Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: I’m sensing a pattern
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Another legislative poll
Posted in:
* From a Gov. Pritzker press conference earlier this week…
A search warrant was recently served on the Statehouse offices of House Speaker Michael Madigan, prompting questions from the press corps on whether the state should rethink its FOIA law which allows for exemptions for the General Assembly.
“I think that’s something worthy of being looked into. I haven’t, I have not personally thought about the differences and why there should be a difference between the Legislature and the executive branch with regard to the revelation of internal documents,” Pritzker said. “You know, the legislators themselves operate differently. Each individual legislator operates differently than agencies in terms of record-keeping. … It’s done very differently in the Legislature. So I would say you’re raising something that probably ought to be looked into.”
* The Question: Should members of the General Assembly be subjected to the same Freedom of Information Act disclosure regulations that already apply to the executive branch? Make sure to explain your answer, please. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 1:59 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: I’m sensing a pattern
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Another legislative poll
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is a serious question, so I’ve deleted two unserious responses. Banishments will follow.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:16 pm
100% YES. Why should they be exempt from a law they place on every other elected body in the state?
Comment by Flat Bed Ford Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:19 pm
Absolutely. They are doing the public business and they represent a constituency therefore they should be subject to FOIA. Perhaps if their record keeping is inadequate they should be given rules on what must be kept.
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:20 pm
I’m not being snarky, but what FOIA exemptions apply solely to the GA? It appears to me that the FOIA applies to the executive and legislative branches (but not to the judiciary), and that any public body is permitted to assert an exemption that it feels is warranted under the FOIA. (The decision to assert an exemption can always be challenged by the requester, however.) Maybe I’m wrong, though.
Comment by Bourbon Street Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:21 pm
As much as I’d like to say, yes, I have the say No. Elected officials are still private citizens. That’s a slippery slope for all private citizens
Comment by Drake Mallard Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:23 pm
Yes, as well as Open Meetings Act. If transparency is good for local governments it is good for state.
Comment by Just Me 2 Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:23 pm
Let’s not forget that it’s the legislature which solely has the authority to enact legislation. Seeing how the legislature wouldn’t allow Julie Porter to release her recent reports- who seriously believes the legislature is about to extend FOIA to itself
Comment by Sue Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:27 pm
Absolutely. If they were subject to it as the rest of us were, maybe there wouldn’t be as much corruption or FOIA abuse.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:28 pm
Yes, they should be subject to the same disclosure regs. We need transparency in our government and sometimes have to go as far as having tools like the FOIA to guarantee it. Now whether or not the scope of those requests warrant limitations might be a different question.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:30 pm
No. Legislative strategy sessions subject to FOIA? Same reason to say no to Open Meetings Act. Payroll, employments, contracts, contractors, leases? Yes to both.
Comment by Anyone Remember Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:33 pm
I’m concerned about the chilling effect that a blanket FOIA disclosure would likely have average citizens exercising their right to petition their government for redress of grievances (something protected in both the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions) by contacting their State Representatives and State Senators.
“SECTION 5. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION
The people have the right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives and to apply for redress of grievances.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)”
As a private citizen, I’m probably not going to email my State Rep. and my State Senator encouraging them to support better funding for State Parks, if I know that anybody in the world can read my email. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some access to GA members’ records via FOIA (I know my email about State Parks isn’t the problem here), I’m just saying that it needs to be done with some nuance so that it doesn’t discourage people from exercising a Constitutional right.
Comment by Monadnock Pigeon Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:34 pm
As far as I recall, the GA passed laws in the wake of Blago to create more transparency in FOIA in the Executive Brach (and maybe other constitutionals?) At the same time, the GA exempted itself from the rules. Or said another way, it decided that the same rules should not apply to them.
It seems to me, at the very least, the policy at the GA should mirror the policy at the Exec branch. It’s astonishing to me that they do not. I even recall a former caucus staff member saying that their FOIA officer just does a blanket denial to any request. Not sure how accurate that was, but you get the point. (It’s also worth it to say that some things have been given by FOIA recently like the SDems search warrant on Sandoval and the HDems search warrant on Franks, but these are the exceptions - not the rule.)
Given the issues with corruption in the legislative branch currently, Pritzker should strengthen his stance on this. The excuse that they all run their offices differently is a weak cop out to the question, in my opinion.
Comment by Sunshine Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:36 pm
@Bourbon Street: “(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.”
I agree with @Anyone Remember. If there’s a legislature in the US that makes anything remotely pre-decisional available under FOIA, let’s see it. There are many that screen those latter categories as well - but I think those are fair to see and release.
Comment by GC Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:42 pm
===If there’s a legislature in the US that makes anything remotely pre-decisional available under FOIA, let’s see it===
Pretty sure Michigan’s FOIA includes staff analyses
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:43 pm
Yes, most things should be subject to FOIA. I’m going to use the generic term mail for both postal and email.
Mail from registered lobbyists and heads of lobbying organizations, yes. (I know, they’ll just meet in bars and back rooms.) Mail from private citizens, probably no … with a qualifier that public figures (as normally defined by the courts) are not private citizens.
Mail between public officials, probably but I’m unsure on this. One the one hand, it could be chilling to honest discourse. On the other, it is official coorespondence and could show a pattern of collusion, etc. which is why I say probably yes.
Being cynical, the bottom line is paper trails should be discoverable. If they are dumb enough to put incriminating stuff down, they deserve to be found out.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:52 pm
I was waiting for an open thread but this will have to do.
Everyone go out and have a cocktail tonight. The port has been removed. 44 for 44. Done. Kaput.
Thanks to my oncologist. The nurses and nurses aids. Thanks to the American Cancer Society volunteers who always offered encouragement, a warm blanket and treats. You will always be in my prayers. Thanks to Mrs Blue and those who took a day out of their lives to drive me.
Special thanks to CapFax and commentators. You made the days and nights go by much better. You’re always just a ’say it’ away. It is priceless.
Thanks.(I am looking forward to a cold Bud and some pork rinds soon). Love ya’ll.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:53 pm
==Mail from registered lobbyists and heads of lobbying organizations, yes. (I know, they’ll just meet in bars and back rooms.) Mail from private citizens, probably no … with a qualifier that public figures (as normally defined by the courts) are not private citizens.==
Thanks for thinking through how to make the distinction. Maybe the line drawing isn’t as hard as I thought.
Comment by Monadnock Pigeon Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:54 pm
===Yes, as well as Open Meetings Act===
I’m yes to FOIA, but applying the open meetings act to the legislature would negatively impact caucusing. I do think party members (whichever party) should be able to talk in private to establish their public positions. But overall, there should be a lot more transparency around those who make the transparency laws.
Comment by Leslie K Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:54 pm
The General Assembly is NOT exempt from FOIA. Most documents in possession of the General Assembly are subject to FOIA and available for public review.
This issue is that there are categories of individual member’s individual correspondence that is EXEMPT from FOIA. If it helps to see some examples:
A constituent sends a member a letter (e.g. complaining about a neighbor, asking the member to support a bill) — Exempt from FOIA
A member sends a letter to another member — Exempt from FOIA
Comment by Southsider Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:55 pm
Some secret ballots in the legislature I think would allow legislators to make the right votes for the people and would give them cover from political retaliation, so I would say no the legislature should be exempt on votes decisions. This also may solve the lobbyist issues since they wouldn’t nt be able to hold votes up against or for legislators
Comment by Publius Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:55 pm
Yes.
The ‘voluminous request’ language in current law needs to be revisited as well. It’s often being used as a weapon to discourage releasing information.
I’m currently fighting a local city on this exact issue. Even though the voluminous request language in the law makes it clear that it does not apply to non-profits or news agencies requesting documents on current issues, the local city is still trying to claim it against a non-profit, in contradiction to the law.
There also needs to be more punishment for knowingly violating FOIA. Too many agencies just flat out ignore, or try to hide information even when forced. I’ve caught this happening more than once.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:55 pm
Absolutely. Although even the FOIA currently can sometimes be difficult to navigate and doesn’t have much teeth to it. Ideally, I would strengthen the FOIA law and add the GA to it. It’s still the public’s business, whether on a local level or state level.
Comment by Tony DeKalb Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:56 pm
== - Sunshine - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:36 pm:
As far as I recall, the GA passed laws in the wake of Blago to create more transparency in FOIA in the Executive Brach (and maybe other constitutionals?) At the same time, the GA exempted itself from the rules. Or said another way, it decided that the same rules should not apply to them. ==
Absolutely incorrect. Go look at the bill. The same rules that apply the executive branch apply to the legislative branch.
Comment by Southsider Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:56 pm
Am I the only person thinking about this question who has actually gone to READ the Act? It’s here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=85
Mixed feelings here. I don’t have a problem exempting records pertaining to preparation of legislative documents.
I AM concerned that it appears that, if your request for a record is denied, you can ask for a review, EXCEPT if the request was directed to the GA (or its committees, agencies, etc.). You can sue, apparently, but there’s no intermediate step, which makes no sense to me.
@Drake Mallard - the Act applies to “public bodies” and “public records” (defined as “materials pertaining to the transaction of public business”). Nobody can FOIA your alderman’s personal email.
Comment by JoanP Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:57 pm
Many need to go back and read what FOIA really is. Many of you cite things that are already exempt from FOIA and it tells me most just don’t know the statute.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 3:10 pm
To the question: Yes, with very strict qualifications, though I’ll admit to not knowing what those look like. Will take a look at Michigan’s statute and process in more detail as a starting point- https://council.legislature.mi.gov/Home/FOIA
To - Blue Dog Dem -: Good News! I’ll have a cold one in solidarity. Or two.
Comment by Anon For Now Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 3:17 pm
Blue Dog Dem - great news. To your health! 🥂
Comment by Kelly Cassidy Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 3:40 pm
To BDD: Will do. Cheers. Enjoy your cold one and pork rinds.
Comment by Bourbon Street Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 3:42 pm
- Blue Dog Dem -
The best to you.
A toast to you as well.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 3:48 pm
Yes with some limits( to be worked out.) Congrats Blue Dog Dem.
Comment by pool boy Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 3:57 pm
==- Blue Dog Dem - Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 2:53 pm:
Everyone go out and have a cocktail tonight. The port has been removed. 44 for 44. Done. Kaput.==
Best news all week Blue. Blessings on a full recovery buddy.
Comment by A Guy Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 3:59 pm
To the Question:
Not sure. Some system would need to be set up to make this less onerous for Legislators. It’s one thing when it’s the Speaker’s office, a place with a lot of admin help. Entirely another to the average Legislator.
Comment by A Guy Friday, Feb 7, 20 @ 4:00 pm