requester challenged a village government's board for closing part of a meeting to discuss "pending/imminent litigation" over a bond sale, after she had publicly stated during the same meeting that her group was not pursuing any lawsuit. The Public Access Counselor held that the board's closed-session minutes never recorded a specific basis for finding litigation probable or imminent as the Open Meetings Act requires, and that the board's stated concern about other, unspecified possible legal challenges to the bond sale did not amount to reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand — the mere possibility that opponents might sue is not enough to invoke the litigation exception. The village government was directed to disclose the closed-session recording concerning the bond sale and to bring future meetings into compliance.

Improper Discussion of Salary Increases for City Employees in a Closed Meeting
The requester, a newspaper publisher, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss and then approved an across-the-board cost-of-living raise for city employees under the exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the specific-employees exception does not extend to a general budgetary discussion affecting a broad category of employees, and that a second exception the city council later invoked for salary schedules could not be relied on because it had not been publicly cited at the time of the vote to close the meeting. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion and bring future meetings into compliance.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a board member, alleged that the village board voted to amend and approve a settlement agreement under a generic 'Old Business' agenda item that gave no notice the matter would be subject to final action, over the objection of the board's own attorney that the vote would be illegal. The Public Access Counselor held that an agenda item must disclose the general subject matter of any resolution or measure that will be finally acted on, and that 'Old Business' failed to do so here. The village board was directed to reconsider the settlement agreement at a properly noticed meeting.

Right to Record an Open Meeting
The requester was barred from recording the open portion of a school board meeting because he asked permission roughly ten minutes beforehand rather than complying with the board's policy requiring 24 hours' advance notice, which the board defended in part by citing the presence of children in the meeting room. The Public Access Counselor held that the Open Meetings Act allows only recording rules reasonably designed to prevent disruption or protect safety, and that the board failed to explain why a blanket 24-hour notice requirement -- as opposed to a narrower rule addressing its stated concern -- was necessary when the requester sought no special accommodations. The school district was directed to revise its recording policy to comply with the Act.

Discussion of Legal Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
A county state's attorney, relaying citizen concerns, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss ending a decades-old revenue-sharing agreement with a neighboring town, citing probable litigation, even though the mayor had publicly said no lawsuit was expected. The Public Access Counselor held that the council's closed-session discussion focused on what to do about the agreement rather than on litigation strategy, and that the council had not shown it had reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand, so the litigation exception did not apply. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Disclosure of Recordings of Public Meetings
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought audio recordings of the housing authority board's open meetings from a given year, and the housing authority withheld them as preliminary, deliberative material. The Public Access Counselor held that a verbatim recording of a meeting that was open to the public is inherently subject to public scrutiny and is not the kind of predecisional record the deliberative-process exemption protects, regardless of the purpose for which the recording was made. The housing authority was directed to disclose the requested meeting recordings.

Discussion of the Conduct of a Public Body Member in Closed Session Pastor Marvin Hightower President Peoria NAACP P.O. Box 6002 Peoria, Illinois 61601
An advocacy organization alleged that a village board closed part of a meeting to discuss a board member's racially charged public comments, after an agenda item identified the matter for discussion, rather than address the issue openly. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the potentially applicable exceptions authorized the closed session: the specific-employees exception does not cover elected board members, the board lacked authority to remove one of its own members so the removal-of-office exception did not apply, and the board was not sitting in a quasi-adjudicative capacity when it discussed the comments. The village board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Improper Discussion of Budget and Layoffs in Closed Session
The requester, a faculty union president, sought review of a university board's closed session in which it discussed the university's budget and layoffs, arguing that the board improperly relied on the closed-session exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of budgetary matters or categories of employees, and that only a brief portion of the closed session concerning one employee's contract fell within the exception. The board was directed to disclose the recording and minutes of the closed-session discussion of budget and layoff matters, apart from the narrow, properly closed portion.

Discussion of the Duties and Salaries of Elected Officials in Closed Session
The requester, an elected county auditor, sought review after a county board committee entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the salaries and duties of independently elected county officials including herself. The Public Access Counselor held that elected officials such as a county auditor or coroner are not "employees" of the county for purposes of the specific-employees exception, since the county does not direct their work or have authority to remove them, so the closed session exceeded the scope of any applicable exception. The committee was directed to disclose the recording of the improperly closed portion of its meeting.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a resident, sought more than two years of village board and committee meeting recordings, minutes, and newsletters, but the village never responded despite months of follow-up emails, calls, and a voicemail from this office. The Public Access Counselor held that the village violated FOIA's requirement to comply with, extend, or deny a request within five business days, which also barred it from later treating the request as unduly burdensome. The village was directed to provide all records responsive to the request.

"Established" and Recorded Rules for Public Comment
The requester, a member of the public, sought review of a school district's board of education after it limited the public comment portion of its meeting to a total of 15 minutes and refused to let some attendees speak on a matter of public concern. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act because it applied an unestablished and unrecorded rule to restrict public comment; its policy manual set a per-speaker time limit but contained no 15-minute cumulative cap. The board was directed to refrain from applying unestablished and unrecorded rules to future public comment periods.

Public Recital of the Nature of the Matter Under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
The requester, a newspaper, sought review of a school board's vote to approve a resolution authorizing a formal disciplinary notice to a teacher after the board announced only the resolution's number and title before voting, and the superintendent stated the underlying details had been discussed only in closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement of a public recital sufficient to identify the business being conducted, because identifying an unnamed teacher subject to discipline did not give the public adequate notice of the transaction. The board was directed to reconsider and re-vote on the resolution at a properly noticed meeting that names the teacher and describes the action being taken.

Right to Address Public Officials at a Public Meeting
The requester, a member of the public who did not reside within the city, sought review after a mayor refused to let her speak during a city council's public comment period, telling her she had "no standing" because she was not a resident. The Public Access Counselor held that the council had no established and recorded rule restricting public comment to residents, and further concluded that even such a rule would violate the Open Meetings Act's right to address public officials. The council was directed to refrain from limiting public comment to city residents at future meetings.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not Sufficiently Identified on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, sought review of a city council's meeting agenda after the council voted to raise permit application fees fivefold under an agenda item that listed only an ordinance number and a municipal code section, without describing its subject matter. The Public Access Counselor held that the agenda violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final-action items disclose the general subject matter of the business to be conducted, since referencing only an ordinance and code section gave the public no indication that a fee increase was being considered. The council was directed to reconsider its action at a properly noticed meeting with an agenda that identifies the general subject matter of the ordinance.

Duty to Approve Meeting Minutes Within Time Period Specified by OMA
The requester, a resident, sought review after a village board of trustees approved the minutes of three earlier meetings held between two and three months after those meetings took place. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to approve minutes within 30 days of a meeting or by its second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later, rejecting the board's argument that an unusually heavy meeting schedule and staffing shortages excused the delay. The board was directed to develop protocols ensuring minutes are approved within the statutory deadline going forward.

South Loop Elementary School Local School Council violated OMA by discussing principal evaluation in closed session
The requester, a member of a school's local school council, sought review after the council entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the general process and timeline for evaluating the school's principal rather than the principal's individual performance. The Public Access Counselor held that the closed-session exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of evaluation procedures applicable to a category of employees, so the council violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be open unless a narrow exception applies. The council was directed to disclose the recording of the unauthorized portions of its closed-session discussion.

Determination letters

McHenry County Committee violated OMA by holding private meeting on redistricting
A reporter alleged that county board members held a private meeting to discuss redistricting maps before an official committee meeting. The Attorney General's office found that this gathering met the legal definition of a 'meeting' and violated state law because it was not open to the public, lacked proper notice, and was not recorded. Because the meeting already occurred and no official action was taken, the PAC closed the file with a warning to the board to follow OMA rules in the future.

Westmont School Board violated OMA by discussing general staffing strategy in closed session
A citizen complained that a school board discussed staffing and retirement issues behind closed doors. The Attorney General's office found that the board broke the law because they discussed general staffing plans, which must be done in public, rather than specific personnel matters. No further action was required because the board had already received training on the issue.

Waukegan School Board violated OMA by failing to provide notice or agenda for collective bargaining meeting
A school board held a private meeting to discuss teacher contract negotiations without telling the public or posting an agenda. The Attorney General's office ruled this was illegal because even if a meeting is meant to be private, the board must first hold a public meeting and follow proper procedures to move into a closed session. The board was warned to follow these rules in the future.

Republican precinct committeemen meeting not subject to Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that a political party meeting failed to follow Open Meetings Act rules regarding agendas and public participation. The Attorney General's office investigated and concluded that the meeting was a private political event, not a government meeting, and therefore the Open Meetings Act did not apply.

Hinsdale D86 school board did not violate OMA in closed self-evaluation session
A school board member complained that their board held a private meeting that was supposed to be about improving board procedures but was actually used to attack political opponents. The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and determined that the discussion was appropriate and stayed within the legal rules for closed-door self-evaluation meetings. As a result, no violation of the Open Meetings Act was found.

Maine Township Board violated OMA by failing to post meeting agenda
A citizen complained that the Maine Township Board of Trustees failed to post the agenda for a September 29, 2015 meeting on its website, and also held a series of 'agency funding hearings' without proper notice. The Attorney General's office found that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by not posting the agenda, but noted that the Board remedied that violation by re-voting on the actions at a later meeting. Regarding the funding hearings, the office analyzed whether they constituted 'meetings' under the Act but did not reach a final determination; it noted the Board's assertion that no deliberation occurred and that the hearings consisted of presentations and questions.

St. Clair County Board violated OMA by taking action on vague agenda items
A citizen complained that the St. Clair County Board voted on eight resolutions without telling the public what those resolutions were about. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the Board's agenda was too vague and that they did not explain the business being conducted during the meeting. The Board was advised to improve its future meeting practices to ensure the public is properly informed.

St. Clair County Board violated OMA by listing resolutions only by number on agenda
A citizen complained that the St. Clair County Board voted on eight resolutions that were only listed by number on the meeting agenda, without explaining what the resolutions were about. The Attorney General's office agreed, stating that public bodies must provide enough information on agendas and during meetings so the public understands what is being voted on. The Board was advised to improve its future practices to ensure transparency.

City of Earlville City Council violated OMA by holding meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three City Council members held a private gathering to discuss city business without public notice or minutes. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that this gathering violated the Open Meetings Act because it involved a majority of a quorum deliberating public business. The Bureau also noted an allegation that three aldermen failed to complete required OMA training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The letter cautions the City Council to comply with OMA in the future.

City of Earlville violated Open Meetings Act by holding three-alderman meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three city aldermen met privately to discuss city business without telling the public or recording what happened. The Attorney General's office agreed that this was an illegal meeting under the Open Meetings Act and found that the city council violated the Act by failing to provide notice and keep minutes. The office also noted an allegation that the aldermen had not completed required training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The office cautioned the city council to comply with the Act in the future.

Kankakee School District 111 Board violated Open Meetings Act by restricting public comment and failing to explain closed session
A citizen complained that a school board cut off his public comments and failed to explain why they were going into a private closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by enforcing a restriction on public comment that was not among its established and recorded rules, and by not adequately informing the public of the reason for entering a second closed session. The determination did not address whether the closed session itself was legally permitted or state any further action required.

North Maine Fire Protection District Board held improper closed meeting under OMA
This determination letter addresses whether a gathering of two of three Fire Protection District trustees on November 1, 2016 constituted an improper closed 'meeting' under OMA. The Public Access Bureau held that the Board held an improper closed meeting: a quorum of the three-member Board gathered for at least 15 minutes, opened a health-insurance proposal, and discussed it, which meets OMA's definition of 'meeting' regardless of whether a formal vote occurred. Because no final action was taken during that gathering, no remedial action was available, though the Bureau cautioned the Board against future discussions of public business outside properly noticed open meetings. The matter involved the Board of Trustees of the North Maine Fire Protection District and was closed without issuance of a binding opinion.

City of DeKalb did not violate OMA over unvoted separation agreement
A citizen complained that the City of DeKalb approved an employee's separation agreement behind closed doors without telling the public. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the City Council never actually voted on the agreement; instead, city staff handled it as a routine administrative matter. Because no public meeting action was required, the City did not break the law.

Oak Grove School Board improperly discussed kindergarten policy in closed session under litigation exception
A school board held a closed-door meeting to discuss kindergarten programming, claiming it was related to potential litigation. The Attorney General's office found this was a violation because the litigation exception only allows for discussing legal strategy, not the actual merits of the school policy. The Board was ordered to release the portions of the meeting minutes that discussed the policy itself.

Sleepy Hollow Board violated OMA by exceeding closed-session scope on cell tower lease price
A citizen complained that the Village of Sleepy Hollow Board of Trustees held closed-door meetings to discuss a cell tower lease, going beyond the legal limit of only discussing the price of the lease. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the meeting records and determined that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that exceeded the scope of the real estate lease price exception. The determination does not state that the file was closed or that any advisory was given.

Parkland College Board violated OMA by failing to provide 48 hours' notice for non-emergency meeting
Parkland College held an 'emergency' meeting without giving the public the required 48 hours' notice. The Attorney General's office found that the situation did not qualify as a true emergency, meaning the college broke the law by not providing proper notice. However, the office also ruled that the topics discussed during the meeting's private session were legally allowed to be discussed behind closed doors.

Swansea Board failed to recite matter before termination vote, cured by later meeting
A citizen complained that the Village of Swansea Board of Trustees voted to fire an employee without first telling the public what they were voting on, which is required by law. The Attorney General's office agreed that the Board failed to follow the rules during the first meeting. However, because the Board later held another meeting where they properly announced the vote before taking it, the issue was considered resolved.

Atlanta Public Library District Board did not violate OMA public recital requirement on Treasurer's Report
A citizen complained that a library board didn't explain clearly enough what they were voting on when they approved a Treasurer's Report during a meeting. The Attorney General's office reviewed the meeting recording and decided the board provided enough information to the public. The board was not required to explain the specific details of the report, so no violation occurred.

Washington County Hospital Board violated OMA by discussing mere possibility of litigation in closed session
A citizen complained that a hospital board held an illegal closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office found that while the board properly announced the closed session by citing the correct legal exceptions, it held an unauthorized discussion during that closed session. The discussion concerned potential litigation after a Medicare audit, but the board did not make a finding that litigation was probable or imminent, as required by the Open Meetings Act exception.

City of Sandwich City Council improperly terminated employee during closed session
A news reporter alleged that the City of Sandwich City Council improperly terminated an employee during a closed session. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau determined that the Council improperly took final action when it approved terminating an employee in closed session without first voting in open session after providing an adequate public recital of the matter. The Bureau also found that the Council's closed session discussions on four dates did not exceed the scope of the cited open meetings exceptions.

City of Carlinville City Council violated Open Meetings Act by meeting without public notice
A citizen complained that members of the Carlinville City Council met privately to discuss public business without telling the public, which is against the law. The Attorney General's office investigated and agreed that the Council broke the Open Meetings Act. The PAC ordered the Council to release the minutes of that meeting to the public.

City of Springfield City Council social gathering not a meeting under OMA
A reporter complained that a group of city aldermen held an illegal private meeting at a restaurant to collect campaign donations. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that while the aldermen were present, they did not conduct official city business or make decisions, so no violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred.

PAC finds insufficient evidence that Fosterburg Water District held a private meeting
A citizen complained that a water district held a private 'retreat' without following public meeting rules like posting agendas or allowing public attendance. The Attorney General's office investigated but found there wasn't enough evidence to prove that the board members actually discussed public business during the event. Consequently, the office closed the case without finding a violation.

Special Audit Committee of Saline County Board violated OMA by meeting on legal holiday
A citizen complained that a county committee held a special meeting on a legal holiday, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and that the courthouse was locked. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau found that the Special Audit Committee of the Saline County Board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting on a legal holiday when its regular meeting day did not fall on that holiday. The letter cautions the committee to follow the law in the future but does not impose any remedy because no final action was taken at the meeting.

Pekin City Council violated OMA by discussing city manager duties in closed session
A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council held a closed session to discuss bidding authorizations, which should have been public. The Illinois Attorney General's office found that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act, but not because of the bidding topic. Instead, the violation occurred because the Council discussed the city manager's general duties under a personnel exception that only allows discussion of specific employees' performance or conduct. The office asked the Council to release the relevant portion of the closed session minutes and recording to the public.

Pekin City Council violated OMA by discussing bidding process in closed session
A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council discussed bidding processes in a closed session, which should have been public. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's Office reviewed the matter and concluded that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the exception they cited. This means the Council failed to follow the law's requirement that public business be conducted openly.

School District U46 Board did not violate OMA by discussing social media in closed session
A school board member complained that her board held a secret meeting to discuss her social media posts under the guise of a 'self-evaluation.' The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and found that the board's discussion was actually focused on improving board procedures and interactions, which is allowed in a closed session. Therefore, the board did not break the law.

City of Peru Committee of Whole violated OMA by unauthorized closed session discussions
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's Committee of the Whole held closed sessions to discuss merging police departments, which is not allowed under the Open Meetings Act. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the committee held unauthorized closed session discussions during four meetings in 2017 and 2018, and that the closed session minutes for those meetings did not contain sufficient information about the matters discussed.

City of Peru Committee of the Whole violated OMA in closed police consolidation talks
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's committee held secret meetings to discuss merging police departments. The Attorney General's office found that these topics were not allowed to be discussed in private and that the city's meeting minutes were too vague to meet legal requirements. The city was instructed to revise its meeting minutes to provide a proper summary of what was discussed.

City of Peru Committee of the Whole violated OMA by discussing police consolidation in closed session
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's committee improperly discussed police department consolidation behind closed doors. The Attorney General's office concluded that the committee held unauthorized closed session discussions on that topic during four meetings in 2017 and 2018, and that the closed session minutes of those meetings do not contain sufficient information about the matters discussed.

Court cases

McKee v. The Board of Trustees of the Champaign Police Pension Fund ()
The court affirmed the denial of disability benefits, holding that the Board did not violate the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session pursuant to its rules and regulations. The court found no evidence of procedural impropriety regarding the Board's closed-session deliberations.

Galena Gazette Publications, Inc. v. County of Jo Daviess ()
The appellate court held that the defendants' closed sessions were properly conducted under the real estate acquisition exception of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5)). Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Barrington Hills ()
The court addressed a zoning dispute regarding the commercial boarding of horses. The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal, which the court found forfeited.

LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals (2011 IL App (1st) 100423)
The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal. The court held that the issue was forfeited because it was not raised before the Zoning Board or in the complaint for administrative review.

City of Bloomington v. Raoul (2021 IL App (4th) 190539)
The court held that the Bloomington City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing topics outside the scope of the litigation exception during a closed session. The court determined that the council's discussion focused on public relations and negotiation strategy rather than actual legal theories or litigation defenses, thereby exceeding the permitted scope of 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11).

Gosnell v. Hogan (179 ill-app-3d 161)
The court affirmed the denial of an injunction against a school board, holding that topics not specifically excepted under the Open Meetings Act may be discussed in closed session if they are germane and integral to an excepted topic, such as real estate acquisition. The court emphasized a practical, substantial compliance approach to interpreting the Act's exceptions.

Board of Education School District No. 67 v. Sikorski (214 ill-app-3d 945)
The court held that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding an executive session to discuss the postponement of a property sale. However, the court determined that the violation was cured and ratified by subsequent public meetings held by the Board.

Davis v. Board of Education of Farmer City-Mansfield Community Unit School District No. 17 (63 ill-app-3d 495)
The court addressed whether a school board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session to discuss the superintendent's employment. The court held that the board's actions regarding the superintendent's contract termination and salary reduction did not violate the Act's requirements for public meetings or final action procedures.

Scott v. Illinois State Police Merit Board (222 ill-app-3d 496)
The court held that the Board's meeting to discuss disciplinary action against the plaintiff fell within the Open Meetings Act exception for considering information regarding the employment or dismissal of an employee. Consequently, the Board did not violate the Act by conducting the meeting in the manner it did.

People ex rel. Ryan v. Village of Villa Park (212 ill-app-3d 187)
The court held that the Village of Villa Park violated the Open Meetings Act by holding closed sessions to discuss matters, such as traffic and infrastructure improvements, that did not fall under the real estate acquisition exception. The court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants and remanded with instructions to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, including injunctive and declaratory relief.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Open meetings. (a) Openness required. All meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public unless excepted in subsection (c) and closed in accordance with Section 2a. (b) Construction of exceptions. The exceptions contained in subsection (c) are in derogation of the requirement that public bodies meet in the open, and therefore, the exceptions are to be strictly construed, extending only to subjects clearly within their scope. The exceptions authorize but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included within an enumerated exception. (c) Exceptions. A public body may hold closed meetings to consider the following subjects: (1) The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees, specific individuals who serve as independent contractors in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or specific volunteers of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee, a specific individual who serves as an independent contractor in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or a volunteer of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity. However, a meeting to consider an increase in compensation to a specific employee of a public body that is subject to the Local Government Wage Increase Transparency Act may not be closed and shall be open to the public and posted and held in accordance with this Act. (2) Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees. (3) The selection of a person to fill a public office, as defined in this Act, including a vacancy in a public office, when the public body is given power to appoint under law or ordinance, or the discipline, performance or removal of the occupant of a public office, when the public body is given power to remove the occupant under law or ordinance. (4) Evidence or testimony presented in open hearing, or in closed hearing where specifically authorized by law, to a quasi-adjudicative body, as defined in this Act, provided that the body prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning. (4.5) Evidence or testimony presented to a school board regarding denial of admission to school events or property pursuant to Section 24-24 of the School Code, provided that the school board prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning. (5) The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired. (6) The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body. (7) The sale or purchase of securities, investments, or investment contracts. This exception shall not apply to the investment of assets or income of funds deposited into the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Trust Fund. (8) Security procedures, school building safety and security, and the use of personnel and equipment to respond to an actual, a threatened, or a reasonably potential danger to the safety of employees, students, staff, the public, or public property. (9) Student disciplinary cases. (10) The placement of individual students in special education programs and other matters relating to individual students. (11) Litigation, when an action against, affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting. (12) The establishment of reserves or settlement of claims as provided in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, if otherwise the disposition of a claim or potential claim might be prejudiced, or the review or discussion of claims, loss or risk management information, records, data, advice or communications from or with respect to any insurer of the public body or any intergovernmental risk management association or self-insurance pool of which the public body is a member. (13) Conciliation of complaints of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, when closed meetings are authorized by the law or ordinance prescribing fair housing practices and creating a commission or administrative agency for their enforcement. (14) Informant sources, the hiring or assignment of undercover personnel or equipment, or ongoing, prior or future criminal investigations, when discussed by a public body with criminal investigatory responsibilities. (15) Professional ethics or performance when considered by an advisory body appointed to advise a licensing or regulatory agency on matters germane to the advisory body's field of competence. (16) Self evaluation, practices and procedures or professional ethics, when meeting with a representative of a statewide association of which the public body is a member. (17) The recruitment, credentialing, discipline or formal peer review of physicians or other health care professionals, or for the discussion of matters protected under the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including 42 C.F.R. Part 3 (73 FR 70732), or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 162, and 164, by a hospital, or other institution providing medical care, that is operated by the public body. (18) Deliberations for decisions of the Prisoner Review Board. (19) Review or discussion of applications received under the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Act. (20) The classification and discussion of matters classified as confidential or continued confidential by the State Government Suggestion Award Board. (21) Discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by Section 2.06. (22) Deliberations for decisions of the State Emergency Medical Services Disciplinary Review Board. (23) The operation by a municipality of a municipal utility or the operation of a municipal power agency or municipal natural gas agency when the discussion involves (i) contracts relating to the purchase, sale, or delivery of electricity or natural gas or (ii) the results or conclusions of load forecast studies. (24) Meetings of a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (25) Meetings of an independent team of experts under Brian's Law. (26) Meetings of a mortality review team appointed under the Department of Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team Act. (27) (Blank). (28) Correspondence and records (i) that may not be disclosed under Section 11-9 of the Illinois Public Aid Code or (ii) that pertain to appeals under Section 11-8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (29) Meetings between internal or external auditors and governmental audit committees, finance committees, and their equivalents, when the discussion involves internal control weaknesses, identification of potential fraud risk areas, known or suspected frauds, and fraud interviews conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards of the United States of America. (30) (Blank). (31) Meetings and deliberations for decisions of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (32) Meetings between the Northern Illinois Transit Authority Board and its Service Boards when the discussion involves review by the Northern Illinois Transit Authority Board of employment contracts under Section 28d of the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act and Sections 3A.18 and 3B.26 of the Northern Illinois Transit Authority Act. (33) Those meetings or portions of meetings of the advisory committee and peer review subcommittee created under Section 320 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act during which specific controlled substance prescriber, dispenser, or patient information is discussed. (34) Meetings of the Tax Increment Financing Reform Task Force under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (35) Meetings of the group established to discuss Medicaid capitation rates under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (36) Those deliberations or portions of deliberations for decisions of the Illinois Gaming Board in which there is discussed any of the following: (i) personal, commercial, financial, or other information obtained from any source that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, or a trade secret; or (ii) information specifically exempted from the disclosure by federal or State law. (37) Deliberations for decisions of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, the Certification Review Panel, and the Illinois State Police Merit Board regarding certification and decertification. (38) Meetings of the Ad Hoc Statewide Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Board that occur in closed executive session under subsection (d) of Section 35 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (39) Meetings of the regional review teams under subsection (a) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (40) Meetings of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (d) Definitions. For purposes of this Section: "Employee" means a person employed by a public body whose relationship with the public body constitutes an employer-employee relationship under the usual common law rules, and who is not an independent contractor. "Public office" means a position created by or under the Constitution or laws of this State, the occupant of which is charged with the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of this State. The term "public office" shall include members of the public body, but it shall not include organizational positions filled by members thereof, whether established by law or by a public body itself, that exist to assist the body in the conduct of its business. "Quasi-adjudicative body" means an administrative body charged by law or ordinance with the responsibility to conduct hearings, receive evidence or testimony and make determinations based thereon, but does not include local electoral boards when such bodies are considering petition challenges. (e) Final action. No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted. (Source: P.A. 103-311, eff. 7-28-23; 103-626, eff. 1-1-25; 104-457, Article 15, Section 15-5, eff. 6-1-26.) (Text of Section from P.A. 104-458)

Breakdown by specific citation: 2: 51 · 2(c)(1) (Employee/contractor appointment, discipline, or performance): 26 · 2(c) (General closed-session exceptions (cites Sec. 2(c) as a whole without naming a specific numbered exception)): 25 · 2(c)(11) (Pending, probable, or imminent litigation): 22 · 2(e) (Final action ban in closed session (no final action may be taken at a closed meeting)): 21 · 2(c)(5) (Purchase or lease of real property): 11 · 2(a) (Openness required (the basic open-meetings mandate, subject to the Sec. 2(c) exceptions)): 8 · 2(c)(6) (Setting a sale/lease price for public body's own property): 3 · 2(c)(4) (Evidence to a quasi-adjudicative body): 3 · 2(c)(16) (Self-evaluation with a statewide/regional association): 2 · 2(c)(3) (Filling a public office / removing an office-holder): 2 · 2a: 2 · 2(c)(2) (Collective negotiating matters / salary schedules): 1 · 2(c)(10) (Placement of individual students in special education): 1 · 2(c)(9) (Student disciplinary cases): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Improper Discussion in Closed Session of Budgetary Matters
The requester, a journalist, challenged a village government's practice of discussing its budget during personnel- and finance-committee sessions closed to the public under the Open Meetings Act's employee-related exception. The Public Access Counselor found that while some closed-session discussion of individual employees was proper, significant portions instead addressed general budgetary and staffing issues that fall outside that narrow exception and must be conducted in open session. The village government was directed to release the portions of its closed-session minutes covering the improperly closed budget discussions, redacting only the properly closed employee-specific portions.

Improper Discussion of Proposed Ordinance in Closed Session; Requirement to Recite and Record Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent; Requirement to Record Closed Sessions; Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited.
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for discussing a proposed landfill ordinance in a closed session under the Open Meetings Act's litigation exception. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee's closed-session discussion went beyond genuine probable-or-imminent litigation, that it failed to publicly state and record its factual basis for finding litigation likely, failed to make a required recording of the closed session, and appears to have reached a final decision on the ordinance in closed session rather than voting in open session as required. The county board was directed to release the improperly closed portions of its minutes, record all future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into full compliance with the Act.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited
The requester challenged a public university's governing board for voting, during a closed session, to terminate a tenured faculty member's employment. The Public Access Counselor's review of the closed-session recording confirmed the board voted on the termination behind closed doors and never disclosed or discussed the action once back in open session, in violation of the Open Meetings Act's prohibition on taking final action in closed session, which applies even to personnel matters. The university was directed to place the matter on a future open-session agenda, explain the proposed action to the public before any vote, and ensure future compliance.

Secret Ballots Prohibited
The requester challenged a county advisory board for using a secret paper ballot to select which candidate to recommend for a vacant board seat, with votes cast anonymously and dropped in a container before being tallied. The Public Access Counselor held that although the advisory board characterized the vote as a nonbinding "straw poll," selecting a single candidate to recommend was itself a final action under the Open Meetings Act, and that using a secret ballot for that decision violated the Act's requirement that public bodies act and deliberate openly, since the public could not see how any individual member voted. The advisory board was directed to conduct all future votes on Act-covered matters openly, disclosing each member's vote.

Requirement to Record and Enter Into Closed Meeting Minutes Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent.
The requester challenged a library board for closing part of a meeting to discuss a payment dispute with an employee benefit plan, arguing no litigation was actually threatened. The Public Access Counselor found the library board had a reasonable basis to believe litigation was probable, since it had received letters from the other party's attorney explicitly threatening suit, and that the closed-session discussion properly stayed within permissible litigation-strategy topics, but held that the board still violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to record and document that litigation-probable finding in its closed-session minutes as the Act requires. The library board was directed to amend its minutes to include that explanation and to record the required finding in all future closed sessions relying on the same exception.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited; Duty to Record Closed Meetings; Summary of Discussion Required in Minutes
The requester, a journalist, challenged a school district for having most of its board members sign a superintendent's separation agreement during a closed session before later ratifying it with a vote in open session. The Public Access Counselor held that while discussing the superintendent's employment in closed session was proper, signing the agreement behind closed doors was itself an improper final action, and that the subsequent open-session vote did not cure the violation because the board never informed the public of the agreement's actual terms, including a substantial lump-sum payment, before voting; the board also violated separate requirements to record its closed sessions and summarize their content in the minutes. The school district was directed to release a summary of the closed-session discussion, properly record and summarize future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into compliance.

Requirement to Publicly Recite Nature of Matter Being Considered and Other Information to Adequately Inform the Public of the Business Being Conducted Before Taking Final Action
The requester, a journalist, challenged the same school district's process for appointing an interim superintendent, arguing the board had effectively decided the appointment behind closed doors before its public vote. The Public Access Counselor found that the board's closed-session discussions were limited to preliminary steps, such as authorizing its attorney to gauge the candidate's interest and agreeing to place the matter on a future public agenda, and that its subsequent open-session vote was preceded by a substantive public discussion of the candidate's salary, duration, and duties. Because the board took no final action behind closed doors and adequately informed the public before voting, the Public Access Counselor found no violation of the Open Meetings Act's requirements.

A Public Body's Special Meeting Held Approximately 26 Miles from its Ordinary Meeting Location is Not "Convenient and Open" to the Public.
The requester alleged that the fire protection district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting at a location far outside the district's boundaries. The board's attorney argued the meeting was held at his law office in a nearby city to save on travel costs for legal consultation, and that it was properly noticed and involved no formal action. The Public Access Counselor held that the meeting location—about 26 miles from the district's usual meeting place, held at 9:00 a.m. on a weekday—violated the requirement that meetings be held somewhere "convenient and open" to the public, since the distance and timing would likely have deterred residents from attending, especially given the significant tax and bond issues discussed. The district was directed to hold all future meetings at locations that are genuinely convenient and open to the public, as required by law.

Duty to Inform the Public of the Nature of the Business under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
A requester alleged that the school district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by voting in open session to dismiss an employee identified only as "Employee A," without naming the employee, after discussing the matter in closed session. The PAC held that while boards may discuss personnel performance issues in closed session, any final action—like a vote to dismiss—must occur in open session and be preceded by a public recital sufficient to inform the public of the actual business being conducted. Because the board withheld the employee's identity, citing privacy concerns, the public could not understand the real effect of the vote (for example, whether the action concerned a support staffer, teacher, or administrator), so the board failed to meet this disclosure requirement. The PAC directed the school district to reconsider its final action and, going forward, to include the employee's name and other identifying information when taking such final action in open session.

Failure to Sufficiently Inform the Public of the Business Being Conducted before Taking Final Action
A journalist filed a request for review after a school district's board voted, during an open meeting, to approve a separation agreement with its former superintendent. The dispute centered on whether the board's brief public statement before the vote—naming the agreement and calling for a motion—satisfied the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final action be preceded by a public recital informing the public of the business being conducted. The Attorney General held that the board violated this requirement because it never disclosed key terms of the agreement, including a large lump-sum payment, and that merely posting the agreement on the school district's website beforehand did not substitute for a verbal public recital during the meeting itself. The board was directed to bring future meetings into compliance with these requirements.

Amending Agenda During 48-Hour Posting Period
The requester alleged that the township board violated the Open Meetings Act by amending its meeting agenda less than 48 hours before a scheduled meeting, removing two action items and moving them to executive session instead. The PAC held that no violation occurred, reasoning that the Act requires 48 hours' notice of matters on which final action will be taken, but does not require a public body to act on every listed item or prohibit it from revising an agenda to delete items due to changed circumstances. Because the public still received proper advance notice of the matters actually acted upon, and the board's update actually improved transparency, the PAC found the township board's agenda amendment complied with the law.

Improper Discussion of Financial Matters and Disposal of Property in a Closed Meeting
A requester alleged that a community college's board improperly closed part of a special meeting to discuss the college's financial condition, tuition, and possible sale or lease of college-owned property, citing the personnel and real estate purchase/lease exceptions of the Open Meetings Act. The Public Access Bureau reviewed the closed-session recording and found the board mainly discussed general budgetary and fiscal matters, which are not covered by the personnel exception even though they might eventually affect employees, and discussed selling or leasing college property, which falls outside the exception that only covers purchasing or leasing property for the board's own use. Because neither cited exception applied, the Attorney General concluded the board violated the Open Meetings Act and directed it to release the closed-session minutes, recording, and related materials to the public.

Failure to Cite Closed Session Exception; Improper Discussion of Proposed Police Services Contract in Closed Session; Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester alleged that a village government's board voted in closed session to disband its police department and enter into a new policing contract without properly noticing the topic. The Public Access Counselor found that the board failed to publicly cite and record the specific Open Meetings Act exception authorizing its closed session, that the closed-session discussion of a proposed police-services contract exceeded the narrow personnel exception it later invoked (since it concerned a contract's cost and scope rather than any individual employee's conduct), and that the meeting agenda's generic "Executive Session" listing did not give the public adequate notice that final action on the contract would be taken. The village government was directed to disclose the closed-session record, re-vote on the contract at a properly noticed meeting, and bring future meetings into compliance.

Failure to Cite an Applicable Exception Before Closing a Meeting to the Public; Improper Discussion ofa Hiring Freeze in a Closed Meeting
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for closing part of a meeting to discuss a hiring freeze and the elimination of an employee's position after citing only "personnel" as its reason. The Public Access Counselor held that a bare reference to "personnel" does not adequately disclose which Open Meetings Act exception authorizes a closed session, that discussing how eliminating a position would affect a specific employee fell within the personnel exception but that the broader hiring-freeze discussion did not qualify as a "collective negotiating" matter because the county was not then engaged in active bargaining with its unions. The county board was directed to disclose the closed-session minutes, subject to redacting one sentence naming a specific employee, and to comply with the Act's citation and recording requirements going forward.

Discussion of Legal Matters ° Under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
The requester challenged a village government's board for closing part of a meeting to discuss "pending/imminent litigation" over a bond sale, after she had publicly stated during the same meeting that her group was not pursuing any lawsuit. The Public Access Counselor held that the board's closed-session minutes never recorded a specific basis for finding litigation probable or imminent as the Open Meetings Act requires, and that the board's stated concern about other, unspecified possible legal challenges to the bond sale did not amount to reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand — the mere possibility that opponents might sue is not enough to invoke the litigation exception. The village government was directed to disclose the closed-session recording concerning the bond sale and to bring future meetings into compliance.

Improper Discussion of Salary Increases for City Employees in a Closed Meeting
The requester, a newspaper publisher, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss and then approved an across-the-board cost-of-living raise for city employees under the exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the specific-employees exception does not extend to a general budgetary discussion affecting a broad category of employees, and that a second exception the city council later invoked for salary schedules could not be relied on because it had not been publicly cited at the time of the vote to close the meeting. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion and bring future meetings into compliance.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a board member, alleged that the village board voted to amend and approve a settlement agreement under a generic 'Old Business' agenda item that gave no notice the matter would be subject to final action, over the objection of the board's own attorney that the vote would be illegal. The Public Access Counselor held that an agenda item must disclose the general subject matter of any resolution or measure that will be finally acted on, and that 'Old Business' failed to do so here. The village board was directed to reconsider the settlement agreement at a properly noticed meeting.

Right to Record an Open Meeting
The requester was barred from recording the open portion of a school board meeting because he asked permission roughly ten minutes beforehand rather than complying with the board's policy requiring 24 hours' advance notice, which the board defended in part by citing the presence of children in the meeting room. The Public Access Counselor held that the Open Meetings Act allows only recording rules reasonably designed to prevent disruption or protect safety, and that the board failed to explain why a blanket 24-hour notice requirement -- as opposed to a narrower rule addressing its stated concern -- was necessary when the requester sought no special accommodations. The school district was directed to revise its recording policy to comply with the Act.

Discussion of Legal Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
A county state's attorney, relaying citizen concerns, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss ending a decades-old revenue-sharing agreement with a neighboring town, citing probable litigation, even though the mayor had publicly said no lawsuit was expected. The Public Access Counselor held that the council's closed-session discussion focused on what to do about the agreement rather than on litigation strategy, and that the council had not shown it had reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand, so the litigation exception did not apply. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Disclosure of Recordings of Public Meetings
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought audio recordings of the housing authority board's open meetings from a given year, and the housing authority withheld them as preliminary, deliberative material. The Public Access Counselor held that a verbatim recording of a meeting that was open to the public is inherently subject to public scrutiny and is not the kind of predecisional record the deliberative-process exemption protects, regardless of the purpose for which the recording was made. The housing authority was directed to disclose the requested meeting recordings.

Discussion of the Conduct of a Public Body Member in Closed Session Pastor Marvin Hightower President Peoria NAACP P.O. Box 6002 Peoria, Illinois 61601
An advocacy organization alleged that a village board closed part of a meeting to discuss a board member's racially charged public comments, after an agenda item identified the matter for discussion, rather than address the issue openly. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the potentially applicable exceptions authorized the closed session: the specific-employees exception does not cover elected board members, the board lacked authority to remove one of its own members so the removal-of-office exception did not apply, and the board was not sitting in a quasi-adjudicative capacity when it discussed the comments. The village board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Improper Discussion of Budget and Layoffs in Closed Session
The requester, a faculty union president, sought review of a university board's closed session in which it discussed the university's budget and layoffs, arguing that the board improperly relied on the closed-session exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of budgetary matters or categories of employees, and that only a brief portion of the closed session concerning one employee's contract fell within the exception. The board was directed to disclose the recording and minutes of the closed-session discussion of budget and layoff matters, apart from the narrow, properly closed portion.

Discussion of the Duties and Salaries of Elected Officials in Closed Session
The requester, an elected county auditor, sought review after a county board committee entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the salaries and duties of independently elected county officials including herself. The Public Access Counselor held that elected officials such as a county auditor or coroner are not "employees" of the county for purposes of the specific-employees exception, since the county does not direct their work or have authority to remove them, so the closed session exceeded the scope of any applicable exception. The committee was directed to disclose the recording of the improperly closed portion of its meeting.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a resident, sought more than two years of village board and committee meeting recordings, minutes, and newsletters, but the village never responded despite months of follow-up emails, calls, and a voicemail from this office. The Public Access Counselor held that the village violated FOIA's requirement to comply with, extend, or deny a request within five business days, which also barred it from later treating the request as unduly burdensome. The village was directed to provide all records responsive to the request.

"Established" and Recorded Rules for Public Comment
The requester, a member of the public, sought review of a school district's board of education after it limited the public comment portion of its meeting to a total of 15 minutes and refused to let some attendees speak on a matter of public concern. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act because it applied an unestablished and unrecorded rule to restrict public comment; its policy manual set a per-speaker time limit but contained no 15-minute cumulative cap. The board was directed to refrain from applying unestablished and unrecorded rules to future public comment periods.

Public Recital of the Nature of the Matter Under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
The requester, a newspaper, sought review of a school board's vote to approve a resolution authorizing a formal disciplinary notice to a teacher after the board announced only the resolution's number and title before voting, and the superintendent stated the underlying details had been discussed only in closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement of a public recital sufficient to identify the business being conducted, because identifying an unnamed teacher subject to discipline did not give the public adequate notice of the transaction. The board was directed to reconsider and re-vote on the resolution at a properly noticed meeting that names the teacher and describes the action being taken.

Right to Address Public Officials at a Public Meeting
The requester, a member of the public who did not reside within the city, sought review after a mayor refused to let her speak during a city council's public comment period, telling her she had "no standing" because she was not a resident. The Public Access Counselor held that the council had no established and recorded rule restricting public comment to residents, and further concluded that even such a rule would violate the Open Meetings Act's right to address public officials. The council was directed to refrain from limiting public comment to city residents at future meetings.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not Sufficiently Identified on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, sought review of a city council's meeting agenda after the council voted to raise permit application fees fivefold under an agenda item that listed only an ordinance number and a municipal code section, without describing its subject matter. The Public Access Counselor held that the agenda violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final-action items disclose the general subject matter of the business to be conducted, since referencing only an ordinance and code section gave the public no indication that a fee increase was being considered. The council was directed to reconsider its action at a properly noticed meeting with an agenda that identifies the general subject matter of the ordinance.

Duty to Approve Meeting Minutes Within Time Period Specified by OMA
The requester, a resident, sought review after a village board of trustees approved the minutes of three earlier meetings held between two and three months after those meetings took place. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to approve minutes within 30 days of a meeting or by its second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later, rejecting the board's argument that an unusually heavy meeting schedule and staffing shortages excused the delay. The board was directed to develop protocols ensuring minutes are approved within the statutory deadline going forward.

South Loop Elementary School Local School Council violated OMA by discussing principal evaluation in closed session
The requester, a member of a school's local school council, sought review after the council entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the general process and timeline for evaluating the school's principal rather than the principal's individual performance. The Public Access Counselor held that the closed-session exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of evaluation procedures applicable to a category of employees, so the council violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be open unless a narrow exception applies. The council was directed to disclose the recording of the unauthorized portions of its closed-session discussion.

Determination letters

McHenry County Committee violated OMA by holding private meeting on redistricting
A reporter alleged that county board members held a private meeting to discuss redistricting maps before an official committee meeting. The Attorney General's office found that this gathering met the legal definition of a 'meeting' and violated state law because it was not open to the public, lacked proper notice, and was not recorded. Because the meeting already occurred and no official action was taken, the PAC closed the file with a warning to the board to follow OMA rules in the future.

Westmont School Board violated OMA by discussing general staffing strategy in closed session
A citizen complained that a school board discussed staffing and retirement issues behind closed doors. The Attorney General's office found that the board broke the law because they discussed general staffing plans, which must be done in public, rather than specific personnel matters. No further action was required because the board had already received training on the issue.

Waukegan School Board violated OMA by failing to provide notice or agenda for collective bargaining meeting
A school board held a private meeting to discuss teacher contract negotiations without telling the public or posting an agenda. The Attorney General's office ruled this was illegal because even if a meeting is meant to be private, the board must first hold a public meeting and follow proper procedures to move into a closed session. The board was warned to follow these rules in the future.

Republican precinct committeemen meeting not subject to Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that a political party meeting failed to follow Open Meetings Act rules regarding agendas and public participation. The Attorney General's office investigated and concluded that the meeting was a private political event, not a government meeting, and therefore the Open Meetings Act did not apply.

Hinsdale D86 school board did not violate OMA in closed self-evaluation session
A school board member complained that their board held a private meeting that was supposed to be about improving board procedures but was actually used to attack political opponents. The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and determined that the discussion was appropriate and stayed within the legal rules for closed-door self-evaluation meetings. As a result, no violation of the Open Meetings Act was found.

Maine Township Board violated OMA by failing to post meeting agenda
A citizen complained that the Maine Township Board of Trustees failed to post the agenda for a September 29, 2015 meeting on its website, and also held a series of 'agency funding hearings' without proper notice. The Attorney General's office found that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by not posting the agenda, but noted that the Board remedied that violation by re-voting on the actions at a later meeting. Regarding the funding hearings, the office analyzed whether they constituted 'meetings' under the Act but did not reach a final determination; it noted the Board's assertion that no deliberation occurred and that the hearings consisted of presentations and questions.

St. Clair County Board violated OMA by taking action on vague agenda items
A citizen complained that the St. Clair County Board voted on eight resolutions without telling the public what those resolutions were about. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the Board's agenda was too vague and that they did not explain the business being conducted during the meeting. The Board was advised to improve its future meeting practices to ensure the public is properly informed.

St. Clair County Board violated OMA by listing resolutions only by number on agenda
A citizen complained that the St. Clair County Board voted on eight resolutions that were only listed by number on the meeting agenda, without explaining what the resolutions were about. The Attorney General's office agreed, stating that public bodies must provide enough information on agendas and during meetings so the public understands what is being voted on. The Board was advised to improve its future practices to ensure transparency.

City of Earlville City Council violated OMA by holding meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three City Council members held a private gathering to discuss city business without public notice or minutes. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that this gathering violated the Open Meetings Act because it involved a majority of a quorum deliberating public business. The Bureau also noted an allegation that three aldermen failed to complete required OMA training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The letter cautions the City Council to comply with OMA in the future.

City of Earlville violated Open Meetings Act by holding three-alderman meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three city aldermen met privately to discuss city business without telling the public or recording what happened. The Attorney General's office agreed that this was an illegal meeting under the Open Meetings Act and found that the city council violated the Act by failing to provide notice and keep minutes. The office also noted an allegation that the aldermen had not completed required training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The office cautioned the city council to comply with the Act in the future.

Kankakee School District 111 Board violated Open Meetings Act by restricting public comment and failing to explain closed session
A citizen complained that a school board cut off his public comments and failed to explain why they were going into a private closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by enforcing a restriction on public comment that was not among its established and recorded rules, and by not adequately informing the public of the reason for entering a second closed session. The determination did not address whether the closed session itself was legally permitted or state any further action required.

North Maine Fire Protection District Board held improper closed meeting under OMA
This determination letter addresses whether a gathering of two of three Fire Protection District trustees on November 1, 2016 constituted an improper closed 'meeting' under OMA. The Public Access Bureau held that the Board held an improper closed meeting: a quorum of the three-member Board gathered for at least 15 minutes, opened a health-insurance proposal, and discussed it, which meets OMA's definition of 'meeting' regardless of whether a formal vote occurred. Because no final action was taken during that gathering, no remedial action was available, though the Bureau cautioned the Board against future discussions of public business outside properly noticed open meetings. The matter involved the Board of Trustees of the North Maine Fire Protection District and was closed without issuance of a binding opinion.

City of DeKalb did not violate OMA over unvoted separation agreement
A citizen complained that the City of DeKalb approved an employee's separation agreement behind closed doors without telling the public. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the City Council never actually voted on the agreement; instead, city staff handled it as a routine administrative matter. Because no public meeting action was required, the City did not break the law.

Oak Grove School Board improperly discussed kindergarten policy in closed session under litigation exception
A school board held a closed-door meeting to discuss kindergarten programming, claiming it was related to potential litigation. The Attorney General's office found this was a violation because the litigation exception only allows for discussing legal strategy, not the actual merits of the school policy. The Board was ordered to release the portions of the meeting minutes that discussed the policy itself.

Sleepy Hollow Board violated OMA by exceeding closed-session scope on cell tower lease price
A citizen complained that the Village of Sleepy Hollow Board of Trustees held closed-door meetings to discuss a cell tower lease, going beyond the legal limit of only discussing the price of the lease. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the meeting records and determined that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that exceeded the scope of the real estate lease price exception. The determination does not state that the file was closed or that any advisory was given.

Parkland College Board violated OMA by failing to provide 48 hours' notice for non-emergency meeting
Parkland College held an 'emergency' meeting without giving the public the required 48 hours' notice. The Attorney General's office found that the situation did not qualify as a true emergency, meaning the college broke the law by not providing proper notice. However, the office also ruled that the topics discussed during the meeting's private session were legally allowed to be discussed behind closed doors.

Swansea Board failed to recite matter before termination vote, cured by later meeting
A citizen complained that the Village of Swansea Board of Trustees voted to fire an employee without first telling the public what they were voting on, which is required by law. The Attorney General's office agreed that the Board failed to follow the rules during the first meeting. However, because the Board later held another meeting where they properly announced the vote before taking it, the issue was considered resolved.

Atlanta Public Library District Board did not violate OMA public recital requirement on Treasurer's Report
A citizen complained that a library board didn't explain clearly enough what they were voting on when they approved a Treasurer's Report during a meeting. The Attorney General's office reviewed the meeting recording and decided the board provided enough information to the public. The board was not required to explain the specific details of the report, so no violation occurred.

Washington County Hospital Board violated OMA by discussing mere possibility of litigation in closed session
A citizen complained that a hospital board held an illegal closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office found that while the board properly announced the closed session by citing the correct legal exceptions, it held an unauthorized discussion during that closed session. The discussion concerned potential litigation after a Medicare audit, but the board did not make a finding that litigation was probable or imminent, as required by the Open Meetings Act exception.

City of Sandwich City Council improperly terminated employee during closed session
A news reporter alleged that the City of Sandwich City Council improperly terminated an employee during a closed session. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau determined that the Council improperly took final action when it approved terminating an employee in closed session without first voting in open session after providing an adequate public recital of the matter. The Bureau also found that the Council's closed session discussions on four dates did not exceed the scope of the cited open meetings exceptions.

City of Carlinville City Council violated Open Meetings Act by meeting without public notice
A citizen complained that members of the Carlinville City Council met privately to discuss public business without telling the public, which is against the law. The Attorney General's office investigated and agreed that the Council broke the Open Meetings Act. The PAC ordered the Council to release the minutes of that meeting to the public.

City of Springfield City Council social gathering not a meeting under OMA
A reporter complained that a group of city aldermen held an illegal private meeting at a restaurant to collect campaign donations. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that while the aldermen were present, they did not conduct official city business or make decisions, so no violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred.

PAC finds insufficient evidence that Fosterburg Water District held a private meeting
A citizen complained that a water district held a private 'retreat' without following public meeting rules like posting agendas or allowing public attendance. The Attorney General's office investigated but found there wasn't enough evidence to prove that the board members actually discussed public business during the event. Consequently, the office closed the case without finding a violation.

Special Audit Committee of Saline County Board violated OMA by meeting on legal holiday
A citizen complained that a county committee held a special meeting on a legal holiday, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and that the courthouse was locked. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau found that the Special Audit Committee of the Saline County Board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting on a legal holiday when its regular meeting day did not fall on that holiday. The letter cautions the committee to follow the law in the future but does not impose any remedy because no final action was taken at the meeting.

Pekin City Council violated OMA by discussing city manager duties in closed session
A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council held a closed session to discuss bidding authorizations, which should have been public. The Illinois Attorney General's office found that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act, but not because of the bidding topic. Instead, the violation occurred because the Council discussed the city manager's general duties under a personnel exception that only allows discussion of specific employees' performance or conduct. The office asked the Council to release the relevant portion of the closed session minutes and recording to the public.

Pekin City Council violated OMA by discussing bidding process in closed session
A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council discussed bidding processes in a closed session, which should have been public. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's Office reviewed the matter and concluded that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the exception they cited. This means the Council failed to follow the law's requirement that public business be conducted openly.

School District U46 Board did not violate OMA by discussing social media in closed session
A school board member complained that her board held a secret meeting to discuss her social media posts under the guise of a 'self-evaluation.' The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and found that the board's discussion was actually focused on improving board procedures and interactions, which is allowed in a closed session. Therefore, the board did not break the law.

City of Peru Committee of Whole violated OMA by unauthorized closed session discussions
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's Committee of the Whole held closed sessions to discuss merging police departments, which is not allowed under the Open Meetings Act. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the committee held unauthorized closed session discussions during four meetings in 2017 and 2018, and that the closed session minutes for those meetings did not contain sufficient information about the matters discussed.

City of Peru Committee of the Whole violated OMA in closed police consolidation talks
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's committee held secret meetings to discuss merging police departments. The Attorney General's office found that these topics were not allowed to be discussed in private and that the city's meeting minutes were too vague to meet legal requirements. The city was instructed to revise its meeting minutes to provide a proper summary of what was discussed.

City of Peru Committee of the Whole violated OMA by discussing police consolidation in closed session
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's committee improperly discussed police department consolidation behind closed doors. The Attorney General's office concluded that the committee held unauthorized closed session discussions on that topic during four meetings in 2017 and 2018, and that the closed session minutes of those meetings do not contain sufficient information about the matters discussed.

Court cases

McKee v. The Board of Trustees of the Champaign Police Pension Fund ()
The court affirmed the denial of disability benefits, holding that the Board did not violate the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session pursuant to its rules and regulations. The court found no evidence of procedural impropriety regarding the Board's closed-session deliberations.

Galena Gazette Publications, Inc. v. County of Jo Daviess ()
The appellate court held that the defendants' closed sessions were properly conducted under the real estate acquisition exception of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5)). Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Barrington Hills ()
The court addressed a zoning dispute regarding the commercial boarding of horses. The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal, which the court found forfeited.

LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals (2011 IL App (1st) 100423)
The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal. The court held that the issue was forfeited because it was not raised before the Zoning Board or in the complaint for administrative review.

City of Bloomington v. Raoul (2021 IL App (4th) 190539)
The court held that the Bloomington City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing topics outside the scope of the litigation exception during a closed session. The court determined that the council's discussion focused on public relations and negotiation strategy rather than actual legal theories or litigation defenses, thereby exceeding the permitted scope of 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11).

Gosnell v. Hogan (179 ill-app-3d 161)
The court affirmed the denial of an injunction against a school board, holding that topics not specifically excepted under the Open Meetings Act may be discussed in closed session if they are germane and integral to an excepted topic, such as real estate acquisition. The court emphasized a practical, substantial compliance approach to interpreting the Act's exceptions.

Board of Education School District No. 67 v. Sikorski (214 ill-app-3d 945)
The court held that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding an executive session to discuss the postponement of a property sale. However, the court determined that the violation was cured and ratified by subsequent public meetings held by the Board.

Davis v. Board of Education of Farmer City-Mansfield Community Unit School District No. 17 (63 ill-app-3d 495)
The court addressed whether a school board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session to discuss the superintendent's employment. The court held that the board's actions regarding the superintendent's contract termination and salary reduction did not violate the Act's requirements for public meetings or final action procedures.

Scott v. Illinois State Police Merit Board (222 ill-app-3d 496)
The court held that the Board's meeting to discuss disciplinary action against the plaintiff fell within the Open Meetings Act exception for considering information regarding the employment or dismissal of an employee. Consequently, the Board did not violate the Act by conducting the meeting in the manner it did.

People ex rel. Ryan v. Village of Villa Park (212 ill-app-3d 187)
The court held that the Village of Villa Park violated the Open Meetings Act by holding closed sessions to discuss matters, such as traffic and infrastructure improvements, that did not fall under the real estate acquisition exception. The court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants and remanded with instructions to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, including injunctive and declaratory relief.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Open meetings. (a) Openness required. All meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public unless excepted in subsection (c) and closed in accordance with Section 2a. (b) Construction of exceptions. The exceptions contained in subsection (c) are in derogation of the requirement that public bodies meet in the open, and therefore, the exceptions are to be strictly construed, extending only to subjects clearly within their scope. The exceptions authorize but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included within an enumerated exception. (c) Exceptions. A public body may hold closed meetings to consider the following subjects: (1) The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees, specific individuals who serve as independent contractors in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or specific volunteers of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee, a specific individual who serves as an independent contractor in a park, recreational, or educational setting, or a volunteer of the public body or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity. However, a meeting to consider an increase in compensation to a specific employee of a public body that is subject to the Local Government Wage Increase Transparency Act may not be closed and shall be open to the public and posted and held in accordance with this Act. (2) Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees. (3) The selection of a person to fill a public office, as defined in this Act, including a vacancy in a public office, when the public body is given power to appoint under law or ordinance, or the discipline, performance or removal of the occupant of a public office, when the public body is given power to remove the occupant under law or ordinance. (4) Evidence or testimony presented in open hearing, or in closed hearing where specifically authorized by law, to a quasi-adjudicative body, as defined in this Act, provided that the body prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning. (4.5) Evidence or testimony presented to a school board regarding denial of admission to school events or property pursuant to Section 24-24 of the School Code, provided that the school board prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning. (5) The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired. (6) The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body. (7) The sale or purchase of securities, investments, or investment contracts. This exception shall not apply to the investment of assets or income of funds deposited into the Illinois Prepaid Tuition Trust Fund. (8) Security procedures, school building safety and security, and the use of personnel and equipment to respond to an actual, a threatened, or a reasonably potential danger to the safety of employees, students, staff, the public, or public property. (9) Student disciplinary cases. (10) The placement of individual students in special education programs and other matters relating to individual students. (11) Litigation, when an action against, affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting. (12) The establishment of reserves or settlement of claims as provided in the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, if otherwise the disposition of a claim or potential claim might be prejudiced, or the review or discussion of claims, loss or risk management information, records, data, advice or communications from or with respect to any insurer of the public body or any intergovernmental risk management association or self insurance pool of which the public body is a member. (13) Conciliation of complaints of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing, when closed meetings are authorized by the law or ordinance prescribing fair housing practices and creating a commission or administrative agency for their enforcement. (14) Informant sources, the hiring or assignment of undercover personnel or equipment, or ongoing, prior or future criminal investigations, when discussed by a public body with criminal investigatory responsibilities. (15) Professional ethics or performance when considered by an advisory body appointed to advise a licensing or regulatory agency on matters germane to the advisory body's field of competence. (16) Self evaluation, practices and procedures or professional ethics, when meeting with a representative of a statewide association of which the public body is a member. (17) The recruitment, credentialing, discipline or formal peer review of physicians or other health care professionals, or for the discussion of matters protected under the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including 42 C.F.R. Part 3 (73 FR 70732), or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 162, and 164, by a hospital, or other institution providing medical care, that is operated by the public body. (18) Deliberations for decisions of the Prisoner Review Board. (19) Review or discussion of applications received under the Experimental Organ Transplantation Procedures Act. (20) The classification and discussion of matters classified as confidential or continued confidential by the State Government Suggestion Award Board. (21) Discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by Section 2.06. (22) Deliberations for decisions of the State Emergency Medical Services Disciplinary Review Board. (23) The operation by a municipality of a municipal utility or the operation of a municipal power agency or municipal natural gas agency when the discussion involves: (i) trade secrets or commercial or financial information obtained from a person or business where the trade secrets or commercial or financial information are furnished under a claim that they are proprietary, privileged, or confidential, and that disclosure of the trade secrets or commercial or financial information would cause competitive harm to the person or business; or commercially sensitive information contained in offers to buy or sell made in the competitive markets of a regional transmission organization; and only insofar as the discussion relates directly to such trade secrets or information; (ii) physical or cybersecurity of facilities or materials designated as Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information under federal law or regulation; or (iii) ongoing contract negotiations or results of a request for proposals relating to the purchase, sale, or delivery of electricity or natural gas from nonaffiliate entities; provided however, the municipality, municipal power agency, or municipal natural gas agency shall hold at least one public meeting as to any contract discussed in whole or in part in closed session prior to final action on the contract. (24) Meetings of a residential health care facility resident sexual assault and death review team or the Executive Council under the Abuse Prevention Review Team Act. (25) Meetings of an independent team of experts under Brian's Law. (26) Meetings of a mortality review team appointed under the Department of Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team Act. (27) (Blank). (28) Correspondence and records (i) that may not be disclosed under Section 11-9 of the Illinois Public Aid Code or (ii) that pertain to appeals under Section 11-8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (29) Meetings between internal or external auditors and governmental audit committees, finance committees, and their equivalents, when the discussion involves internal control weaknesses, identification of potential fraud risk areas, known or suspected frauds, and fraud interviews conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards of the United States of America. (30) (Blank). (31) Meetings and deliberations for decisions of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. (32) Meetings between the Regional Transportation Authority Board and its Service Boards when the discussion involves review by the Regional Transportation Authority Board of employment contracts under Section 28d of the Metropolitan Transit Authority Act and Sections 3A.18 and 3B.26 of the Regional Transportation Authority Act. (33) Those meetings or portions of meetings of the advisory committee and peer review subcommittee created under Section 320 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act during which specific controlled substance prescriber, dispenser, or patient information is discussed. (34) Meetings of the Tax Increment Financing Reform Task Force under Section 2505-800 of the Department of Revenue Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. (35) Meetings of the group established to discuss Medicaid capitation rates under Section 5-30.8 of the Illinois Public Aid Code. (36) Those deliberations or portions of deliberations for decisions of the Illinois Gaming Board in which there is discussed any of the following: (i) personal, commercial, financial, or other information obtained from any source that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, or a trade secret; or (ii) information specifically exempted from the disclosure by federal or State law. (37) Deliberations for decisions of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, the Certification Review Panel, and the Illinois State Police Merit Board regarding certification and decertification. (38) Meetings of the Ad Hoc Statewide Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Board that occur in closed executive session under subsection (d) of Section 35 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (39) Meetings of the regional review teams under subsection (a) of Section 75 of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Act. (40) Meetings of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Review Board under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. (d) Definitions. For purposes of this Section: "Employee" means a person employed by a public body whose relationship with the public body constitutes an employer-employee relationship under the usual common law rules, and who is not an independent contractor. "Public office" means a position created by or under the Constitution or laws of this State, the occupant of which is charged with the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of this State. The term "public office" shall include members of the public body, but it shall not include organizational positions filled by members thereof, whether established by law or by a public body itself, that exist to assist the body in the conduct of its business. "Quasi-adjudicative body" means an administrative body charged by law or ordinance with the responsibility to conduct hearings, receive evidence or testimony and make determinations based thereon, but does not include local electoral boards when such bodies are considering petition challenges. (e) Final action. No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted. (Source: P.A. 103-311, eff. 7-28-23; 103-626, eff. 1-1-25; 104-458, eff. 6-1-26.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 2: 51 · 2(c)(1) (Employee/contractor appointment, discipline, or performance): 26 · 2(c) (General closed-session exceptions (cites Sec. 2(c) as a whole without naming a specific numbered exception)): 25 · 2(c)(11) (Pending, probable, or imminent litigation): 22 · 2(e) (Final action ban in closed session (no final action may be taken at a closed meeting)): 21 · 2(c)(5) (Purchase or lease of real property): 11 · 2(a) (Openness required (the basic open-meetings mandate, subject to the Sec. 2(c) exceptions)): 8 · 2(c)(6) (Setting a sale/lease price for public body's own property): 3 · 2(c)(4) (Evidence to a quasi-adjudicative body): 3 · 2(c)(16) (Self-evaluation with a statewide/regional association): 2 · 2(c)(3) (Filling a public office / removing an office-holder): 2 · 2a: 2 · 2(c)(2) (Collective negotiating matters / salary schedules): 1 · 2(c)(10) (Placement of individual students in special education): 1 · 2(c)(9) (Student disciplinary cases): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Improper Discussion in Closed Session of Budgetary Matters
The requester, a journalist, challenged a village government's practice of discussing its budget during personnel- and finance-committee sessions closed to the public under the Open Meetings Act's employee-related exception. The Public Access Counselor found that while some closed-session discussion of individual employees was proper, significant portions instead addressed general budgetary and staffing issues that fall outside that narrow exception and must be conducted in open session. The village government was directed to release the portions of its closed-session minutes covering the improperly closed budget discussions, redacting only the properly closed employee-specific portions.

Improper Discussion of Proposed Ordinance in Closed Session; Requirement to Recite and Record Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent; Requirement to Record Closed Sessions; Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited.
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for discussing a proposed landfill ordinance in a closed session under the Open Meetings Act's litigation exception. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee's closed-session discussion went beyond genuine probable-or-imminent litigation, that it failed to publicly state and record its factual basis for finding litigation likely, failed to make a required recording of the closed session, and appears to have reached a final decision on the ordinance in closed session rather than voting in open session as required. The county board was directed to release the improperly closed portions of its minutes, record all future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into full compliance with the Act.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited
The requester challenged a public university's governing board for voting, during a closed session, to terminate a tenured faculty member's employment. The Public Access Counselor's review of the closed-session recording confirmed the board voted on the termination behind closed doors and never disclosed or discussed the action once back in open session, in violation of the Open Meetings Act's prohibition on taking final action in closed session, which applies even to personnel matters. The university was directed to place the matter on a future open-session agenda, explain the proposed action to the public before any vote, and ensure future compliance.

Secret Ballots Prohibited
The requester challenged a county advisory board for using a secret paper ballot to select which candidate to recommend for a vacant board seat, with votes cast anonymously and dropped in a container before being tallied. The Public Access Counselor held that although the advisory board characterized the vote as a nonbinding "straw poll," selecting a single candidate to recommend was itself a final action under the Open Meetings Act, and that using a secret ballot for that decision violated the Act's requirement that public bodies act and deliberate openly, since the public could not see how any individual member voted. The advisory board was directed to conduct all future votes on Act-covered matters openly, disclosing each member's vote.

Requirement to Record and Enter Into Closed Meeting Minutes Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent.
The requester challenged a library board for closing part of a meeting to discuss a payment dispute with an employee benefit plan, arguing no litigation was actually threatened. The Public Access Counselor found the library board had a reasonable basis to believe litigation was probable, since it had received letters from the other party's attorney explicitly threatening suit, and that the closed-session discussion properly stayed within permissible litigation-strategy topics, but held that the board still violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to record and document that litigation-probable finding in its closed-session minutes as the Act requires. The library board was directed to amend its minutes to include that explanation and to record the required finding in all future closed sessions relying on the same exception.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited; Duty to Record Closed Meetings; Summary of Discussion Required in Minutes
The requester, a journalist, challenged a school district for having most of its board members sign a superintendent's separation agreement during a closed session before later ratifying it with a vote in open session. The Public Access Counselor held that while discussing the superintendent's employment in closed session was proper, signing the agreement behind closed doors was itself an improper final action, and that the subsequent open-session vote did not cure the violation because the board never informed the public of the agreement's actual terms, including a substantial lump-sum payment, before voting; the board also violated separate requirements to record its closed sessions and summarize their content in the minutes. The school district was directed to release a summary of the closed-session discussion, properly record and summarize future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into compliance.

Requirement to Publicly Recite Nature of Matter Being Considered and Other Information to Adequately Inform the Public of the Business Being Conducted Before Taking Final Action
The requester, a journalist, challenged the same school district's process for appointing an interim superintendent, arguing the board had effectively decided the appointment behind closed doors before its public vote. The Public Access Counselor found that the board's closed-session discussions were limited to preliminary steps, such as authorizing its attorney to gauge the candidate's interest and agreeing to place the matter on a future public agenda, and that its subsequent open-session vote was preceded by a substantive public discussion of the candidate's salary, duration, and duties. Because the board took no final action behind closed doors and adequately informed the public before voting, the Public Access Counselor found no violation of the Open Meetings Act's requirements.

A Public Body's Special Meeting Held Approximately 26 Miles from its Ordinary Meeting Location is Not "Convenient and Open" to the Public.
The requester alleged that the fire protection district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting at a location far outside the district's boundaries. The board's attorney argued the meeting was held at his law office in a nearby city to save on travel costs for legal consultation, and that it was properly noticed and involved no formal action. The Public Access Counselor held that the meeting location—about 26 miles from the district's usual meeting place, held at 9:00 a.m. on a weekday—violated the requirement that meetings be held somewhere "convenient and open" to the public, since the distance and timing would likely have deterred residents from attending, especially given the significant tax and bond issues discussed. The district was directed to hold all future meetings at locations that are genuinely convenient and open to the public, as required by law.

Duty to Inform the Public of the Nature of the Business under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
A requester alleged that the school district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by voting in open session to dismiss an employee identified only as "Employee A," without naming the employee, after discussing the matter in closed session. The PAC held that while boards may discuss personnel performance issues in closed session, any final action—like a vote to dismiss—must occur in open session and be preceded by a public recital sufficient to inform the public of the actual business being conducted. Because the board withheld the employee's identity, citing privacy concerns, the public could not understand the real effect of the vote (for example, whether the action concerned a support staffer, teacher, or administrator), so the board failed to meet this disclosure requirement. The PAC directed the school district to reconsider its final action and, going forward, to include the employee's name and other identifying information when taking such final action in open session.

Failure to Sufficiently Inform the Public of the Business Being Conducted before Taking Final Action
A journalist filed a request for review after a school district's board voted, during an open meeting, to approve a separation agreement with its former superintendent. The dispute centered on whether the board's brief public statement before the vote—naming the agreement and calling for a motion—satisfied the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final action be preceded by a public recital informing the public of the business being conducted. The Attorney General held that the board violated this requirement because it never disclosed key terms of the agreement, including a large lump-sum payment, and that merely posting the agreement on the school district's website beforehand did not substitute for a verbal public recital during the meeting itself. The board was directed to bring future meetings into compliance with these requirements.

Amending Agenda During 48-Hour Posting Period
The requester alleged that the township board violated the Open Meetings Act by amending its meeting agenda less than 48 hours before a scheduled meeting, removing two action items and moving them to executive session instead. The PAC held that no violation occurred, reasoning that the Act requires 48 hours' notice of matters on which final action will be taken, but does not require a public body to act on every listed item or prohibit it from revising an agenda to delete items due to changed circumstances. Because the public still received proper advance notice of the matters actually acted upon, and the board's update actually improved transparency, the PAC found the township board's agenda amendment complied with the law.

Improper Discussion of Financial Matters and Disposal of Property in a Closed Meeting
A requester alleged that a community college's board improperly closed part of a special meeting to discuss the college's financial condition, tuition, and possible sale or lease of college-owned property, citing the personnel and real estate purchase/lease exceptions of the Open Meetings Act. The Public Access Bureau reviewed the closed-session recording and found the board mainly discussed general budgetary and fiscal matters, which are not covered by the personnel exception even though they might eventually affect employees, and discussed selling or leasing college property, which falls outside the exception that only covers purchasing or leasing property for the board's own use. Because neither cited exception applied, the Attorney General concluded the board violated the Open Meetings Act and directed it to release the closed-session minutes, recording, and related materials to the public.

Failure to Cite Closed Session Exception; Improper Discussion of Proposed Police Services Contract in Closed Session; Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester alleged that a village government's board voted in closed session to disband its police department and enter into a new policing contract without properly noticing the topic. The Public Access Counselor found that the board failed to publicly cite and record the specific Open Meetings Act exception authorizing its closed session, that the closed-session discussion of a proposed police-services contract exceeded the narrow personnel exception it later invoked (since it concerned a contract's cost and scope rather than any individual employee's conduct), and that the meeting agenda's generic "Executive Session" listing did not give the public adequate notice that final action on the contract would be taken. The village government was directed to disclose the closed-session record, re-vote on the contract at a properly noticed meeting, and bring future meetings into compliance.

Failure to Cite an Applicable Exception Before Closing a Meeting to the Public; Improper Discussion ofa Hiring Freeze in a Closed Meeting
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for closing part of a meeting to discuss a hiring freeze and the elimination of an employee's position after citing only "personnel" as its reason. The Public Access Counselor held that a bare reference to "personnel" does not adequately disclose which Open Meetings Act exception authorizes a closed session, that discussing how eliminating a position would affect a specific employee fell within the personnel exception but that the broader hiring-freeze discussion did not qualify as a "collective negotiating" matter because the county was not then engaged in active bargaining with its unions. The county board was directed to disclose the closed-session minutes, subject to redacting one sentence naming a specific employee, and to comply with the Act's citation and recording requirements going forward.

Discussion of Legal Matters ° Under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
The requester challenged a village government's board for closing part of a meeting to discuss "pending/imminent litigation" over a bond sale, after she had publicly stated during the same meeting that her group was not pursuing any lawsuit. The Public Access Counselor held that the board's closed-session minutes never recorded a specific basis for finding litigation probable or imminent as the Open Meetings Act requires, and that the board's stated concern about other, unspecified possible legal challenges to the bond sale did not amount to reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand — the mere possibility that opponents might sue is not enough to invoke the litigation exception. The village government was directed to disclose the closed-session recording concerning the bond sale and to bring future meetings into compliance.

Improper Discussion of Salary Increases for City Employees in a Closed Meeting
The requester, a newspaper publisher, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss and then approved an across-the-board cost-of-living raise for city employees under the exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the specific-employees exception does not extend to a general budgetary discussion affecting a broad category of employees, and that a second exception the city council later invoked for salary schedules could not be relied on because it had not been publicly cited at the time of the vote to close the meeting. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion and bring future meetings into compliance.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a board member, alleged that the village board voted to amend and approve a settlement agreement under a generic 'Old Business' agenda item that gave no notice the matter would be subject to final action, over the objection of the board's own attorney that the vote would be illegal. The Public Access Counselor held that an agenda item must disclose the general subject matter of any resolution or measure that will be finally acted on, and that 'Old Business' failed to do so here. The village board was directed to reconsider the settlement agreement at a properly noticed meeting.

Right to Record an Open Meeting
The requester was barred from recording the open portion of a school board meeting because he asked permission roughly ten minutes beforehand rather than complying with the board's policy requiring 24 hours' advance notice, which the board defended in part by citing the presence of children in the meeting room. The Public Access Counselor held that the Open Meetings Act allows only recording rules reasonably designed to prevent disruption or protect safety, and that the board failed to explain why a blanket 24-hour notice requirement -- as opposed to a narrower rule addressing its stated concern -- was necessary when the requester sought no special accommodations. The school district was directed to revise its recording policy to comply with the Act.

Discussion of Legal Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
A county state's attorney, relaying citizen concerns, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss ending a decades-old revenue-sharing agreement with a neighboring town, citing probable litigation, even though the mayor had publicly said no lawsuit was expected. The Public Access Counselor held that the council's closed-session discussion focused on what to do about the agreement rather than on litigation strategy, and that the council had not shown it had reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand, so the litigation exception did not apply. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Disclosure of Recordings of Public Meetings
The requester, a newspaper reporter, sought audio recordings of the housing authority board's open meetings from a given year, and the housing authority withheld them as preliminary, deliberative material. The Public Access Counselor held that a verbatim recording of a meeting that was open to the public is inherently subject to public scrutiny and is not the kind of predecisional record the deliberative-process exemption protects, regardless of the purpose for which the recording was made. The housing authority was directed to disclose the requested meeting recordings.

Discussion of the Conduct of a Public Body Member in Closed Session Pastor Marvin Hightower President Peoria NAACP P.O. Box 6002 Peoria, Illinois 61601
An advocacy organization alleged that a village board closed part of a meeting to discuss a board member's racially charged public comments, after an agenda item identified the matter for discussion, rather than address the issue openly. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the potentially applicable exceptions authorized the closed session: the specific-employees exception does not cover elected board members, the board lacked authority to remove one of its own members so the removal-of-office exception did not apply, and the board was not sitting in a quasi-adjudicative capacity when it discussed the comments. The village board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Improper Discussion of Budget and Layoffs in Closed Session
The requester, a faculty union president, sought review of a university board's closed session in which it discussed the university's budget and layoffs, arguing that the board improperly relied on the closed-session exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of budgetary matters or categories of employees, and that only a brief portion of the closed session concerning one employee's contract fell within the exception. The board was directed to disclose the recording and minutes of the closed-session discussion of budget and layoff matters, apart from the narrow, properly closed portion.

Discussion of the Duties and Salaries of Elected Officials in Closed Session
The requester, an elected county auditor, sought review after a county board committee entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the salaries and duties of independently elected county officials including herself. The Public Access Counselor held that elected officials such as a county auditor or coroner are not "employees" of the county for purposes of the specific-employees exception, since the county does not direct their work or have authority to remove them, so the closed session exceeded the scope of any applicable exception. The committee was directed to disclose the recording of the improperly closed portion of its meeting.

Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
The requester, a resident, sought more than two years of village board and committee meeting recordings, minutes, and newsletters, but the village never responded despite months of follow-up emails, calls, and a voicemail from this office. The Public Access Counselor held that the village violated FOIA's requirement to comply with, extend, or deny a request within five business days, which also barred it from later treating the request as unduly burdensome. The village was directed to provide all records responsive to the request.

"Established" and Recorded Rules for Public Comment
The requester, a member of the public, sought review of a school district's board of education after it limited the public comment portion of its meeting to a total of 15 minutes and refused to let some attendees speak on a matter of public concern. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act because it applied an unestablished and unrecorded rule to restrict public comment; its policy manual set a per-speaker time limit but contained no 15-minute cumulative cap. The board was directed to refrain from applying unestablished and unrecorded rules to future public comment periods.

Public Recital of the Nature of the Matter Under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
The requester, a newspaper, sought review of a school board's vote to approve a resolution authorizing a formal disciplinary notice to a teacher after the board announced only the resolution's number and title before voting, and the superintendent stated the underlying details had been discussed only in closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement of a public recital sufficient to identify the business being conducted, because identifying an unnamed teacher subject to discipline did not give the public adequate notice of the transaction. The board was directed to reconsider and re-vote on the resolution at a properly noticed meeting that names the teacher and describes the action being taken.

Right to Address Public Officials at a Public Meeting
The requester, a member of the public who did not reside within the city, sought review after a mayor refused to let her speak during a city council's public comment period, telling her she had "no standing" because she was not a resident. The Public Access Counselor held that the council had no established and recorded rule restricting public comment to residents, and further concluded that even such a rule would violate the Open Meetings Act's right to address public officials. The council was directed to refrain from limiting public comment to city residents at future meetings.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not Sufficiently Identified on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, sought review of a city council's meeting agenda after the council voted to raise permit application fees fivefold under an agenda item that listed only an ordinance number and a municipal code section, without describing its subject matter. The Public Access Counselor held that the agenda violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final-action items disclose the general subject matter of the business to be conducted, since referencing only an ordinance and code section gave the public no indication that a fee increase was being considered. The council was directed to reconsider its action at a properly noticed meeting with an agenda that identifies the general subject matter of the ordinance.

Duty to Approve Meeting Minutes Within Time Period Specified by OMA
The requester, a resident, sought review after a village board of trustees approved the minutes of three earlier meetings held between two and three months after those meetings took place. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to approve minutes within 30 days of a meeting or by its second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later, rejecting the board's argument that an unusually heavy meeting schedule and staffing shortages excused the delay. The board was directed to develop protocols ensuring minutes are approved within the statutory deadline going forward.

South Loop Elementary School Local School Council violated OMA by discussing principal evaluation in closed session
The requester, a member of a school's local school council, sought review after the council entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the general process and timeline for evaluating the school's principal rather than the principal's individual performance. The Public Access Counselor held that the closed-session exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of evaluation procedures applicable to a category of employees, so the council violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be open unless a narrow exception applies. The council was directed to disclose the recording of the unauthorized portions of its closed-session discussion.

Determination letters

McHenry County Committee violated OMA by holding private meeting on redistricting
A reporter alleged that county board members held a private meeting to discuss redistricting maps before an official committee meeting. The Attorney General's office found that this gathering met the legal definition of a 'meeting' and violated state law because it was not open to the public, lacked proper notice, and was not recorded. Because the meeting already occurred and no official action was taken, the PAC closed the file with a warning to the board to follow OMA rules in the future.

Westmont School Board violated OMA by discussing general staffing strategy in closed session
A citizen complained that a school board discussed staffing and retirement issues behind closed doors. The Attorney General's office found that the board broke the law because they discussed general staffing plans, which must be done in public, rather than specific personnel matters. No further action was required because the board had already received training on the issue.

Waukegan School Board violated OMA by failing to provide notice or agenda for collective bargaining meeting
A school board held a private meeting to discuss teacher contract negotiations without telling the public or posting an agenda. The Attorney General's office ruled this was illegal because even if a meeting is meant to be private, the board must first hold a public meeting and follow proper procedures to move into a closed session. The board was warned to follow these rules in the future.

Republican precinct committeemen meeting not subject to Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that a political party meeting failed to follow Open Meetings Act rules regarding agendas and public participation. The Attorney General's office investigated and concluded that the meeting was a private political event, not a government meeting, and therefore the Open Meetings Act did not apply.

Hinsdale D86 school board did not violate OMA in closed self-evaluation session
A school board member complained that their board held a private meeting that was supposed to be about improving board procedures but was actually used to attack political opponents. The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and determined that the discussion was appropriate and stayed within the legal rules for closed-door self-evaluation meetings. As a result, no violation of the Open Meetings Act was found.

Maine Township Board violated OMA by failing to post meeting agenda
A citizen complained that the Maine Township Board of Trustees failed to post the agenda for a September 29, 2015 meeting on its website, and also held a series of 'agency funding hearings' without proper notice. The Attorney General's office found that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by not posting the agenda, but noted that the Board remedied that violation by re-voting on the actions at a later meeting. Regarding the funding hearings, the office analyzed whether they constituted 'meetings' under the Act but did not reach a final determination; it noted the Board's assertion that no deliberation occurred and that the hearings consisted of presentations and questions.

St. Clair County Board violated OMA by taking action on vague agenda items
A citizen complained that the St. Clair County Board voted on eight resolutions without telling the public what those resolutions were about. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the Board's agenda was too vague and that they did not explain the business being conducted during the meeting. The Board was advised to improve its future meeting practices to ensure the public is properly informed.

St. Clair County Board violated OMA by listing resolutions only by number on agenda
A citizen complained that the St. Clair County Board voted on eight resolutions that were only listed by number on the meeting agenda, without explaining what the resolutions were about. The Attorney General's office agreed, stating that public bodies must provide enough information on agendas and during meetings so the public understands what is being voted on. The Board was advised to improve its future practices to ensure transparency.

City of Earlville City Council violated OMA by holding meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three City Council members held a private gathering to discuss city business without public notice or minutes. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that this gathering violated the Open Meetings Act because it involved a majority of a quorum deliberating public business. The Bureau also noted an allegation that three aldermen failed to complete required OMA training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The letter cautions the City Council to comply with OMA in the future.

City of Earlville violated Open Meetings Act by holding three-alderman meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three city aldermen met privately to discuss city business without telling the public or recording what happened. The Attorney General's office agreed that this was an illegal meeting under the Open Meetings Act and found that the city council violated the Act by failing to provide notice and keep minutes. The office also noted an allegation that the aldermen had not completed required training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The office cautioned the city council to comply with the Act in the future.

Kankakee School District 111 Board violated Open Meetings Act by restricting public comment and failing to explain closed session
A citizen complained that a school board cut off his public comments and failed to explain why they were going into a private closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by enforcing a restriction on public comment that was not among its established and recorded rules, and by not adequately informing the public of the reason for entering a second closed session. The determination did not address whether the closed session itself was legally permitted or state any further action required.

North Maine Fire Protection District Board held improper closed meeting under OMA
This determination letter addresses whether a gathering of two of three Fire Protection District trustees on November 1, 2016 constituted an improper closed 'meeting' under OMA. The Public Access Bureau held that the Board held an improper closed meeting: a quorum of the three-member Board gathered for at least 15 minutes, opened a health-insurance proposal, and discussed it, which meets OMA's definition of 'meeting' regardless of whether a formal vote occurred. Because no final action was taken during that gathering, no remedial action was available, though the Bureau cautioned the Board against future discussions of public business outside properly noticed open meetings. The matter involved the Board of Trustees of the North Maine Fire Protection District and was closed without issuance of a binding opinion.

City of DeKalb did not violate OMA over unvoted separation agreement
A citizen complained that the City of DeKalb approved an employee's separation agreement behind closed doors without telling the public. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the City Council never actually voted on the agreement; instead, city staff handled it as a routine administrative matter. Because no public meeting action was required, the City did not break the law.

Oak Grove School Board improperly discussed kindergarten policy in closed session under litigation exception
A school board held a closed-door meeting to discuss kindergarten programming, claiming it was related to potential litigation. The Attorney General's office found this was a violation because the litigation exception only allows for discussing legal strategy, not the actual merits of the school policy. The Board was ordered to release the portions of the meeting minutes that discussed the policy itself.

Sleepy Hollow Board violated OMA by exceeding closed-session scope on cell tower lease price
A citizen complained that the Village of Sleepy Hollow Board of Trustees held closed-door meetings to discuss a cell tower lease, going beyond the legal limit of only discussing the price of the lease. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the meeting records and determined that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that exceeded the scope of the real estate lease price exception. The determination does not state that the file was closed or that any advisory was given.

Parkland College Board violated OMA by failing to provide 48 hours' notice for non-emergency meeting
Parkland College held an 'emergency' meeting without giving the public the required 48 hours' notice. The Attorney General's office found that the situation did not qualify as a true emergency, meaning the college broke the law by not providing proper notice. However, the office also ruled that the topics discussed during the meeting's private session were legally allowed to be discussed behind closed doors.

Swansea Board failed to recite matter before termination vote, cured by later meeting
A citizen complained that the Village of Swansea Board of Trustees voted to fire an employee without first telling the public what they were voting on, which is required by law. The Attorney General's office agreed that the Board failed to follow the rules during the first meeting. However, because the Board later held another meeting where they properly announced the vote before taking it, the issue was considered resolved.

Atlanta Public Library District Board did not violate OMA public recital requirement on Treasurer's Report
A citizen complained that a library board didn't explain clearly enough what they were voting on when they approved a Treasurer's Report during a meeting. The Attorney General's office reviewed the meeting recording and decided the board provided enough information to the public. The board was not required to explain the specific details of the report, so no violation occurred.

Washington County Hospital Board violated OMA by discussing mere possibility of litigation in closed session
A citizen complained that a hospital board held an illegal closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office found that while the board properly announced the closed session by citing the correct legal exceptions, it held an unauthorized discussion during that closed session. The discussion concerned potential litigation after a Medicare audit, but the board did not make a finding that litigation was probable or imminent, as required by the Open Meetings Act exception.

City of Sandwich City Council improperly terminated employee during closed session
A news reporter alleged that the City of Sandwich City Council improperly terminated an employee during a closed session. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau determined that the Council improperly took final action when it approved terminating an employee in closed session without first voting in open session after providing an adequate public recital of the matter. The Bureau also found that the Council's closed session discussions on four dates did not exceed the scope of the cited open meetings exceptions.

City of Carlinville City Council violated Open Meetings Act by meeting without public notice
A citizen complained that members of the Carlinville City Council met privately to discuss public business without telling the public, which is against the law. The Attorney General's office investigated and agreed that the Council broke the Open Meetings Act. The PAC ordered the Council to release the minutes of that meeting to the public.

City of Springfield City Council social gathering not a meeting under OMA
A reporter complained that a group of city aldermen held an illegal private meeting at a restaurant to collect campaign donations. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that while the aldermen were present, they did not conduct official city business or make decisions, so no violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred.

PAC finds insufficient evidence that Fosterburg Water District held a private meeting
A citizen complained that a water district held a private 'retreat' without following public meeting rules like posting agendas or allowing public attendance. The Attorney General's office investigated but found there wasn't enough evidence to prove that the board members actually discussed public business during the event. Consequently, the office closed the case without finding a violation.

Special Audit Committee of Saline County Board violated OMA by meeting on legal holiday
A citizen complained that a county committee held a special meeting on a legal holiday, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and that the courthouse was locked. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau found that the Special Audit Committee of the Saline County Board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting on a legal holiday when its regular meeting day did not fall on that holiday. The letter cautions the committee to follow the law in the future but does not impose any remedy because no final action was taken at the meeting.

Pekin City Council violated OMA by discussing city manager duties in closed session
A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council held a closed session to discuss bidding authorizations, which should have been public. The Illinois Attorney General's office found that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act, but not because of the bidding topic. Instead, the violation occurred because the Council discussed the city manager's general duties under a personnel exception that only allows discussion of specific employees' performance or conduct. The office asked the Council to release the relevant portion of the closed session minutes and recording to the public.

Pekin City Council violated OMA by discussing bidding process in closed session
A citizen complained that the Pekin City Council discussed bidding processes in a closed session, which should have been public. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's Office reviewed the matter and concluded that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing matters in closed session that were outside the scope of the exception they cited. This means the Council failed to follow the law's requirement that public business be conducted openly.

School District U46 Board did not violate OMA by discussing social media in closed session
A school board member complained that her board held a secret meeting to discuss her social media posts under the guise of a 'self-evaluation.' The Attorney General's office reviewed the matter and found that the board's discussion was actually focused on improving board procedures and interactions, which is allowed in a closed session. Therefore, the board did not break the law.

City of Peru Committee of Whole violated OMA by unauthorized closed session discussions
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's Committee of the Whole held closed sessions to discuss merging police departments, which is not allowed under the Open Meetings Act. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the committee held unauthorized closed session discussions during four meetings in 2017 and 2018, and that the closed session minutes for those meetings did not contain sufficient information about the matters discussed.

City of Peru Committee of the Whole violated OMA in closed police consolidation talks
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's committee held secret meetings to discuss merging police departments. The Attorney General's office found that these topics were not allowed to be discussed in private and that the city's meeting minutes were too vague to meet legal requirements. The city was instructed to revise its meeting minutes to provide a proper summary of what was discussed.

City of Peru Committee of the Whole violated OMA by discussing police consolidation in closed session
A citizen complained that the City of Peru's committee improperly discussed police department consolidation behind closed doors. The Attorney General's office concluded that the committee held unauthorized closed session discussions on that topic during four meetings in 2017 and 2018, and that the closed session minutes of those meetings do not contain sufficient information about the matters discussed.

Court cases

McKee v. The Board of Trustees of the Champaign Police Pension Fund ()
The court affirmed the denial of disability benefits, holding that the Board did not violate the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session pursuant to its rules and regulations. The court found no evidence of procedural impropriety regarding the Board's closed-session deliberations.

Galena Gazette Publications, Inc. v. County of Jo Daviess ()
The appellate court held that the defendants' closed sessions were properly conducted under the real estate acquisition exception of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5)). Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Barrington Hills ()
The court addressed a zoning dispute regarding the commercial boarding of horses. The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal, which the court found forfeited.

LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals (2011 IL App (1st) 100423)
The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal. The court held that the issue was forfeited because it was not raised before the Zoning Board or in the complaint for administrative review.

City of Bloomington v. Raoul (2021 IL App (4th) 190539)
The court held that the Bloomington City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing topics outside the scope of the litigation exception during a closed session. The court determined that the council's discussion focused on public relations and negotiation strategy rather than actual legal theories or litigation defenses, thereby exceeding the permitted scope of 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11).

Gosnell v. Hogan (179 ill-app-3d 161)
The court affirmed the denial of an injunction against a school board, holding that topics not specifically excepted under the Open Meetings Act may be discussed in closed session if they are germane and integral to an excepted topic, such as real estate acquisition. The court emphasized a practical, substantial compliance approach to interpreting the Act's exceptions.

Board of Education School District No. 67 v. Sikorski (214 ill-app-3d 945)
The court held that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding an executive session to discuss the postponement of a property sale. However, the court determined that the violation was cured and ratified by subsequent public meetings held by the Board.

Davis v. Board of Education of Farmer City-Mansfield Community Unit School District No. 17 (63 ill-app-3d 495)
The court addressed whether a school board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session to discuss the superintendent's employment. The court held that the board's actions regarding the superintendent's contract termination and salary reduction did not violate the Act's requirements for public meetings or final action procedures.

Scott v. Illinois State Police Merit Board (222 ill-app-3d 496)
The court held that the Board's meeting to discuss disciplinary action against the plaintiff fell within the Open Meetings Act exception for considering information regarding the employment or dismissal of an employee. Consequently, the Board did not violate the Act by conducting the meeting in the manner it did.

People ex rel. Ryan v. Village of Villa Park (212 ill-app-3d 187)
The court held that the Village of Villa Park violated the Open Meetings Act by holding closed sessions to discuss matters, such as traffic and infrastructure improvements, that did not fall under the real estate acquisition exception. The court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants and remanded with instructions to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, including injunctive and declaratory relief.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

(from Ch. 102, par. 42.01)

All meetings required by this Act to be public shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient and open to the public. No meeting required by this Act to be public shall be held on a legal holiday unless the regular meeting day falls on that holiday. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a quorum of members of a public body must be physically present at the location of an open meeting. If, however, an open meeting of a public body (i) with statewide jurisdiction, (ii) that is an Illinois library system with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles, (iii) that is a municipal transit district with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles, or (iv) that is a local workforce investment area with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles is held simultaneously at one of its offices and one or more other locations in a public building, which may include other of its offices, through an interactive video conference and the public body provides public notice and public access as required under this Act for all locations, then members physically present in those locations all count towards determining a quorum. "Public building", as used in this Section, means any building or portion thereof owned or leased by any public body. The requirement that a quorum be physically present at the location of an open meeting shall not apply, however, to State advisory boards or bodies that do not have authority to make binding recommendations or determinations or to take any other substantive action. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a quorum of members of a public body that is not (i) a public body with statewide jurisdiction, (ii) an Illinois library system with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles, (iii) a municipal transit district with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles, or (iv) a local workforce innovation area with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles must be physically present at the location of a closed meeting. Other members who are not physically present at a closed meeting of such a public body may participate in the meeting by means of a video or audio conference. For the purposes of this Section, "local workforce innovation area" means any local workforce innovation area or areas designated by the Governor pursuant to the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act or its reauthorizing legislation. (Source: P.A. 100-477, eff. 9-8-17; 101-640, eff. 6-12-20.)

Determination letters

Local School Council of Orozco Academy violated OMA by locking doors at meeting
A citizen complained that they were locked out of a school council meeting despite there being available space inside. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the Local School Council failed to provide reasonable access to the public. Because the meeting already occurred, no specific remedy was ordered.

Collinsville TIF Board did not violate OMA by holding 10:00 a.m. meeting
Citizens complained that a local government board held a meeting at 10:00 a.m. on a Wednesday, arguing that this time was inconvenient for working residents. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and decided that the meeting time was not a violation of the law. This means the board was permitted to hold the meeting during standard business hours.

Northwest Facilities Planning Committee violated OMA for Oct 5 2016 special meeting
The Village of Fox Lake complained that a local government committee held a meeting without telling the public, providing an agenda, or allowing public comment. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's office concluded that the committee violated the Open Meetings Act, but the text of the determination is cut off and does not include any order or remedy for future compliance.

Fulton County Board Health Committee did not violate OMA on meeting notice or public comment
A citizen complained that the Fulton County Board Health Committee did not allow some members of the public to speak for the full five minutes during meetings and that the meeting room was too small. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the complaint and concluded that the Committee did not violate the Open Meetings Act's requirement for a convenient and open meeting place. However, based on the available information, the Bureau was unable to determine whether the Committee had improperly restricted public comment.

Village of Princeville did not violate OMA by failing to set fixed schedule for as-needed committee meetings
This determination addresses whether the Village of Princeville violated Section 2.01 of the Open Meetings Act by failing to state specified times and places for committee meetings. The Public Access Counselor concluded there was no violation, finding the request for review unfounded. The reasoning explains that the specific scheduling requirements of Sections 2.02(a) and 2.03 apply only to 'regular' meetings scheduled at the start of the calendar or fiscal year, and because the Village's committees do not meet on a regular schedule, no such schedule was required; the Village's practice of holding committee meetings at a specified place (Village Hall) with 48 hours' notice satisfied the general convenience requirement of Section 2.01 and the notice requirements of Section 2.02(b). The public body reviewed was the Village of Princeville, and the underlying matter concerned committee meeting scheduling and notice practices.

Rich Twp. HS District 227 Board not found violating OMA over quorum rule
A citizen complained that the Rich Township High School District Board held meetings that did not follow proper Open Meetings Act procedures. The Attorney General's office reviewed the claims but determined they could not conclude that the Board broke the law. This means the case is closed without a finding of wrongdoing.

Maine Township Board violated OMA by failing to notice pre-meeting gatherings
A citizen complained that Maine Township held secret gatherings before its official board meetings without proper notice, agendas, or minutes, and that the Township Hall doors were locked during a later meeting. The Attorney General's office found that the 6:30 p.m. gatherings were meetings subject to the Open Meetings Act and that the locked doors temporarily denied a member of the public access, violating the Act. The Board was cautioned to keep the meeting location accessible in the future.

Jersey County Board Personnel Committee violated OMA by inaccessible meeting and no closed session recording
A reporter complained that a county committee held a meeting in a location not open to the public and failed to record a closed-door session. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the committee broke the law by hiding the meeting location and failing to keep the required audio or video record of the closed session. The committee was advised to ensure future compliance with these transparency requirements.

City of Rushville City Council and Water Committee violated Open Meetings Act during job candidate visit
A citizen complained that city officials held a private meeting to interview a job candidate without telling the public. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the officials broke the law by not posting a meeting notice, not allowing the public to attend, and failing to keep official minutes. Because no final votes were taken at the meeting, the PAC closed the file with a warning to follow OMA rules in the future.

Rushville City Council violated OMA by private meeting during candidate site visit
A citizen complained that members of the Rushville City Council and Water Committee met privately during a job candidate's site visit without following public meeting rules. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the gathering constituted an improper meeting because it was held without public notice, minutes, or the opportunity for public comment. While no further action was required because no final votes were taken, the city was cautioned to follow OMA requirements in the future.

Chicago City Council violated Open Meetings Act by holding remote meetings without public access
A reporter alleged that the Chicago City Council held private conference calls during the COVID-19 pandemic without notifying the public or allowing them to listen in. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that these meetings violated the Open Meetings Act because they were not properly opened to the public. This serves as a reminder that government bodies must follow transparency laws even when conducting business remotely.

Jefferson County Board violated Open Meetings Act with private pre-meeting discussion
A member of the Jefferson County Board complained that other board members held a private, pre-meeting discussion about voting on a sheriff's equipment purchase. The Attorney General's office determined this private discussion violated the Open Meetings Act, which requires public business to be conducted in open sessions. The Board was instructed to refrain from such secret deliberations in the future.

O'Fallon Township High School Education Committee did not violate OMA over restaurant meeting notice
A citizen complained that a school committee held meetings at a restaurant without giving proper public notice and that the location was not appropriate for a public meeting. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the committee followed the law regarding meeting notices and that the restaurant was a suitable, accessible location. Consequently, the PAC closed the file with no finding of a violation.

Village of Dolton meeting location complaint closed due to insufficient evidence
A citizen complained that a Village of Dolton meeting was held at an inconvenient location. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and decided to close the case because the citizen did not provide enough evidence to show that the location actually prevented people from attending the meeting.

Morton SD 709 Board of Education did not violate OMA over crowded meeting and comments
A citizen complained that a school board meeting was overcrowded and that the board failed to stop offensive comments made by members of the public. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and concluded that the board did not violate the Open Meetings Act. This means the PAC will not take any further action on this specific complaint.

Morton School Board did not violate OMA by failing to admonish speakers or by overcrowded meeting space
A citizen complained that a school board meeting was overcrowded and that the board failed to stop offensive comments made by members of the public. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and concluded that the board did not violate the Open Meetings Act, as public bodies are not required to censor public comments or guarantee seating for all attendees. Consequently, the case was closed with no further action taken.

Illinois State Medical Board did not violate OMA by denying meeting entry
A citizen complained that they were blocked from attending an Illinois State Medical Board meeting. The PAC investigated and noted that while the public has a right to attend meetings and record them, security screenings are permissible; the office closed the file without issuing a formal finding of a violation.

Thornton Township Board not required to intervene in post-meeting public confrontation
A citizen complained to the Attorney General that the Thornton Township Board failed to stop a hostile confrontation that occurred after a public meeting, arguing it discouraged public participation. The PAC reviewed the complaint and concluded that no violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred, though they suggested the Board consider additional security measures if tensions continue. The file is now closed.

(from Ch. 102, par. 42.02)

Public notice of all meetings, whether open or closed to the public, shall be given as follows: (a) Every public body shall give public notice of the schedule of regular meetings at the beginning of each calendar or fiscal year and shall state the regular dates, times, and places of such meetings. An agenda for each regular meeting shall be posted at the principal office of the public body and at the location where the meeting is to be held at least 48 hours in advance of the holding of the meeting. A public body that has a website that the full-time staff of the public body maintains shall also post on its website the agenda of any regular meetings of the governing body of that public body. Any agenda of a regular meeting that is posted on a public body's website shall remain posted on the website until the regular meeting is concluded. The requirement of a regular meeting agenda shall not preclude the consideration of items not specifically set forth in the agenda. Public notice of any special meeting except a meeting held in the event of a bona fide emergency, or of any rescheduled regular meeting, or of any reconvened meeting, shall be given at least 48 hours before such meeting, which notice shall also include the agenda for the special, rescheduled, or reconvened meeting, but the validity of any action taken by the public body which is germane to a subject on the agenda shall not be affected by other errors or omissions in the agenda. The requirement of public notice of reconvened meetings does not apply to any case where the meeting was open to the public and (1) it is to be reconvened within 24 hours, or (2) an announcement of the time and place of the reconvened meeting was made at the original meeting and there is no change in the agenda. Notice of an emergency meeting shall be given as soon as practicable, but in any event prior to the holding of such meeting, to any news medium which has filed an annual request for notice under subsection (b) of this Section. (b) Public notice shall be given by posting a copy of the notice at the principal office of the body holding the meeting or, if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held. In addition, a public body that has a website that the full-time staff of the public body maintains shall post notice on its website of all meetings of the governing body of the public body. Any notice of an annual schedule of meetings shall remain on the website until a new public notice of the schedule of regular meetings is approved. Any notice of a regular meeting that is posted on a public body's website shall remain posted on the website until the regular meeting is concluded. The body shall supply copies of the notice of its regular meetings, and of the notice of any special, emergency, rescheduled or reconvened meeting, to any news medium that has filed an annual request for such notice. Any such news medium shall also be given the same notice of all special, emergency, rescheduled or reconvened meetings in the same manner as is given to members of the body provided such news medium has given the public body an address or telephone number within the territorial jurisdiction of the public body at which such notice may be given. The failure of a public body to post on its website notice of any meeting or the agenda of any meeting shall not invalidate any meeting or any actions taken at a meeting. (c) Any agenda required under this Section shall set forth the general subject matter of any resolution or ordinance that will be the subject of final action at the meeting. The public body conducting a public meeting shall ensure that at least one copy of any requested notice and agenda for the meeting is continuously available for public review during the entire 48-hour period preceding the meeting. Posting of the notice and agenda on a website that is maintained by the public body satisfies the requirement for continuous posting under this subsection (c). If a notice or agenda is not continuously available for the full 48-hour period due to actions outside of the control of the public body, then that lack of availability does not invalidate any meeting or action taken at a meeting. (Source: P.A. 97-827, eff. 1-1-13.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 2.02: 67 · 2.02(c): 20 · 2.02(a): 5

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Taking Final Action on Matters Not Included in Agenda
The requester challenged a park district's governing board for voting to raise museum admission fees at a public meeting without listing that topic on the board's own agenda, even though a subcommittee's separate agenda had referenced it. The Public Access Counselor held that the Open Meetings Act requires each public body's own agenda, including the full board's, to describe the general subject matter of anything on which it will take final action, and that a committee's compliance does not substitute for the board's independent notice obligation. The park district was directed to reconsider the fee increase at a properly noticed meeting that specifically references the subject.

Failure to Cite Closed Session Exception; Improper Discussion of Proposed Police Services Contract in Closed Session; Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester alleged that a village government's board voted in closed session to disband its police department and enter into a new policing contract without properly noticing the topic. The Public Access Counselor found that the board failed to publicly cite and record the specific Open Meetings Act exception authorizing its closed session, that the closed-session discussion of a proposed police-services contract exceeded the narrow personnel exception it later invoked (since it concerned a contract's cost and scope rather than any individual employee's conduct), and that the meeting agenda's generic "Executive Session" listing did not give the public adequate notice that final action on the contract would be taken. The village government was directed to disclose the closed-session record, re-vote on the contract at a properly noticed meeting, and bring future meetings into compliance.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester alleged that a school board changed its COVID-19 masking policy during a meeting without listing the topic on the agenda. The Public Access Counselor held that although the board never took a formal roll-call vote, its discussion reaching a consensus to make masks optional and directing the superintendent to notify the community constituted final action, which required the agenda to identify the general subject matter of that decision. The board was directed to hold a properly noticed vote in open session on its masking policy.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not Sufficiently Identified on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, alleged that a county farm committee voted to hire someone to obtain crop insurance and to borrow money for crop expenses without listing either action on its meeting agenda. The Public Access Counselor held that the agenda's generic reference to "farming options" did not identify the general subject matter of those specific votes as the Open Meetings Act requires, rejecting the committee's argument that the actions were sufficiently "germane" to the broader agenda item. The committee was directed to properly identify the general subject matter of its anticipated final actions on future agendas.

Requirement to Provide General Subject Matter of Personnel Transactions on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a member of the public, alleged that a school board approved a $183,000 severance agreement with an administrator under a vaguely labeled "Personnel Transaction Report" without disclosing the general subject matter on its meeting agenda. The Public Access Counselor held that an agenda item referencing only a personnel exception, without identifying even the general type of employee or transaction involved, failed to satisfy the Open Meetings Act's requirement to disclose the general subject matter of anticipated final action. The board was directed to re-vote the severance agreement under a properly detailed agenda item and to identify the type of employee and transaction on future agendas.

Thornton Township Board violated OMA by taking final action on an item not on its agenda
A local newspaper complained that the township board voted to create five new jobs without putting that item on the public meeting agenda. The Attorney General agreed that this was a violation of the Open Meetings Act because the agenda didn't mention the job creation, but found the board did properly explain what it was voting on before the vote. As a result, the board must be more careful to include such items on future agendas, but the action itself was not invalidated due to the recital.

Determination letters

McHenry County Committee violated OMA by holding private meeting on redistricting
A reporter alleged that county board members held a private meeting to discuss redistricting maps before an official committee meeting. The Attorney General's office found that this gathering met the legal definition of a 'meeting' and violated state law because it was not open to the public, lacked proper notice, and was not recorded. Because the meeting already occurred and no official action was taken, the PAC closed the file with a warning to the board to follow OMA rules in the future.

Waukegan School Board violated OMA by failing to provide notice or agenda for collective bargaining meeting
A school board held a private meeting to discuss teacher contract negotiations without telling the public or posting an agenda. The Attorney General's office ruled this was illegal because even if a meeting is meant to be private, the board must first hold a public meeting and follow proper procedures to move into a closed session. The board was warned to follow these rules in the future.

Maine Township Board violated OMA by failing to post meeting agenda
A citizen complained that the Maine Township Board of Trustees failed to post the agenda for a September 29, 2015 meeting on its website, and also held a series of 'agency funding hearings' without proper notice. The Attorney General's office found that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by not posting the agenda, but noted that the Board remedied that violation by re-voting on the actions at a later meeting. Regarding the funding hearings, the office analyzed whether they constituted 'meetings' under the Act but did not reach a final determination; it noted the Board's assertion that no deliberation occurred and that the hearings consisted of presentations and questions.

Neoga School District partially violated OMA by failing to post meeting schedule and January 2016 notice
A citizen complained that a school board failed to properly post meeting notices and an annual meeting schedule, and did not post required employee compensation information. The Attorney General's office found that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to post an annual schedule of regular meetings, but did not violate the Act regarding the posting of IMRF compensation information. The office also found that the board violated the Act in connection with posting notice of its January 20, 2016, meeting on its website, but determined no further action was needed because the error was corrected.

Neoga Community Unit School District No. 3 violated OMA by failing to post proper meeting notices
A citizen complained that a local school board failed to follow transparency laws regarding public meeting notices and salary disclosures. The Attorney General's office found that the school board did indeed fail to properly post its meeting notices and annual schedules as required by law. However, the board was found to be in compliance regarding the posting of employee compensation information.

Insufficient evidence Royal Lakes Board violated OMA on agenda items or training
Village officials alleged that the Board of Trustees voted on items that were not properly listed on the meeting agenda and that a specific trustee had not completed required legal training. The Attorney General's office investigated but found there was not enough evidence to prove these violations occurred. Consequently, the office closed the case without taking further action.

St. Clair Township Board violated OMA by failing to provide proper meeting notice
A citizen complained that the St. Clair Township Board of Trustees rescheduled a meeting without giving the public proper notice or making the agenda available as required by law. The Attorney General's office found that the Board failed to keep the meeting agenda available for the required 48 hours before the meeting took place. While the Board cannot fix this past mistake, the PAC issued this letter to remind them of their legal obligation to provide proper notice for future meetings.

City of Earlville City Council violated OMA by holding meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three City Council members held a private gathering to discuss city business without public notice or minutes. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that this gathering violated the Open Meetings Act because it involved a majority of a quorum deliberating public business. The Bureau also noted an allegation that three aldermen failed to complete required OMA training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The letter cautions the City Council to comply with OMA in the future.

City of Chicago Health in All Policies Task Force ruled a public body under Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that a City of Chicago task force was not following open meeting laws. The Attorney General's office agreed, ruling that the task force is a 'public body' and must follow rules like providing public notice, keeping minutes, and allowing public comment. The task force was instructed to follow these rules for all future meetings.

Northwest Facilities Planning Committee violated OMA for Oct 5 2016 special meeting
The Village of Fox Lake complained that a local government committee held a meeting without telling the public, providing an agenda, or allowing public comment. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's office concluded that the committee violated the Open Meetings Act, but the text of the determination is cut off and does not include any order or remedy for future compliance.

Coles County Board violated OMA by failing to post agenda 48 hours in advance
A citizen complained that the Coles County Board did not properly post its meeting agenda or make it available to the public 48 hours in advance. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the Board failed to follow legal requirements for public notice and agenda transparency. The Board was advised to take corrective action by revoting on the matters that were not properly noticed.

Parkland College Board violated OMA by failing to provide 48 hours' notice for non-emergency meeting
Parkland College held an 'emergency' meeting without giving the public the required 48 hours' notice. The Attorney General's office found that the situation did not qualify as a true emergency, meaning the college broke the law by not providing proper notice. However, the office also ruled that the topics discussed during the meeting's private session were legally allowed to be discussed behind closed doors.

Decatur Township Cemetery Board failed to provide accessible meeting notice
A reporter alleged that a local cemetery board held a meeting without properly posting the agenda where the public could actually see it. The Attorney General's office agreed that the board failed to provide proper notice because the building where the agenda was posted was locked. However, the office also clarified that the board was not required to post the agenda on a website since it did not maintain one.

Glen Ellyn School Board D41 did not violate OMA by changing meeting location
A citizen complained that a school board meeting was moved to a different location without proper public notice. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the board followed the law by announcing the change during the meeting and taking a vote to reconvene elsewhere. Consequently, the PAC closed the case, finding no violation occurred.

Nauvoo-Colusa school board failed to post meeting agenda at physical location
A citizen complained that a school board did not post its meeting agenda at the school building where the meeting was held. The Attorney General's office found that the board did not properly post the notice at the physical location as required by law. However, the board was not required to post the agenda on its website because a part-time consultant maintained the site, and the board did not violate the Open Meetings Act regarding website posting.

Nauvoo-Colusa school board violated OMA by locking building where agenda was posted
A citizen complained that a school board did not make its meeting agenda publicly accessible at the building where the meeting was held. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that while the agenda was physically posted inside the principal's office, the building was locked, so it was not continuously available for public review, which violated the Open Meetings Act. The board was not required to post the agenda on its website because the website was maintained by part-time staff, and therefore did not violate the Act regarding the website.

Maine Township Board violated OMA by failing to notice pre-meeting gatherings
A citizen complained that Maine Township held secret gatherings before its official board meetings without proper notice, agendas, or minutes, and that the Township Hall doors were locked during a later meeting. The Attorney General's office found that the 6:30 p.m. gatherings were meetings subject to the Open Meetings Act and that the locked doors temporarily denied a member of the public access, violating the Act. The Board was cautioned to keep the meeting location accessible in the future.

City of Lincoln violated OMA by untimely and incomplete meeting minutes
A citizen complained that the City of Lincoln's meeting agendas were too vague and that their meeting minutes were handled incorrectly. The Attorney General's office agreed that the City broke the law by waiting too long to approve minutes and by leaving out required information from those records. However, the office found that the City's agenda notices for paying bills were legally sufficient.

Chicago City Council violated OMA by failing to post meeting agenda 48 hours in advance
A citizen complained that the Chicago City Council did not post its meeting agenda online 48 hours before the meeting as required by law. The Attorney General's office investigated and agreed that the Council failed to meet this requirement. The Council was advised to ensure all future meeting agendas are posted online in a timely manner.

Dunlap School Board violated OMA by adding agenda items less than 48 hours before special meeting
A citizen complained that a school board failed to record closed meetings and improperly changed meeting agendas. The Attorney General's office found that the board broke the law by adding new topics to a special meeting agenda less than 48 hours before the meeting started. Because the board did not take final action on those specific topics, no further corrective action was required.

Dunlap School District violated OMA by adding agenda items without 48-hour notice
A citizen complained that a school board failed to record closed meetings and improperly changed meeting agendas. The Attorney General's office found that the board broke the law by adding items to a special meeting agenda with less than 48 hours' notice. Because no final action was taken on those specific items, the office closed the case without requiring further corrective action.

Village of Raleigh Board of Trustees did not violate OMA by taking tentative vote not on agenda
A citizen complained that a village board voted to close the local police department without listing that topic on the meeting agenda. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and found that the board's vote was only a preliminary step, not a final decision. Therefore, the board did not violate the law requiring agendas to list items for final action.

Beasley Academic Center LSC violated OMA by not posting agenda 48 hours in advance
A member of the Beasley Academic Center Local School Council complained that the Council failed to post the agenda for its April 2, 2018, special meeting 48 hours in advance, and also raised issues about adding an agenda item and voting in closed session during its April 10, 2018, meeting. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau found that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by not continuously posting the agenda for the April 2 meeting, but because the general subject matter (principal selection) was included in the posted notice, no remedial action was required. For the April 10 meeting, the Bureau determined that the Council's actions of adding an item to the agenda and voting on it in open session were permissible under the Act; the Bureau did not address the allegation regarding a vote during closed session.

District 113 Board of Education did not violate OMA by posting special meeting agenda via website link
The question was whether a school board violated the Open Meetings Act's notice provisions (5 ILCS 120/2.02(a) and (b)) by not listing a special meeting on its posted annual meeting schedule and by allegedly posting the meeting agenda late and on a linked third-party website. The Public Access Bureau held that no violation occurred: OMA requires posting of the annual schedule of regular meetings but does not require that schedule to be updated to reflect later-added special meetings, and the information provided did not show the agenda was posted less than 48 hours before the meeting. The Bureau further held that a public body satisfies section 2.02(b) by providing a clearly marked website link that gives the public direct access to the agenda, even if the agenda itself resides on a linked third-party site. Because the request for review did not present facts supporting a violation, the Bureau closed the file with no further action.

Algonquin Township Board's agenda notice for audit resolution found sufficient under OMA
This determination letter addresses whether the Algonquin Township Board violated section 2.02(c) of the Open Meetings Act by failing to adequately describe on its meeting agenda a resolution concerning audit authority over bill payments. The Public Access Bureau concluded that no violation occurred because the agenda item, which referenced a resolution requiring attorneys doing business with the Township to carry malpractice insurance, sufficiently conveyed the general subject matter of the resolution ultimately adopted, even though the resolution's title inaccurately described its substance. The Bureau applied the established rule that section 2.02(c) requires only disclosure of the general subject matter of anticipated final action, not its specific details or ultimate wording. Because the agenda adequately notified the public of the resolution's intended effect, the Bureau found no basis to conclude the Board violated OMA and closed the file without further action.

Vermilion Airport Board violated OMA by taking actions not on the agenda
A citizen complained that an airport board accepted a manager's resignation and appointed an acting manager without listing those decisions on the meeting agenda as required by law. The Attorney General's office agreed that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to give the public proper notice of these actions. Because the board later corrected the hiring decision at a subsequent meeting, the PAC closed the file without requiring further action.

Columbia School Board violated Open Meetings Act with vague 'personnel items' agenda
A school board member complained that the board's meeting agendas were too vague, specifically using the term 'personnel items' without explaining what those items were. The Attorney General's office agreed, stating that public bodies must provide enough detail on agendas so the public understands what actions will be taken. The office concluded that the board violated the Open Meetings Act for its May 17, 2018 meeting, but noted that the board had already re-voted on the items, so no additional action was necessary.

Columbia School Board violated OMA with vague meeting agenda
A school board member complained that the board took final action on items that were not clearly described on the May 17, 2018 meeting agenda and failed to post the agenda for its June 25, 2018 special meeting on the district's website at least 48 hours in advance. The Attorney General's office found both practices violated the Open Meetings Act. The board later re-voted on the May 17 actions and reported measures to prevent a repeat, so no further remedial action was required in this instance.

Columbia School Board violated OMA by vague agenda and missing website posting
A school board member complained that the Board took votes on 'personnel items' without clearly explaining what those items were on the meeting agenda. The Attorney General's office agreed that the agenda was too vague and violated the Open Meetings Act for the May 17, 2018 meeting. The office also found that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by not posting the agenda for its June 25, 2018 special meeting on the District's website at least 48 hours before the meeting. Because the Board had already re-voted on the salary motions and resolved the principal assignment issue, no further action was required.

Energy Code Advisory Council late on OMA electronic training, no further action warranted
A citizen complained that a state advisory council failed to provide proper public notice for meetings and did not follow training rules. The Attorney General's office found that the council was late in completing the required electronic training on the Open Meetings Act, but that no further action was warranted on the other allegations. The office noted the training was eventually completed and closed the matter without imposing any penalty.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

(from Ch. 102, par. 42.03)

In addition to the notice required by Section 2.02, each body subject to this Act must, at the beginning of each calendar or fiscal year, prepare and make available a schedule of all its regular meetings for such calendar or fiscal year, listing the times and places of such meetings. If a change is made in regular meeting dates, at least 10 days' notice of such change shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area in which such body functions. However, in the case of bodies of local governmental units with a population of less than 500 in which no newspaper is published, such 10 days' notice may be given by posting a notice of such change in at least 3 prominent places within the governmental unit. Notice of such change shall also be posted at the principal office of the public body or, if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held. Notice of such change shall also be supplied to those news media which have filed an annual request for notice as provided in paragraph (b) of Section 2.02. (Source: Laws 1967, p. 1960 .)

Determination letters

Neoga School District partially violated OMA by failing to post meeting schedule and January 2016 notice
A citizen complained that a school board failed to properly post meeting notices and an annual meeting schedule, and did not post required employee compensation information. The Attorney General's office found that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to post an annual schedule of regular meetings, but did not violate the Act regarding the posting of IMRF compensation information. The office also found that the board violated the Act in connection with posting notice of its January 20, 2016, meeting on its website, but determined no further action was needed because the error was corrected.

Neoga Community Unit School District No. 3 violated OMA by failing to post proper meeting notices
A citizen complained that a local school board failed to follow transparency laws regarding public meeting notices and salary disclosures. The Attorney General's office found that the school board did indeed fail to properly post its meeting notices and annual schedules as required by law. However, the board was found to be in compliance regarding the posting of employee compensation information.

Village of Chatham Board violated OMA by failing to give 10-day meeting notice
A citizen complained that the Village of Chatham changed its meeting schedule without following legal notice requirements. The Attorney General's office found that the Village failed to properly notify the public in a local newspaper and did not update its posted schedule as required by law. Because the Village corrected its procedures, the PAC closed the case without requiring further action.

Village of Chatham Board of Trustees violated OMA by failing to provide proper meeting notice
A citizen complained that the Village of Chatham changed its meeting schedule without following the legal requirements for public notice. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the Village failed to publish the required notice in a newspaper and did not update its posted schedule as mandated by law. Because the Village has since corrected its procedures, the PAC closed the case without further action.

(from Ch. 102, par. 42.04)

The notice requirements of this Act are in addition to, and not in substitution of, any other notice required by law. Failure of any news medium to receive a notice provided for by this Act shall not invalidate any meeting provided notice was in fact given in accordance with this Act. (Source: Laws 1967, p. 1960.)

(from Ch. 102, par. 42.05)

Recording meetings. Subject to the provisions of Section 8-701 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any person may record the proceedings at meetings required to be open by this Act by tape, film or other means. The authority holding the meeting shall prescribe reasonable rules to govern the right to make such recordings. If a witness at any meeting required to be open by this Act which is conducted by a commission, administrative agency or other tribunal, refuses to testify on the grounds that he may not be compelled to testify if any portion of his testimony is to be broadcast or televised or if motion pictures are to be taken of him while he is testifying, the authority holding the meeting shall prohibit such recording during the testimony of the witness. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to extend the right to refuse to testify at any meeting not subject to the provisions of Section 8-701 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Source: P.A. 94-1058, eff. 1-1-07.)

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Right to Record an Open Meeting
The requester was denied permission to audio-record his own hearing before a county board because he had not given advance notice to the board's clerk, as a board rule required. The Public Access Counselor found the county board had not shown its advance-notice requirement was necessary to protect the integrity or safety of its meetings, particularly since the requester had already coordinated with security to bring in his equipment, and held that the rule was unreasonable and violated the Open Meetings Act's right to record open meetings. The county board was directed to bring future meetings into compliance, train its members on the Act, and revise its recording rules.

Determination letters

Forest Ridge SD 142 Board unable to conclude on meeting recording location restriction
A citizen complained that a school board forced them to record a meeting from a spot where they couldn't see or hear the board members properly. The board denied this, and because the PAC could not verify the conflicting accounts, they closed the case without finding a violation. However, the PAC reminded the board that they are legally required to have written rules for how the public can record meetings.

Parkland College Board violated OMA by failing to provide 48 hours' notice for non-emergency meeting
Parkland College held an 'emergency' meeting without giving the public the required 48 hours' notice. The Attorney General's office found that the situation did not qualify as a true emergency, meaning the college broke the law by not providing proper notice. However, the office also ruled that the topics discussed during the meeting's private session were legally allowed to be discussed behind closed doors.

Village of Olympia Fields violated OMA by blocking meeting recording
A resident complained that he was told by a police chief to stop recording a public village board meeting, and the board president did nothing to stop it. The Illinois Attorney General's office found that the village violated the Open Meetings Act, which guarantees the public's right to record open meetings. This means the village acted improperly by allowing the recording to be blocked.

Illinois State Medical Board did not violate OMA by denying meeting entry
A citizen complained that they were blocked from attending an Illinois State Medical Board meeting. The PAC investigated and noted that while the public has a right to attend meetings and record them, security screenings are permissible; the office closed the file without issuing a formal finding of a violation.

Findlay Fire Protection District violated OMA by interfering with recording of meeting
A citizen tried to record a public meeting of the Findlay Fire Protection District, but board members told her she could not record without permission or that it might be illegal. The Attorney General's office found that the board violated the law because the public has a legal right to record open meetings. The board has been instructed to allow members of the public to record future meetings.

Office of Mines & Minerals coal mine hearing not subject to Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that a state agency prevented them from recording a public hearing about a coal mine permit. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and found that the hearing was not subject to the Open Meetings Act, but rather to specific administrative rules. Because the Open Meetings Act did not apply, the PAC closed the case without finding a violation.

(from Ch. 102, par. 42.06)

Minutes; right to speak. (a) All public bodies shall keep written minutes of all their meetings, whether open or closed, and a verbatim record of all their closed meetings in the form of an audio or video recording. Minutes shall include, but need not be limited to: (1) the date, time and place of the meeting; (2) the members of the public body recorded as either present or absent and whether the members were physically present or present by means of video or audio conference; and (3) a summary of discussion on all matters proposed, deliberated, or decided, and a record of any votes taken. (b) A public body shall approve the minutes of its open meeting within 30 days after that meeting or at the public body's second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later. The minutes of meetings open to the public shall be available for public inspection within 10 days after the approval of such minutes by the public body. Beginning July 1, 2006, at the time it complies with the other requirements of this subsection, a public body that has a website that the full-time staff of the public body maintains shall post the minutes of a regular meeting of its governing body open to the public on the public body's website within 10 days after the approval of the minutes by the public body. Beginning July 1, 2006, any minutes of meetings open to the public posted on the public body's website shall remain posted on the website for at least 60 days after their initial posting. (c) The verbatim record may be destroyed without notification to or the approval of a records commission or the State Archivist under the Local Records Act or the State Records Act no less than 18 months after the completion of the meeting recorded but only after: (1) the public body approves the destruction of a particular recording; and (2) the public body approves minutes of the closed meeting that meet the written minutes requirements of subsection (a) of this Section. (d) Each public body shall periodically meet to review minutes of all closed meetings. Meetings to review minutes shall occur every 6 months, or as soon thereafter as is practicable, taking into account the nature and meeting schedule of the public body. Committees which are ad hoc in nature shall review closed session minutes at the later of (1) 6 months from the date of the last review of closed session minutes or (2) at the next scheduled meeting of the ad hoc committee. At such meetings a determination shall be made, and reported in an open session that (1) the need for confidentiality still exists as to all or part of those minutes or (2) that the minutes or portions thereof no longer require confidential treatment and are available for public inspection. The failure of a public body to strictly comply with the semi-annual review of closed session written minutes, whether before or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly, shall not cause the written minutes or related verbatim record to become public or available for inspection in any judicial proceeding, other than a proceeding involving an alleged violation of this Act, if the public body, within 60 days of discovering its failure to strictly comply with the technical requirements of this subsection, reviews the closed session minutes and determines and thereafter reports in open session that either (1) the need for confidentiality still exists as to all or part of the minutes or verbatim record, or (2) that the minutes or recordings or portions thereof no longer require confidential treatment and are available for public inspection. (e) Unless the public body has made a determination that the verbatim recording no longer requires confidential treatment or otherwise consents to disclosure, the verbatim record of a meeting closed to the public shall not be open for public inspection or subject to discovery in any administrative or judicial proceeding other than one brought to enforce this Act. In the case of a civil action brought to enforce this Act, the court, if the judge believes such an examination is necessary, must conduct such in camera examination of the verbatim record as it finds appropriate in order to determine whether there has been a violation of this Act. In the case of a criminal proceeding, the court may conduct an examination in order to determine what portions, if any, must be made available to the parties for use as evidence in the prosecution. Any such initial inspection must be held in camera. If the court determines that a complaint or suit brought for noncompliance under this Act is valid it may, for the purposes of discovery, redact from the minutes of the meeting closed to the public any information deemed to qualify under the attorney-client privilege. The provisions of this subsection do not supersede the privacy or confidentiality provisions of State or federal law. Access to verbatim recordings shall be provided to duly elected officials or appointed officials filling a vacancy of an elected office in a public body, and access shall be granted in the public body's main office or official storage location, in the presence of a records secretary, an administrative official of the public body, or any elected official of the public body. No verbatim recordings shall be recorded or removed from the public body's main office or official storage location, except by vote of the public body or by court order. Nothing in this subsection (e) is intended to limit the Public Access Counselor's access to those records necessary to address a request for administrative review under Section 7.5 of this Act. (f) Minutes of meetings closed to the public shall be available only after the public body determines that it is no longer necessary to protect the public interest or the privacy of an individual by keeping them confidential, except that duly elected officials or appointed officials filling a vacancy of an elected office in a public body shall be provided access to minutes of meetings closed to the public. Access to minutes shall be granted in the public body's main office or official storage location, in the presence of a records secretary, an administrative official of the public body, or any elected official of the public body. No minutes of meetings closed to the public shall be removed from the public body's main office or official storage location, except by vote of the public body or by court order. Nothing in this subsection (f) is intended to limit the Public Access Counselor's access to those records necessary to address a request for administrative review under Section 7.5 of this Act. (g) Any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body. (h) When a public body is dissolved, disbanded, eliminated, or consolidated by executive action, legislative action, or referendum, and its functions and responsibilities are assumed by a unit of local government, the unit of local government which assumes the functions of the prior public body shall review the closed session minutes of that public body pursuant to subsection (d). (Source: P.A. 102-653, eff. 1-1-22 .)

Breakdown by specific citation: 2.06: 62 · 2.06(g): 29 · 2.06(e): 3 · 2.06(a): 3 · 2.06(c): 2 · 2.06(d): 2

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Information Required of Speakers Wishing to Provide Public Comment
The requester attended an open meeting of the village board and, during the public comment period, was repeatedly asked by the mayor to state her complete home address before she would be permitted to speak. The requester argued this violated her right under the Open Meetings Act to address public officials, since the village government had no established, recorded rule requiring speakers to disclose their home addresses. The PAC agreed, holding that the village government violated the Act by conditioning public comment on disclosure of a home address that was not part of any adopted rule, and further concluded that even a formally adopted rule requiring such disclosure would violate the Act because it is not reasonably related to maintaining meeting order or ensuring other speakers get a chance to speak. The PAC directed the village government to conduct future meetings in compliance with this ruling.

Rules for Public Comment
The requester was denied the opportunity to speak during public comment at a county board meeting because he did not submit a written request at least five working days in advance, as required by the board's public comment rule. The PAC reviewed whether this rule was a reasonable restriction on the public's statutory right to address public bodies under the Open Meetings Act, and found that the county board had not shown the five-day advance notice requirement served any significant governmental interest like maintaining order or decorum. Notably, the rule required requests before the county board was even obligated to post its meeting agenda, making it unreasonably difficult for people to know whether they wanted to comment in time to meet the deadline. The PAC concluded this portion of the county board's rule violated the Open Meetings Act and directed the county board to amend its rules to comply with the law.

Duty to Provide Opportunity for Public Comment in Open Session
The requester, a sports reporter, questioned whether a school board improperly required members of the public who wanted to address a coaching decision to do so only during closed session rather than allowing public comment in open session. The Public Access Counselor held that the Open Meetings Act guarantees an opportunity to address a public body in open session and does not permit a board to confine public comment on a personnel matter to closed session. The board was directed to provide an opportunity for public comment in open session at all future meetings, though disclosure of the closed-session recording was not ordered because the speakers may have tailored their remarks assuming confidentiality.

Restriction of Public Comment is Limited to Established and Recorded Rules Governing Public Comment
The requester, a resident, alleged that a school board improperly cut off her public comment about hiring policies because the board president believed she intended to discuss a personnel matter. The Public Access Counselor held that because the board's formal, recorded public-comment policy contained no rule restricting comment on personnel matters, enforcing an unwritten restriction violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that public comment rules be established and recorded. The board was directed to refrain from applying unestablished, unrecorded restrictions on public comment at future meetings.

Determination letters

Downers Grove Public Library properly withheld closed session minutes and recordings under OMA and FOIA
A library patron requested records from a closed-door meeting regarding an investigation into their own conduct. The library refused to release the meeting minutes and audio recording, citing laws that keep such records confidential. The Attorney General's office agreed with the library, noting that these records are protected and no further action will be taken.

McHenry County Committee violated OMA by holding private meeting on redistricting
A reporter alleged that county board members held a private meeting to discuss redistricting maps before an official committee meeting. The Attorney General's office found that this gathering met the legal definition of a 'meeting' and violated state law because it was not open to the public, lacked proper notice, and was not recorded. Because the meeting already occurred and no official action was taken, the PAC closed the file with a warning to the board to follow OMA rules in the future.

Cahokia Board of Trustees violated OMA by restricting public comment with sign-up rule
A citizen at a Village of Cahokia board meeting requested to make a comment but was told she had to submit a form before noon that day. When she persisted, the mayor ordered her removed. The Illinois Attorney General's office concluded that the Board's advance sign-up rule was not reasonably necessary to maintain order, and therefore the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by prohibiting the citizen from speaking. The document does not state any remedy or order to amend the rules.

Oswego Township Board violated OMA by imposing ad hoc one-minute public comment limit
This determination letter addresses whether the Oswego Township Board of Trustees complied with OMA's meeting notice requirements (5 ILCS 120/2.02) and public comment rules (5 ILCS 120/2.06(g)) at its August 11, 2015 regular meeting. The Public Access Bureau found no violation regarding agenda posting, because the motion to limit public comment was listed on the agenda and OMA does not require distribution of printed agendas to attendees. However, the Bureau concluded the Board violated section 2.06(g) by imposing an ad hoc one-minute limit on public comment that was not adopted pursuant to an established and recorded rule applicable to all meetings, but instead was crafted for a single contentious meeting. The rule for future public bodies: restrictions on the statutory right to address public officials must be based on established and recorded rules, not case-by-case limits imposed in anticipation of controversial topics or large crowds.

Carrollton City Council violated OMA by restricting public comment to residents and agenda items
A citizen complained that a city council meeting restricted public comments to only city residents and only to topics already on the meeting agenda. The Attorney General's office ruled that these restrictions were illegal under the Open Meetings Act. The city was advised to create new, reasonable rules for public participation that do not unfairly limit who can speak or what they can discuss.

Village of Brookfield not required to post advisory committee minutes online
A citizen complained that the Village of Brookfield was not posting meeting minutes for its advisory committees online. The Attorney General's office reviewed the law and explained that the requirement to post minutes online only applies to the main governing body, not advisory groups. Therefore, the Village did not break the law.

City of Earlville City Council violated OMA by holding meeting without notice
A local newspaper editor complained that three City Council members held a private gathering to discuss city business without public notice or minutes. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that this gathering violated the Open Meetings Act because it involved a majority of a quorum deliberating public business. The Bureau also noted an allegation that three aldermen failed to complete required OMA training, but did not make a finding on that issue. The letter cautions the City Council to comply with OMA in the future.

City of Chicago Health in All Policies Task Force ruled a public body under Open Meetings Act
A citizen complained that a City of Chicago task force was not following open meeting laws. The Attorney General's office agreed, ruling that the task force is a 'public body' and must follow rules like providing public notice, keeping minutes, and allowing public comment. The task force was instructed to follow these rules for all future meetings.

Kankakee School District 111 Board violated Open Meetings Act by restricting public comment and failing to explain closed session
A citizen complained that a school board cut off his public comments and failed to explain why they were going into a private closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by enforcing a restriction on public comment that was not among its established and recorded rules, and by not adequately informing the public of the reason for entering a second closed session. The determination did not address whether the closed session itself was legally permitted or state any further action required.

Northwest Facilities Planning Committee violated OMA for Oct 5 2016 special meeting
The Village of Fox Lake complained that a local government committee held a meeting without telling the public, providing an agenda, or allowing public comment. The Public Access Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's office concluded that the committee violated the Open Meetings Act, but the text of the determination is cut off and does not include any order or remedy for future compliance.

Fulton County Board Health Committee did not violate OMA on meeting notice or public comment
A citizen complained that the Fulton County Board Health Committee did not allow some members of the public to speak for the full five minutes during meetings and that the meeting room was too small. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Bureau reviewed the complaint and concluded that the Committee did not violate the Open Meetings Act's requirement for a convenient and open meeting place. However, based on the available information, the Bureau was unable to determine whether the Committee had improperly restricted public comment.

Town of Normal violated OMA by limiting public comment to once every 45 days
The Town of Normal had a rule that prevented people from speaking at town council meetings if they had already spoken within the previous 45 days. The Attorney General's office ruled that this policy was illegal because it unfairly restricted the public's right to participate in government meetings. The Town was advised to change its rules to allow for more frequent public comment.

Rockford School Board did not violate OMA by removing disruptive speaker
A citizen complained that a school board unfairly silenced her father during a public meeting by cutting off his microphone and having security approach him. The Attorney General's office reviewed the evidence and determined that the board acted because the man was being disruptive, not because they disagreed with what he was saying. Therefore, the board did not break the law regarding public comment rules.

PAC declines to review complaint against Midland School Board for untimely meeting minutes posting
A citizen complained that a school board failed to post meeting minutes on its website within the 10-day deadline required by law. The Attorney General's office found that the complaint was filed too late to be considered. Because the requester waited too long to report the issue, the PAC closed the case without taking further action.

Township of Schaumburg Board violated OMA by failing to approve December 2016 minutes
A citizen complained that a local township board hadn't approved the minutes from a meeting held months earlier. The Attorney General's office reviewed the case and agreed that the board failed to follow the law requiring timely approval of meeting minutes. The board was found to be in violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Greenup Village Board violated OMA by converting committee meeting into unnoticed full Board meeting
This determination letter addresses whether attendance and participation by non-Committee Village Board members at a properly noticed Committee meeting converted it into an unnoticed full Board meeting under OMA. The Attorney General's Public Access Bureau concluded that the Greenup Village Board violated the Open Meetings Act because five of six Board members deliberated on public business at the May 30, 2017 Committee for Economic Development meeting, effectively transforming it into a Board meeting for which no separate notice was given. The reasoning relied on section 1.02's definition of 'meeting' and the principle that OMA applies when a majority of a quorum engages in contemporaneous, interactive deliberation on public business, even during a committee gathering, particularly where the discussion appears to have informed action taken at a subsequent Board meeting. Separate allegations concerning off-agenda discussion and exclusion of the public were found time-barred under the 60-day filing requirement and were not reviewed. Because no final action was alleged to have occurred during the meeting itself, no remedy was available, though the Bureau also urged more detailed meeting minutes going forward.

Winnebago County Board violated Open Meetings Act by prohibiting public comment
A citizen was blocked from speaking at a Winnebago County Board meeting on August 24, 2017, after the Board acknowledged he had submitted the required form but attributed the denial to an 'oversight to a training gap' and inadvertently missing the second date on the form. The Illinois Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and concluded that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by prohibiting the citizen from addressing the Board. The decision also questioned the reasonableness of the Board's advance sign-up rule, suggesting it may unnecessarily restrict public comment.

Village of Wheeling did not violate OMA by restricting public comment at 2017 meetings
A citizen complained that the Village of Wheeling improperly restricted public comments during two meetings in 2017. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and concluded that the Village did not break the law. This means the case is closed with no further action required.

Maine Township Board violated OMA by failing to notice pre-meeting gatherings
A citizen complained that Maine Township held secret gatherings before its official board meetings without proper notice, agendas, or minutes, and that the Township Hall doors were locked during a later meeting. The Attorney General's office found that the 6:30 p.m. gatherings were meetings subject to the Open Meetings Act and that the locked doors temporarily denied a member of the public access, violating the Act. The Board was cautioned to keep the meeting location accessible in the future.

Winnebago County Board violated OMA by limiting public comment to three times per year
A citizen complained that the Winnebago County Board stopped him from speaking during public comment periods because he had already spoken about 'racial issues' three times that year. The Attorney General's office found that this rule was unreasonable and violated the Open Meetings Act, which protects the public's right to address government boards. The Board was advised to change its rules to ensure they are fair and not overly restrictive.

City of Lincoln City Council violated OMA by failing to timely approve and properly detail meeting minutes
A citizen complained that the City of Lincoln's meeting agendas were too vague and that their meeting minutes were handled incorrectly. The Attorney General's office found that the agendas were acceptable, but agreed that the City broke the law by waiting too long to approve minutes and by leaving out information that the law requires to be in those minutes. This means the City must ensure its future meeting minutes are approved on time and contain all legally mandated details.

City of Lincoln violated OMA by untimely and incomplete meeting minutes
A citizen complained that the City of Lincoln's meeting agendas were too vague and that their meeting minutes were handled incorrectly. The Attorney General's office agreed that the City broke the law by waiting too long to approve minutes and by leaving out required information from those records. However, the office found that the City's agenda notices for paying bills were legally sufficient.

Veterans Assistance Commission of Winnebago County violated OMA by failing to keep meeting minutes and removing closed session records
A citizen complained that a local government commission failed to keep proper meeting minutes and mishandled confidential closed-session records. The Attorney General's office found that while one set of minutes was handled correctly, the commission failed to create minutes for another meeting and improperly moved sensitive records out of its main office. This serves as a reminder to the commission to follow state transparency laws regarding record-keeping.

Winnebago Veterans Assistance violated OMA by failing to prepare minutes and removing closed session records
A citizen complained that a local Veterans Assistance Commission failed to keep proper meeting minutes and mishandled confidential closed-session records. The Attorney General's office found that while one set of minutes was handled correctly, the Commission failed to create minutes for another meeting and improperly moved sensitive closed-session documents out of their main office. The matter was closed with a reminder to the Commission to follow OMA requirements for record-keeping and storage.

Freeburg school board violated Open Meetings Act by restricting public comment outside its own rules
A school board forced members of the public to speak to board members in a private room instead of allowing them to speak during the public meeting. The Attorney General's office found this violated the Open Meetings Act because the board's own rules did not allow for this type of restriction. The board was cautioned to ensure future public comment rules are followed and designed to accommodate public participation.

Village of Altona Board of Trustees failed to keep adequate closed session minutes
A citizen complained that the Village of Altona could not provide proper minutes for a closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office found that the Village failed to keep a sufficient written record of what was discussed, as required by law. The Village was advised to improve its recording equipment and ensure future compliance with meeting documentation rules.

Pleasant Township Board violated OMA by requiring public commenters to sign form
A citizen complained that a township board refused to let him speak at a public meeting because he wouldn't fill out a form disclosing his topic and signature. The Attorney General's office agreed that this violated the Open Meetings Act, which guarantees the public's right to address public bodies. The board was advised to review its rules to ensure they do not discourage or restrict public participation.

Chicago State University Board of Trustees cleared on closed meeting recording complaint
Complainants alleged that a university board improperly stopped recording a closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office investigated but could not find sufficient evidence to prove that a violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred. Consequently, the office closed the file without taking further action.

Chicago State University Board cleared in closed meeting recording complaint
Complainants alleged that a university board improperly stopped recording a closed-door meeting. The Attorney General's office investigated but found insufficient evidence to prove that a violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred. Consequently, the office closed the file without taking further action.

City of Galena violated Open Meetings Act by barring public comment
A resident complained that the Galena City Council stopped him from speaking during a public meeting and discussed topics that weren't on the agenda. The Attorney General's office found that the Council broke the law by blocking the resident's right to provide public comment. However, the Council was allowed to discuss topics not on the agenda as long as they did not take final action on those items.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Meetings on election days; prohibited. (a) A public body may not hold or schedule a regular or special meeting on the day of a general primary election, a general election, a consolidated primary election, or a consolidated election, as defined in the Election Code. (b) A home rule unit may not hold or schedule meetings in a manner inconsistent with this Act. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions in accordance with subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution. (Source: P.A. 104-438, eff. 1-1-26.)

(from Ch. 102, par. 42a)

A public body may hold a meeting closed to the public, or close a portion of a meeting to the public, upon a majority vote of a quorum present, taken at a meeting open to the public for which notice has been given as required by this Act. A single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings, a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public, provided each meeting in such series involves the same particular matters and is scheduled to be held within no more than 3 months of the vote. The vote of each member on the question of holding a meeting closed to the public and a citation to the specific exception contained in Section 2 of this Act which authorizes the closing of the meeting to the public shall be publicly disclosed at the time of the vote and shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the meeting. Nothing in this Section or this Act shall be construed to require that any meeting be closed to the public. At any open meeting of a public body for which proper notice under this Act has been given, the body may, without additional notice under Section 2.02, hold a closed meeting in accordance with this Act. Only topics specified in the vote to close under this Section may be considered during the closed meeting. (Source: P.A. 88-621, eff. 1-1-95; 89-86, eff. 6-30-95.)

(Repealed). (Source: Repealed by P.A. 88-621, eff. 1-1-95.)

(from Ch. 102, par. 43)

(a) Where the provisions of this Act are not complied with, or where there is probable cause to believe that the provisions of this Act will not be complied with, any person, including the State's Attorney of the county in which such noncompliance may occur, may bring a civil action in the circuit court for the judicial circuit in which the alleged noncompliance has occurred or is about to occur, or in which the affected public body has its principal office, prior to or within 60 days of the meeting alleged to be in violation of this Act or, if facts concerning the meeting are not discovered within the 60-day period, within 60 days of the discovery of a violation by the State's Attorney or, if the person timely files a request for review under Section 3.5, within 60 days of the decision by the Attorney General to resolve a request for review by a means other than the issuance of a binding opinion under subsection (e) of Section 3.5. Records that are obtained by a State's Attorney from a public body for purposes of reviewing whether the public body has complied with this Act may not be disclosed to the public. Those records, while in the possession of the State's Attorney, are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. (b) In deciding such a case the court may examine in camera any portion of the minutes of a meeting at which a violation of the Act is alleged to have occurred, and may take such additional evidence as it deems necessary. (c) The court, having due regard for orderly administration and the public interest, as well as for the interests of the parties, may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including granting a relief by mandamus requiring that a meeting be open to the public, granting an injunction against future violations of this Act, ordering the public body to make available to the public such portion of the minutes of a meeting as is not authorized to be kept confidential under this Act, or declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act. (d) The court may assess against any party, except a State's Attorney, reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by any other party who substantially prevails in any action brought in accordance with this Section, provided that costs may be assessed against any private party or parties bringing an action pursuant to this Section only upon the court's determination that the action is malicious or frivolous in nature. (Source: P.A. 99-714, eff. 8-5-16.)

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Meeting at Private Residence is Not Convenient and Open to the Public
The requester challenged a school district's decision to hold a special meeting to adopt its tax levy at the superintendent's private residence rather than a public location. The Public Access Counselor held that although the school board provided proper notice and did not bar anyone from attending, holding a public meeting in a private home was not "convenient and open to the public" as the Open Meetings Act requires, since the setting could reasonably deter members of the public from attending and the board had not shown it lacked reasonable public alternatives. The school district was directed to hold future meetings at locations that comply with the Act's convenience and openness requirement.

Improper Discussion of Proposed Ordinance in Closed Session; Requirement to Recite and Record Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent; Requirement to Record Closed Sessions; Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited.
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for discussing a proposed landfill ordinance in a closed session under the Open Meetings Act's litigation exception. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee's closed-session discussion went beyond genuine probable-or-imminent litigation, that it failed to publicly state and record its factual basis for finding litigation likely, failed to make a required recording of the closed session, and appears to have reached a final decision on the ordinance in closed session rather than voting in open session as required. The county board was directed to release the improperly closed portions of its minutes, record all future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into full compliance with the Act.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited
The requester challenged a public university's governing board for voting, during a closed session, to terminate a tenured faculty member's employment. The Public Access Counselor's review of the closed-session recording confirmed the board voted on the termination behind closed doors and never disclosed or discussed the action once back in open session, in violation of the Open Meetings Act's prohibition on taking final action in closed session, which applies even to personnel matters. The university was directed to place the matter on a future open-session agenda, explain the proposed action to the public before any vote, and ensure future compliance.

A Public Body's Special Meeting Held Approximately 26 Miles from its Ordinary Meeting Location is Not "Convenient and Open" to the Public.
The requester alleged that the fire protection district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting at a location far outside the district's boundaries. The board's attorney argued the meeting was held at his law office in a nearby city to save on travel costs for legal consultation, and that it was properly noticed and involved no formal action. The Public Access Counselor held that the meeting location—about 26 miles from the district's usual meeting place, held at 9:00 a.m. on a weekday—violated the requirement that meetings be held somewhere "convenient and open" to the public, since the distance and timing would likely have deterred residents from attending, especially given the significant tax and bond issues discussed. The district was directed to hold all future meetings at locations that are genuinely convenient and open to the public, as required by law.

Duty to Inform the Public of the Nature of the Business under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
A requester alleged that the school district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by voting in open session to dismiss an employee identified only as "Employee A," without naming the employee, after discussing the matter in closed session. The PAC held that while boards may discuss personnel performance issues in closed session, any final action—like a vote to dismiss—must occur in open session and be preceded by a public recital sufficient to inform the public of the actual business being conducted. Because the board withheld the employee's identity, citing privacy concerns, the public could not understand the real effect of the vote (for example, whether the action concerned a support staffer, teacher, or administrator), so the board failed to meet this disclosure requirement. The PAC directed the school district to reconsider its final action and, going forward, to include the employee's name and other identifying information when taking such final action in open session.

Amending Agenda During 48-Hour Posting Period
The requester alleged that the township board violated the Open Meetings Act by amending its meeting agenda less than 48 hours before a scheduled meeting, removing two action items and moving them to executive session instead. The PAC held that no violation occurred, reasoning that the Act requires 48 hours' notice of matters on which final action will be taken, but does not require a public body to act on every listed item or prohibit it from revising an agenda to delete items due to changed circumstances. Because the public still received proper advance notice of the matters actually acted upon, and the board's update actually improved transparency, the PAC found the township board's agenda amendment complied with the law.

Improper Discussion of Salary Increases for City Employees in a Closed Meeting
The requester, a newspaper publisher, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss and then approved an across-the-board cost-of-living raise for city employees under the exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the specific-employees exception does not extend to a general budgetary discussion affecting a broad category of employees, and that a second exception the city council later invoked for salary schedules could not be relied on because it had not been publicly cited at the time of the vote to close the meeting. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion and bring future meetings into compliance.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a board member, alleged that the village board voted to amend and approve a settlement agreement under a generic 'Old Business' agenda item that gave no notice the matter would be subject to final action, over the objection of the board's own attorney that the vote would be illegal. The Public Access Counselor held that an agenda item must disclose the general subject matter of any resolution or measure that will be finally acted on, and that 'Old Business' failed to do so here. The village board was directed to reconsider the settlement agreement at a properly noticed meeting.

Right to Record an Open Meeting
The requester was barred from recording the open portion of a school board meeting because he asked permission roughly ten minutes beforehand rather than complying with the board's policy requiring 24 hours' advance notice, which the board defended in part by citing the presence of children in the meeting room. The Public Access Counselor held that the Open Meetings Act allows only recording rules reasonably designed to prevent disruption or protect safety, and that the board failed to explain why a blanket 24-hour notice requirement -- as opposed to a narrower rule addressing its stated concern -- was necessary when the requester sought no special accommodations. The school district was directed to revise its recording policy to comply with the Act.

Discussion of Legal Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
A county state's attorney, relaying citizen concerns, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss ending a decades-old revenue-sharing agreement with a neighboring town, citing probable litigation, even though the mayor had publicly said no lawsuit was expected. The Public Access Counselor held that the council's closed-session discussion focused on what to do about the agreement rather than on litigation strategy, and that the council had not shown it had reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand, so the litigation exception did not apply. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Discussion of the Conduct of a Public Body Member in Closed Session Pastor Marvin Hightower President Peoria NAACP P.O. Box 6002 Peoria, Illinois 61601
An advocacy organization alleged that a village board closed part of a meeting to discuss a board member's racially charged public comments, after an agenda item identified the matter for discussion, rather than address the issue openly. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the potentially applicable exceptions authorized the closed session: the specific-employees exception does not cover elected board members, the board lacked authority to remove one of its own members so the removal-of-office exception did not apply, and the board was not sitting in a quasi-adjudicative capacity when it discussed the comments. The village board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Improper Discussion of Budget and Layoffs in Closed Session
The requester, a faculty union president, sought review of a university board's closed session in which it discussed the university's budget and layoffs, arguing that the board improperly relied on the closed-session exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of budgetary matters or categories of employees, and that only a brief portion of the closed session concerning one employee's contract fell within the exception. The board was directed to disclose the recording and minutes of the closed-session discussion of budget and layoff matters, apart from the narrow, properly closed portion.

Discussion of the Duties and Salaries of Elected Officials in Closed Session
The requester, an elected county auditor, sought review after a county board committee entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the salaries and duties of independently elected county officials including herself. The Public Access Counselor held that elected officials such as a county auditor or coroner are not "employees" of the county for purposes of the specific-employees exception, since the county does not direct their work or have authority to remove them, so the closed session exceeded the scope of any applicable exception. The committee was directed to disclose the recording of the improperly closed portion of its meeting.

"Established" and Recorded Rules for Public Comment
The requester, a member of the public, sought review of a school district's board of education after it limited the public comment portion of its meeting to a total of 15 minutes and refused to let some attendees speak on a matter of public concern. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act because it applied an unestablished and unrecorded rule to restrict public comment; its policy manual set a per-speaker time limit but contained no 15-minute cumulative cap. The board was directed to refrain from applying unestablished and unrecorded rules to future public comment periods.

Public Recital of the Nature of the Matter Under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
The requester, a newspaper, sought review of a school board's vote to approve a resolution authorizing a formal disciplinary notice to a teacher after the board announced only the resolution's number and title before voting, and the superintendent stated the underlying details had been discussed only in closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement of a public recital sufficient to identify the business being conducted, because identifying an unnamed teacher subject to discipline did not give the public adequate notice of the transaction. The board was directed to reconsider and re-vote on the resolution at a properly noticed meeting that names the teacher and describes the action being taken.

Right to Address Public Officials at a Public Meeting
The requester, a member of the public who did not reside within the city, sought review after a mayor refused to let her speak during a city council's public comment period, telling her she had "no standing" because she was not a resident. The Public Access Counselor held that the council had no established and recorded rule restricting public comment to residents, and further concluded that even such a rule would violate the Open Meetings Act's right to address public officials. The council was directed to refrain from limiting public comment to city residents at future meetings.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not Sufficiently Identified on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, sought review of a city council's meeting agenda after the council voted to raise permit application fees fivefold under an agenda item that listed only an ordinance number and a municipal code section, without describing its subject matter. The Public Access Counselor held that the agenda violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final-action items disclose the general subject matter of the business to be conducted, since referencing only an ordinance and code section gave the public no indication that a fee increase was being considered. The council was directed to reconsider its action at a properly noticed meeting with an agenda that identifies the general subject matter of the ordinance.

Duty to Approve Meeting Minutes Within Time Period Specified by OMA
The requester, a resident, sought review after a village board of trustees approved the minutes of three earlier meetings held between two and three months after those meetings took place. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to approve minutes within 30 days of a meeting or by its second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later, rejecting the board's argument that an unusually heavy meeting schedule and staffing shortages excused the delay. The board was directed to develop protocols ensuring minutes are approved within the statutory deadline going forward.

South Loop Elementary School Local School Council violated OMA by discussing principal evaluation in closed session
The requester, a member of a school's local school council, sought review after the council entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the general process and timeline for evaluating the school's principal rather than the principal's individual performance. The Public Access Counselor held that the closed-session exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of evaluation procedures applicable to a category of employees, so the council violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be open unless a narrow exception applies. The council was directed to disclose the recording of the unauthorized portions of its closed-session discussion.

Requirement for the Public to Contemporaneously Hear All Discussion, Testimony, and Roll Call Votes in a Meeting Held Remotely Pursuant to a Public Health Emergency
The requester alleged that a village board of trustees muted part of the open-session discussion during a remotely held meeting without ever announcing it was entering closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that because members of the public could not hear the muted discussion between village officials, the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that a remote meeting allow the public to contemporaneously hear all discussion. The board was directed to make the complete verbatim recording of the open-session portion of the meeting publicly available.

Improper Discussion of Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
The requester, a resident with an ongoing property dispute involving a sewer easement, alleged that a city council improperly discussed the matter in closed session under the exception for probable or imminent litigation. The Public Access Counselor held that the council never made or recorded a finding that litigation was probable or imminent as the exception requires, and that its discussion concerned the underlying dispute rather than litigation strategy. The council was directed to disclose the portion of the closed-session recording and minutes concerning the resident's property.

Duty to Make Verbatim Recordings of Closed Sessions of Committee Meetings
The requester, a public transit district employee, alleged that a personnel committee failed to make a verbatim recording of its closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to record all closed sessions, a violation the committee itself acknowledged after discovering its recorder had not been turned on. The committee was directed to adopt procedures to ensure all future closed sessions are properly recorded.

Proper Remote Meeting During a Public Health Emergency
The requester, a resident, alleged that a school board's decision to hold a meeting remotely via Zoom during the pandemic was really a pretext to avoid members of the public who had been disruptive at an earlier in-person meeting. The Public Access Counselor found that the board satisfied every requirement for a proper remote meeting, including an active disaster declaration, the board president's documented determination that an in-person meeting was imprudent because of a mask-related disturbance at the prior meeting, and a livestream that let the public hear the entire meeting. No violation was found.

Improper Closed Session Discussion of Removing Book from Curriculum
The requester, a resident, alleged that a school board improperly discussed removing a book from an English class curriculum in closed session after a parent's grievance about the book reached the board. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the personnel, quasi-adjudicative, or student-placement exceptions the board cited authorized closing the meeting, because the board was actually deliberating on a curriculum decision affecting students generally rather than a specific employee's conduct or an individual student. The board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording, with only the brief portions naming a specific student redacted, and to revise its closed-session minutes to meaningfully summarize the discussion.

Taking Final Action in Closed Session
The requester, a resident, alleged that a city council authorized an exclusive real estate brokerage agreement for city office space during closed session rather than voting on it in open session. The Public Access Counselor held that the verbatim recording showed the council's city manager sought and received the council's approval to execute the agreement in closed session, which constituted final action barred from occurring outside of open session regardless of the dollar amount involved. The city council was directed to reconsider and take final action on the agreement in open session after an adequate public recital.

Attendance by Means Other Than Physical Presence Because of Employment Purposes; Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, alleged that a village board improperly let its president attend meetings remotely for work reasons and separately approved a truck purchase that was not disclosed on the meeting agenda. The Public Access Counselor held that the president's work-related travel properly justified his remote attendance under the Open Meetings Act, but that the board violated the Act by voting to purchase the truck without first listing that action's general subject matter on the agenda. Because the board had already re-noticed and re-voted on the truck purchase by the time of this opinion, no further remedy was ordered for that violation.

Duty to Make Meetings Convenient and Open to the Public
Several residents alleged that a village board's meetings were not convenient and open to the public because of inadequate seating and an intimidating security presence, including street and parking-lot barricades that stranded elderly and disabled residents outside. The Public Access Counselor held that the board took no steps to accommodate the crowds it knew to expect and instead added unjustified security restrictions, violating the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be convenient and open to the public. The board was directed to hold future meetings in adequately sized, accessible locations and to refrain from unnecessary security measures that impede public attendance.

Notice of a Change in Regular Meeting Dates
The requester, a resident, alleged that a village board changed its regular meeting dates without providing the ten-day newspaper notice of that change required by the Open Meetings Act. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated section 2.03 of OMA because listing the new meeting dates on utility bills and a newspaper article about the change did not satisfy the required newspaper-publication notice. Because the board had since published proper legal notice of the changed schedule, no further remedy was ordered.

Informal Committee of City is Subsidiary Body
The requester, a resident, alleged that a city's pool-building committee, composed of city officials and citizens appointed by the mayor, had been meeting privately without complying with the Open Meetings Act. The Public Access Counselor held that, based on the governmental function the committee performed and the degree of city control over it, the committee was a subsidiary body of the city subject to all of OMA's requirements. The committee was directed to ensure future meetings comply with OMA, including proper notice, minutes, and public comment, and to complete OMA training.

Improper Private Meeting
The requester alleged that a county board held an improper private meeting when a majority of a quorum of its members attended an informational presentation on a proposed energy project hosted by a private company. The Public Access Counselor held that because the members engaged in an interactive discussion with the company about a project affecting the county, the gathering constituted a "meeting" subject to the Open Meetings Act despite lacking formal notice. The board was directed to generate minutes summarizing the presentation or have the company recreate it at a properly noticed open meeting.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Public Access Counselor; opinions. (a) A person who believes that a violation of this Act by a public body has occurred may file a request for review with the Public Access Counselor established in the Office of the Attorney General not later than 60 days after the alleged violation. If facts concerning the violation are not discovered within the 60-day period, but are discovered at a later date, not exceeding 2 years after the alleged violation, by a person utilizing reasonable diligence, the request for review may be made within 60 days of the discovery of the alleged violation. The request for review must be in writing, must be signed by the requester, and must include a summary of the facts supporting the allegation. The changes made by this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly apply to violations alleged to have occurred at meetings held on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly. (b) Upon receipt of a request for review, the Public Access Counselor shall determine whether further action is warranted. If the Public Access Counselor determines from the request for review that the alleged violation is unfounded, he or she shall so advise the requester and the public body and no further action shall be undertaken. In all other cases, the Public Access Counselor shall forward a copy of the request for review to the public body within 7 working days. The Public Access Counselor shall specify the records or other documents that the public body shall furnish to facilitate the review. Within 7 working days after receipt of the request for review, the public body shall provide copies of the records requested and shall otherwise fully cooperate with the Public Access Counselor. If a public body fails to furnish specified records pursuant to this Section, or if otherwise necessary, the Attorney General may issue a subpoena to any person or public body having knowledge of or records pertaining to an alleged violation of this Act. For purposes of conducting a thorough review, the Public Access Counselor has the same right to examine a verbatim recording of a meeting closed to the public or the minutes of a closed meeting as does a court in a civil action brought to enforce this Act. (c) Within 7 working days after it receives a copy of a request for review and request for production of records from the Public Access Counselor, the public body may, but is not required to, answer the allegations of the request for review. The answer may take the form of a letter, brief, or memorandum. Upon request, the public body may also furnish the Public Access Counselor with a redacted copy of the answer excluding specific references to any matters at issue. The Public Access Counselor shall forward a copy of the answer or redacted answer, if furnished, to the person submitting the request for review. The requester may, but is not required to, respond in writing to the answer within 7 working days and shall provide a copy of the response to the public body. (d) In addition to the request for review, and the answer and the response thereto, if any, a requester or a public body may furnish affidavits and records concerning any matter germane to the review. (e) Unless the Public Access Counselor extends the time by no more than 21 business days by sending written notice to the requester and public body that includes a statement of the reasons for the extension in the notice, or decides to address the matter without the issuance of a binding opinion, the Attorney General shall examine the issues and the records, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall issue to the requester and the public body an opinion within 60 days after initiating review. The opinion shall be binding upon both the requester and the public body, subject to administrative review under Section 7.5 of this Act. In responding to any written request under this Section 3.5, the Attorney General may exercise his or her discretion and choose to resolve a request for review by mediation or by a means other than the issuance of a binding opinion. The decision not to issue a binding opinion shall not be reviewable. Upon receipt of a binding opinion concluding that a violation of this Act has occurred, the public body shall either take necessary action as soon as practical to comply with the directive of the opinion or shall initiate administrative review under Section 7.5. If the opinion concludes that no violation of the Act has occurred, the requester may initiate administrative review under Section 7.5. (f) If the requester files suit under Section 3 with respect to the same alleged violation that is the subject of a pending request for review, the requester shall notify the Public Access Counselor, and the Public Access Counselor shall take no further action with respect to the request for review and shall so notify the public body. (g) Records that are obtained by the Public Access Counselor from a public body for purposes of addressing a request for review under this Section 3.5 may not be disclosed to the public, including the requester, by the Public Access Counselor. Those records, while in the possession of the Public Access Counselor, shall be exempt from disclosure by the Public Access Counselor under the Freedom of Information Act. (h) The Attorney General may also issue advisory opinions to public bodies regarding compliance with this Act. A review may be initiated upon receipt of a written request from the head of the public body or its attorney. The request must contain sufficient accurate facts from which a determination can be made. The Public Access Counselor may request additional information from the public body in order to facilitate the review. A public body that relies in good faith on an advisory opinion of the Attorney General in complying with the requirements of this Act is not liable for penalties under this Act, so long as the facts upon which the opinion is based have been fully and fairly disclosed to the Public Access Counselor. (Source: P.A. 99-402, eff. 8-19-15.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 3.5: 6 · 3.5(a): 2 · 3.5(b): 1 · 3.5(f): 1

Determination letters

PAC declines to decide Aurora Downtown's public body status due to pending litigation
A former board member asked the Illinois Attorney General's office to decide if the organization 'Aurora Downtown' must follow state transparency laws. The Attorney General's office declined to intervene because the same question is already being decided in a pending lawsuit. As a result, the office closed the file without making a formal determination.

City of Elmhurst Fire and Police Board complaint rejected as untimely under OMA
A citizen tried to file a complaint against the Elmhurst Board of Fire and Police Commissioners for an alleged Open Meetings Act violation. The Attorney General's office rejected the complaint because it was filed too late. Under Illinois law, you generally have 60 days to report an alleged violation, and this request missed that deadline.

Western Illinois University Board of Trustees did not violate OMA during public comment period
A student group complained that a university board member acted improperly by interrupting and changing the subject during a public comment session. The Attorney General's office reviewed the meeting recording and concluded that the board member's actions did not violate the Open Meetings Act. Consequently, the office closed the case without taking further action.

Proviso Township School Board remote meeting denial not an OMA violation
A school board member complained that she was not allowed to attend a meeting remotely when she was sick and that the superintendent was unfairly limiting her access to information. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and decided they could not take action because these specific issues—internal board communication and administrative management—are not governed by the Open Meetings Act. The file was closed without a finding of a violation.

Board of Education of Algonquin CUSD 300 remote meeting complaint dismissed as premature
A citizen complained to the Attorney General about a school board's plan to hold a remote meeting. The Attorney General's office closed the case because the complaint was filed before the meeting even happened, meaning no violation could have occurred yet. Additionally, the office noted that public bodies have the authority to decide if remote meetings are necessary during a disaster declaration.

Village of Bartonville violated OMA by withholding closed session recording and minutes
A reporter alleged that a Village Board improperly held a closed session to discuss a volunteer firefighter and a FOIA request. The Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor found that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by refusing to provide the closed session recording and unredacted minutes for confidential review, as required by law. The determination did not rule on whether the closed session itself was proper, because the Board's failure to cooperate prevented that review.

PAC declines to review untimely OMA complaint against City of Washington
A requester asked the Attorney General to investigate closed-door meetings held by the City of Washington back in 2016. The Attorney General's office refused to investigate because the request was filed years too late and the same issue is already being handled in a court lawsuit. Consequently, the PAC closed the file without taking any action.

Village of Winnetka OMA closed meeting complaint timeliness undetermined
A citizen alleged that a village council held illegal closed sessions concerning a land transaction. The PAC concluded that the request for review was filed too late because the relevant information had been publicly disclosed in meeting materials and recordings more than 60 days before the request. The PAC therefore lacked authority to take further action and closed the matter.

Cook County Board of Review no further action on virtual meeting rules
A citizen complained that the Cook County Board of Review made it too difficult to attend meetings online or provide public comments. The Attorney General's office explained that the Open Meetings Act does not actually require public bodies to offer remote attendance options at all. Because the law doesn't require virtual meetings, the Board's rules for them do not violate the Act.

PAC closes Palatine Park District meeting notice review after requester files lawsuit
A citizen complained that a park district board voted on an item that wasn't properly listed on their meeting agenda. However, because the citizen also filed a lawsuit against the board over the same issue, the Attorney General's office is legally required to stop its investigation. The PAC closed the file without making a decision on whether the law was broken.

(from Ch. 102, par. 44)

Any person violating any of the provisions of this Act, except subsection (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of Section 1.05, shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. (Source: P.A. 97-504, eff. 1-1-12; 97-1153, eff. 1-25-13; 98-900, eff. 8-15-14.)

(from Ch. 102, par. 45)

If any provision of this Act, or the application of this Act to any particular meeting or type of meeting is held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions or the other applications of this Act. (Source: Laws 1957, p. 2892.)

(from Ch. 102, par. 46)

The provisions of this Act constitute minimum requirements for home rule units; any home rule unit may enact an ordinance prescribing more stringent requirements binding upon itself which would serve to give further notice to the public and facilitate public access to meetings. (Source: P.A. 78-448.)

Attendance by a means other than physical presence. (a) If a quorum of the members of the public body is physically present as required by Section 2.01, a majority of the public body may allow a member of that body to attend the meeting by other means if the member is prevented from physically attending because of: (i) personal illness or disability; (ii) employment purposes or the business of the public body; (iii) a family or other emergency; (iv) unexpected childcare obligations; or (v) performance of active military duty as a service member. "Other means" is by video or audio conference. As used in this subsection: "Active military duty" has the meaning given to "active service" in Section 1-10 of the Service Member Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. "Service member" means a resident of Illinois who is a member of any component of the U.S. Armed Forces or the National Guard of any state, the District of Columbia, a commonwealth, or a territory of the United States. (b) If a member wishes to attend a meeting by other means, the member must notify the recording secretary or clerk of the public body before the meeting unless advance notice is impractical. (c) A majority of the public body may allow a member to attend a meeting by other means only in accordance with and to the extent allowed by rules adopted by the public body. The rules must conform to the requirements and restrictions of this Section, may further limit the extent to which attendance by other means is allowed, and may provide for the giving of additional notice to the public or further facilitate public access to meetings. (d) The limitations of this Section shall not apply to (i) closed meetings of (A) public bodies with statewide jurisdiction, (B) Illinois library systems with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles, (C) municipal transit districts with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles, or (D) local workforce innovation areas with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles or (ii) open or closed meetings of State advisory boards or bodies that do not have authority to make binding recommendations or determinations or to take any other substantive action. State advisory boards or bodies, public bodies with statewide jurisdiction, Illinois library systems with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles, municipal transit districts with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles, and local workforce investment areas with jurisdiction over a specific geographic area of more than 4,500 square miles, however, may permit members to attend meetings by other means only in accordance with and to the extent allowed by specific procedural rules adopted by the body. For the purposes of this Section, "local workforce innovation area" means any local workforce innovation area or areas designated by the Governor pursuant to the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act or its reauthorizing legislation. (e) Subject to the requirements of Section 2.06 but notwithstanding any other provision of law, an open or closed meeting subject to this Act may be conducted by audio or video conference, without the physical presence of a quorum of the members, so long as the following conditions are met: (1) the Governor or the Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health has issued a disaster declaration related to public health concerns because of a disaster as defined in Section 4 of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, and all or part of the jurisdiction of the public body is covered by the disaster area; (2) the head of the public body as defined in subsection (e) of Section 2 of the Freedom of Information Act determines that an in-person meeting or a meeting conducted under this Act is not practical or prudent because of a disaster; (3) all members of the body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, shall be verified and can hear one another and can hear all discussion and testimony; (4) for open meetings, members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear all discussion and testimony and all votes of the members of the body, unless attendance at the regular meeting location is not feasible due to the disaster, including the issued disaster declaration, in which case the public body must make alternative arrangements and provide notice pursuant to this Section of such alternative arrangements in a manner to allow any interested member of the public access to contemporaneously hear all discussion, testimony, and roll call votes, such as by offering a telephone number or a web-based link; (5) at least one member of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer is physically present at the regular meeting location, unless unfeasible due to the disaster, including the issued disaster declaration; and (6) all votes are conducted by roll call, so each member's vote on each issue can be identified and recorded. (7) Except in the event of a bona fide emergency, 48 hours' notice shall be given of a meeting to be held pursuant to this Section. Notice shall be given to all members of the public body, shall be posted on the website of the public body, and shall also be provided to any news media who has requested notice of meetings pursuant to subsection (a) of Section 2.02 of this Act. If the public body declares a bona fide emergency: (A) Notice shall be given pursuant to subsection (a) of Section 2.02 of this Act, and the presiding officer shall state the nature of the emergency at the beginning of the meeting. (B) The public body must comply with the verbatim recording requirements set forth in Section 2.06 of this Act. (8) Each member of the body participating in a meeting by audio or video conference for a meeting held pursuant to this Section is considered present at the meeting for purposes of determining a quorum and participating in all proceedings. (9) In addition to the requirements for open meetings under Section 2.06, public bodies holding open meetings under this subsection (e) must also keep a verbatim record of all their meetings in the form of an audio or video recording. Verbatim records made under this paragraph (9) shall be made available to the public under, and are otherwise subject to, the provisions of Section 2.06. (10) The public body shall bear all costs associated with compliance with this subsection (e). (Source: P.A. 103-311, eff. 7-28-23; 104-438, eff. 1-1-26.)

Breakdown by specific citation: 7: 39 · 7(e): 2 · 7(c): 1

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Meeting at Private Residence is Not Convenient and Open to the Public
The requester challenged a school district's decision to hold a special meeting to adopt its tax levy at the superintendent's private residence rather than a public location. The Public Access Counselor held that although the school board provided proper notice and did not bar anyone from attending, holding a public meeting in a private home was not "convenient and open to the public" as the Open Meetings Act requires, since the setting could reasonably deter members of the public from attending and the board had not shown it lacked reasonable public alternatives. The school district was directed to hold future meetings at locations that comply with the Act's convenience and openness requirement.

Improper Discussion of Proposed Ordinance in Closed Session; Requirement to Recite and Record Basis for Finding that Litigation is Probable or Imminent; Requirement to Record Closed Sessions; Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited.
The requester challenged a county board's finance committee for discussing a proposed landfill ordinance in a closed session under the Open Meetings Act's litigation exception. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee's closed-session discussion went beyond genuine probable-or-imminent litigation, that it failed to publicly state and record its factual basis for finding litigation likely, failed to make a required recording of the closed session, and appears to have reached a final decision on the ordinance in closed session rather than voting in open session as required. The county board was directed to release the improperly closed portions of its minutes, record all future closed sessions, and bring its meetings into full compliance with the Act.

Taking Final Action at Closed Session Prohibited
The requester challenged a public university's governing board for voting, during a closed session, to terminate a tenured faculty member's employment. The Public Access Counselor's review of the closed-session recording confirmed the board voted on the termination behind closed doors and never disclosed or discussed the action once back in open session, in violation of the Open Meetings Act's prohibition on taking final action in closed session, which applies even to personnel matters. The university was directed to place the matter on a future open-session agenda, explain the proposed action to the public before any vote, and ensure future compliance.

A Public Body's Special Meeting Held Approximately 26 Miles from its Ordinary Meeting Location is Not "Convenient and Open" to the Public.
The requester alleged that the fire protection district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a special meeting at a location far outside the district's boundaries. The board's attorney argued the meeting was held at his law office in a nearby city to save on travel costs for legal consultation, and that it was properly noticed and involved no formal action. The Public Access Counselor held that the meeting location—about 26 miles from the district's usual meeting place, held at 9:00 a.m. on a weekday—violated the requirement that meetings be held somewhere "convenient and open" to the public, since the distance and timing would likely have deterred residents from attending, especially given the significant tax and bond issues discussed. The district was directed to hold all future meetings at locations that are genuinely convenient and open to the public, as required by law.

Duty to Inform the Public of the Nature of the Business under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
A requester alleged that the school district's board violated the Open Meetings Act by voting in open session to dismiss an employee identified only as "Employee A," without naming the employee, after discussing the matter in closed session. The PAC held that while boards may discuss personnel performance issues in closed session, any final action—like a vote to dismiss—must occur in open session and be preceded by a public recital sufficient to inform the public of the actual business being conducted. Because the board withheld the employee's identity, citing privacy concerns, the public could not understand the real effect of the vote (for example, whether the action concerned a support staffer, teacher, or administrator), so the board failed to meet this disclosure requirement. The PAC directed the school district to reconsider its final action and, going forward, to include the employee's name and other identifying information when taking such final action in open session.

Amending Agenda During 48-Hour Posting Period
The requester alleged that the township board violated the Open Meetings Act by amending its meeting agenda less than 48 hours before a scheduled meeting, removing two action items and moving them to executive session instead. The PAC held that no violation occurred, reasoning that the Act requires 48 hours' notice of matters on which final action will be taken, but does not require a public body to act on every listed item or prohibit it from revising an agenda to delete items due to changed circumstances. Because the public still received proper advance notice of the matters actually acted upon, and the board's update actually improved transparency, the PAC found the township board's agenda amendment complied with the law.

Improper Discussion of Salary Increases for City Employees in a Closed Meeting
The requester, a newspaper publisher, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss and then approved an across-the-board cost-of-living raise for city employees under the exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the specific-employees exception does not extend to a general budgetary discussion affecting a broad category of employees, and that a second exception the city council later invoked for salary schedules could not be relied on because it had not been publicly cited at the time of the vote to close the meeting. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion and bring future meetings into compliance.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a board member, alleged that the village board voted to amend and approve a settlement agreement under a generic 'Old Business' agenda item that gave no notice the matter would be subject to final action, over the objection of the board's own attorney that the vote would be illegal. The Public Access Counselor held that an agenda item must disclose the general subject matter of any resolution or measure that will be finally acted on, and that 'Old Business' failed to do so here. The village board was directed to reconsider the settlement agreement at a properly noticed meeting.

Right to Record an Open Meeting
The requester was barred from recording the open portion of a school board meeting because he asked permission roughly ten minutes beforehand rather than complying with the board's policy requiring 24 hours' advance notice, which the board defended in part by citing the presence of children in the meeting room. The Public Access Counselor held that the Open Meetings Act allows only recording rules reasonably designed to prevent disruption or protect safety, and that the board failed to explain why a blanket 24-hour notice requirement -- as opposed to a narrower rule addressing its stated concern -- was necessary when the requester sought no special accommodations. The school district was directed to revise its recording policy to comply with the Act.

Discussion of Legal Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
A county state's attorney, relaying citizen concerns, alleged that a city council closed part of a meeting to discuss ending a decades-old revenue-sharing agreement with a neighboring town, citing probable litigation, even though the mayor had publicly said no lawsuit was expected. The Public Access Counselor held that the council's closed-session discussion focused on what to do about the agreement rather than on litigation strategy, and that the council had not shown it had reasonable grounds to believe a lawsuit was more likely than not or close at hand, so the litigation exception did not apply. The city council was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Discussion of the Conduct of a Public Body Member in Closed Session Pastor Marvin Hightower President Peoria NAACP P.O. Box 6002 Peoria, Illinois 61601
An advocacy organization alleged that a village board closed part of a meeting to discuss a board member's racially charged public comments, after an agenda item identified the matter for discussion, rather than address the issue openly. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the potentially applicable exceptions authorized the closed session: the specific-employees exception does not cover elected board members, the board lacked authority to remove one of its own members so the removal-of-office exception did not apply, and the board was not sitting in a quasi-adjudicative capacity when it discussed the comments. The village board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording of that discussion.

Improper Discussion of Budget and Layoffs in Closed Session
The requester, a faculty union president, sought review of a university board's closed session in which it discussed the university's budget and layoffs, arguing that the board improperly relied on the closed-session exception for discussing specific employees. The Public Access Counselor held that the exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of budgetary matters or categories of employees, and that only a brief portion of the closed session concerning one employee's contract fell within the exception. The board was directed to disclose the recording and minutes of the closed-session discussion of budget and layoff matters, apart from the narrow, properly closed portion.

"Established" and Recorded Rules for Public Comment
The requester, a member of the public, sought review of a school district's board of education after it limited the public comment portion of its meeting to a total of 15 minutes and refused to let some attendees speak on a matter of public concern. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act because it applied an unestablished and unrecorded rule to restrict public comment; its policy manual set a per-speaker time limit but contained no 15-minute cumulative cap. The board was directed to refrain from applying unestablished and unrecorded rules to future public comment periods.

Public Recital of the Nature of the Matter Under Consideration Prior to Taking Final Action
The requester, a newspaper, sought review of a school board's vote to approve a resolution authorizing a formal disciplinary notice to a teacher after the board announced only the resolution's number and title before voting, and the superintendent stated the underlying details had been discussed only in closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement of a public recital sufficient to identify the business being conducted, because identifying an unnamed teacher subject to discipline did not give the public adequate notice of the transaction. The board was directed to reconsider and re-vote on the resolution at a properly noticed meeting that names the teacher and describes the action being taken.

Taking Final Action on Matter Not Sufficiently Identified on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, sought review of a city council's meeting agenda after the council voted to raise permit application fees fivefold under an agenda item that listed only an ordinance number and a municipal code section, without describing its subject matter. The Public Access Counselor held that the agenda violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that final-action items disclose the general subject matter of the business to be conducted, since referencing only an ordinance and code section gave the public no indication that a fee increase was being considered. The council was directed to reconsider its action at a properly noticed meeting with an agenda that identifies the general subject matter of the ordinance.

Duty to Approve Meeting Minutes Within Time Period Specified by OMA
The requester, a resident, sought review after a village board of trustees approved the minutes of three earlier meetings held between two and three months after those meetings took place. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to approve minutes within 30 days of a meeting or by its second subsequent regular meeting, whichever is later, rejecting the board's argument that an unusually heavy meeting schedule and staffing shortages excused the delay. The board was directed to develop protocols ensuring minutes are approved within the statutory deadline going forward.

South Loop Elementary School Local School Council violated OMA by discussing principal evaluation in closed session
The requester, a member of a school's local school council, sought review after the council entered closed session, citing the exception for discussing specific employees, to discuss the general process and timeline for evaluating the school's principal rather than the principal's individual performance. The Public Access Counselor held that the closed-session exception for specific employees does not extend to general discussions of evaluation procedures applicable to a category of employees, so the council violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be open unless a narrow exception applies. The council was directed to disclose the recording of the unauthorized portions of its closed-session discussion.

Requirement for the Public to Contemporaneously Hear All Discussion, Testimony, and Roll Call Votes in a Meeting Held Remotely Pursuant to a Public Health Emergency
The requester alleged that a village board of trustees muted part of the open-session discussion during a remotely held meeting without ever announcing it was entering closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that because members of the public could not hear the muted discussion between village officials, the board violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement that a remote meeting allow the public to contemporaneously hear all discussion. The board was directed to make the complete verbatim recording of the open-session portion of the meeting publicly available.

Improper Discussion of Matters under the Exception for Pending, Probable, or Imminent Litigation
The requester, a resident with an ongoing property dispute involving a sewer easement, alleged that a city council improperly discussed the matter in closed session under the exception for probable or imminent litigation. The Public Access Counselor held that the council never made or recorded a finding that litigation was probable or imminent as the exception requires, and that its discussion concerned the underlying dispute rather than litigation strategy. The council was directed to disclose the portion of the closed-session recording and minutes concerning the resident's property.

Duty to Make Verbatim Recordings of Closed Sessions of Committee Meetings
The requester, a public transit district employee, alleged that a personnel committee failed to make a verbatim recording of its closed session. The Public Access Counselor held that the committee violated the Open Meetings Act's requirement to record all closed sessions, a violation the committee itself acknowledged after discovering its recorder had not been turned on. The committee was directed to adopt procedures to ensure all future closed sessions are properly recorded.

Proper Remote Meeting During a Public Health Emergency
The requester, a resident, alleged that a school board's decision to hold a meeting remotely via Zoom during the pandemic was really a pretext to avoid members of the public who had been disruptive at an earlier in-person meeting. The Public Access Counselor found that the board satisfied every requirement for a proper remote meeting, including an active disaster declaration, the board president's documented determination that an in-person meeting was imprudent because of a mask-related disturbance at the prior meeting, and a livestream that let the public hear the entire meeting. No violation was found.

Improper Remote Meeting During a Public Health Emergency
The requester, a resident, alleged that a city council's remotely held meeting gave the public no way to access it, since no Zoom link or call-in number was posted in advance and the meeting was already underway by the time she was able to join after texting the police chief for a link. The Public Access Counselor held that the council violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to post remote-access information on its website in advance, by failing to clarify that in-person attendance was also allowed, and by failing to make a verbatim recording of the remote meeting. The council was directed to include remote-access information on future meeting notices and to record all future remote meetings.

Improper Remote Meetings During a Public Health Emergency
The requester alleged that a village board of trustees held two regular meetings remotely without providing the public any way to access them, since the posted agendas said only that the meetings would be held on a virtual platform. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to post a telephone number, web link, or other access information on its website in advance of either meeting, noting that posting access information only on social media did not satisfy the requirement to post it on the public body's own website. The board was directed to include remote-access information in its meeting notices for future remote meetings.

Improper Closed Session Discussion of Removing Book from Curriculum
The requester, a resident, alleged that a school board improperly discussed removing a book from an English class curriculum in closed session after a parent's grievance about the book reached the board. The Public Access Counselor held that none of the personnel, quasi-adjudicative, or student-placement exceptions the board cited authorized closing the meeting, because the board was actually deliberating on a curriculum decision affecting students generally rather than a specific employee's conduct or an individual student. The board was directed to disclose the closed-session recording, with only the brief portions naming a specific student redacted, and to revise its closed-session minutes to meaningfully summarize the discussion.

Taking Final Action in Closed Session
The requester, a resident, alleged that a city council authorized an exclusive real estate brokerage agreement for city office space during closed session rather than voting on it in open session. The Public Access Counselor held that the verbatim recording showed the council's city manager sought and received the council's approval to execute the agreement in closed session, which constituted final action barred from occurring outside of open session regardless of the dollar amount involved. The city council was directed to reconsider and take final action on the agreement in open session after an adequate public recital.

Attendance by Means Other Than Physical Presence Because of Employment Purposes; Taking Final Action on Matter Not on Meeting Agenda
The requester, a resident, alleged that a village board improperly let its president attend meetings remotely for work reasons and separately approved a truck purchase that was not disclosed on the meeting agenda. The Public Access Counselor held that the president's work-related travel properly justified his remote attendance under the Open Meetings Act, but that the board violated the Act by voting to purchase the truck without first listing that action's general subject matter on the agenda. Because the board had already re-noticed and re-voted on the truck purchase by the time of this opinion, no further remedy was ordered for that violation.

Duty to Make Meetings Convenient and Open to the Public
Several residents alleged that a village board's meetings were not convenient and open to the public because of inadequate seating and an intimidating security presence, including street and parking-lot barricades that stranded elderly and disabled residents outside. The Public Access Counselor held that the board took no steps to accommodate the crowds it knew to expect and instead added unjustified security restrictions, violating the Open Meetings Act's requirement that meetings be convenient and open to the public. The board was directed to hold future meetings in adequately sized, accessible locations and to refrain from unnecessary security measures that impede public attendance.

Informal Committee of City is Subsidiary Body
The requester, a resident, alleged that a city's pool-building committee, composed of city officials and citizens appointed by the mayor, had been meeting privately without complying with the Open Meetings Act. The Public Access Counselor held that, based on the governmental function the committee performed and the degree of city control over it, the committee was a subsidiary body of the city subject to all of OMA's requirements. The committee was directed to ensure future meetings comply with OMA, including proper notice, minutes, and public comment, and to complete OMA training.

Improper Private Meeting
The requester alleged that a county board held an improper private meeting when a majority of a quorum of its members attended an informational presentation on a proposed energy project hosted by a private company. The Public Access Counselor held that because the members engaged in an interactive discussion with the company about a project affecting the county, the gathering constituted a "meeting" subject to the Open Meetings Act despite lacking formal notice. The board was directed to generate minutes summarizing the presentation or have the company recreate it at a properly noticed open meeting.

Rules for Public Comment; Opportunity to Address Public Officials
The requester, a resident, alleged that a village mayor improperly interrupted her public comment, cut off the microphone, and threatened to have her removed after she stated the names of trustees during a board meeting. The Public Access Counselor held that because the board had no established, recorded rule against naming trustees during public comment, the mayor's interference violated the Open Meetings Act's guarantee of an opportunity to address public officials. The board was directed to ensure future meetings comply with OMA by restricting public comment only under properly established and recorded rules.

Determination letters

Village of Campton Hills Board did not violate OMA by allowing trustee to attend by phone
A village trustee complained that another board member was improperly allowed to attend a meeting by phone. The Attorney General's office reviewed the situation and found that the board followed its own rules and state law in allowing the remote participation. Therefore, no violation of the Open Meetings Act occurred.

Lisle board violated OMA by allowing remote attendance without vote, but not by denying remote public comment
A citizen complained that a Village Board allowed a Trustee to participate in a meeting by phone but refused to let the citizen do the same for public comment. The Attorney General's office found that the Board broke the law by letting the Trustee join remotely without following the required voting procedures. However, the Board was within its rights to deny the citizen's request to provide public comment remotely.

Village of Lisle Board violated OMA by allowing remote participation without majority vote
A citizen complained that a Village Board allowed a Trustee to participate in a meeting by phone but refused to let the citizen do the same for public comment. The Attorney General's office found that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by permitting the Trustee to attend and participate remotely without proper authorization, and by allowing him to speak as a member of the public when he was not eligible to attend remotely. The Board did not violate the Act by prohibiting the citizen from providing remote public comment.

DuPage County Election Commission violated OMA by allowing telephone participation at meeting
A citizen complained that a member of the DuPage County Election Commission participated in a meeting by telephone, which is generally restricted under the Open Meetings Act. The Attorney General's office agreed that the Commission violated the law by improperly permitting this participation. The source document does not state that the case was closed without further action or that the member's vote did not change the meeting's results.

City of Evanston Public Safety Civil Service Commission violated OMA by failing to keep closed session minutes and provide remote meeting notice
A citizen complained that a city commission held a remote meeting without proper public notice and failed to keep required written records of their closed-door meetings. The Attorney General's office agreed, finding that the commission broke the law by not keeping minutes for closed sessions and by failing to provide the public with necessary information to access their remote meeting. The commission was instructed to start keeping proper minutes for all future closed sessions.

Sauk Village Board trustee complaint over remote closed session access closed for lack of facts
A village trustee complained to the Attorney General's office after he was not allowed to join a closed-door meeting remotely. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and decided not to take any action, noting that the trustee did not provide enough evidence or facts to show that the village actually broke the law.

Madison County Veterans' Assistance Commission violated OMA by allowing remote attendance without formal rules
A citizen complained that two members of a local government board participated and voted in a meeting by phone without proper authorization. The Attorney General's office found that the board violated the Open Meetings Act because they did not have the required formal rules in place to allow for remote attendance. While the board's actions did not change the outcome of the votes, they were instructed to formally adopt rules if they wish to allow remote participation in the future.

Barrington School Board unable to confirm compliance with OMA remote meeting rules
A school board allowed a member to attend a meeting remotely by phone, but the Public Access Bureau (PAC) found it was unable to conclude that the board complied with the Open Meetings Act (OMA) because the board did not clearly verify the member's eligibility or demonstrate that a majority consented to the remote attendance. The PAC did not issue a final determination on whether a violation occurred, only that it could not confirm compliance based on the available information.

Village of Cary did not violate OMA over inaccurate agenda details
A citizen complained that the Village of Cary's meeting agenda was misleading because it listed the wrong developer for a project and failed to list a vote on remote meeting attendance. The Attorney General's office reviewed the complaint and found that the Village did not violate the law, noting that remote attendance votes are procedural and do not require specific agenda items. Consequently, the case was closed with no further action taken.

Showing up to 30 of each type — use search for the full list.

Duty to post information pertaining to benefits offered through the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund. (a) Within 6 business days after an employer participating in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund approves a budget, that employer must post on its website the total compensation package for each employee having a total compensation package that exceeds $75,000 per year. If the employer does not maintain a website, the employer must post a physical copy of this information at the principal office of the employer. If an employer maintains a website, it may choose to post a physical copy of this information at the principal office of the employer in lieu of posting the information directly on the website; however, the employer must post directions on the website on how to access that information. (b) At least 6 days before an employer participating in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund approves an employee's total compensation package that is equal to or in excess of $150,000 per year, the employer must post on its website the total compensation package for that employee. If the employer does not maintain a website, the employer shall post a physical copy of this information at the principal office of the employer. If an employer maintains a website, it may choose to post a physical copy of this information at the principal office of the employer in lieu of posting the information directly on the website; however, the employer must post directions on the website on how to access that information. (c) For the purposes of this Section, "total compensation package" means payment by the employer to the employee for salary, health insurance, a housing allowance, a vehicle allowance, a clothing allowance, bonuses, loans, vacation days granted, and sick days granted. (Source: P.A. 97-609, eff. 1-1-12.)

Determination letters

Neoga Community Unit School District No. 3 violated OMA by failing to post proper meeting notices
A citizen complained that a local school board failed to follow transparency laws regarding public meeting notices and salary disclosures. The Attorney General's office found that the school board did indeed fail to properly post its meeting notices and annual schedules as required by law. However, the board was found to be in compliance regarding the posting of employee compensation information.

Village of Wheeling did not violate Open Meetings Act on compensation disclosure
A citizen complained that the Village of Wheeling's posted employee compensation information did not match the payroll reports submitted to the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund. The Attorney General's office investigated and found that the differences were due to how budgeted versus actual compensation is calculated, and concluded the Village followed the law. Consequently, the case was closed with no further action taken.

Administrative review. A binding opinion issued by the Attorney General shall be considered a final decision of an administrative agency, for purposes of administrative review under the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/Art. III). An action for administrative review of a binding opinion of the Attorney General shall be commenced in Cook or Sangamon County. An advisory opinion issued to a public body shall not be considered a final decision of the Attorney General for purposes of this Section. (Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.) Footer Disclaimer This site is maintained for the Illinois General Assembly by the Legislative Information System, 705 Stratton Building, Springfield, Illinois 62706. Contact ILGA Webmaster ILGA.gov uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse ILGA.gov you consent to our use of cookies. Read About Cookies ILGA.GOV 2026 ILGA.gov | All Rights Reserved | ADA | Disclaimers | Learn This site is maintained for the Illinois General Assembly by the Legislative Information System, 705 Stratton Building, Springfield, Illinois 62706. Contact ILGA Webmaster ILGA.gov uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse ILGA.gov you consent to our use of cookies. Read About Cookies ILGA.GOV 2026 ILGA.gov | All Rights Reserved | ADA | Disclaimers | Learn

Public Access Opinions & AG opinions

Improper Remote Meetings During a Public Health Emergency
The requester alleged that a village board of trustees held two regular meetings remotely without providing the public any way to access them, since the posted agendas said only that the meetings would be held on a virtual platform. The Public Access Counselor held that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to post a telephone number, web link, or other access information on its website in advance of either meeting, noting that posting access information only on social media did not satisfy the requirement to post it on the public body's own website. The board was directed to include remote-access information in its meeting notices for future remote meetings.