Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Congressional roundup
Next Post: Donations to private school scholarship program drop 18 percent
Posted in:
* Background is here. From the SoS…
Dear Mr. Miller:
Thank you for your follow-up FOIA request from earlier this afternoon. The Secretary of State response follows:
In your request, you ask the Secretary of State to provide you with redacted copies of all photos of every individual currently subject to the General Orders that were referenced in the Secretary of State response to your initial FOIA request sent to you at 11:46 A.M., February 7, 2020. The Secretary of State is unsure what you mean by redacted copies of all photos, photos taken from Secretary of State drivers’ license or state identification files are exempt from production under the Illinois Vehicle Code and therefore, Section 7(1)(a) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act [5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a)] as explained in my previous email. If, however, you mean that you seek all but the digital photos, the Secretary of State response is the same as in the email sent to you yesterday-the information is exempt from production under the same sections of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act as I stated in the second to last paragraph of the email sent to you at 11:46 A.M., yesterday. Your request is therefore denied.
Should you wish to do so, you may file a request for review with the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Public Access Bureau, 500 S. Second St., Springfield, Illinois 62706 or you may seek whatever remedy that may be available to you under Section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.[5 ILCS 140/11].
Donna M. Leonard
Executive Counsel
Illinois Secretary of State
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:33 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Congressional roundup
Next Post: Donations to private school scholarship program drop 18 percent
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rich, you asked for a copy of the receipt for the FEDERAL search warrant. My understanding is that the Illinois State Police served the warrant, so it would not be federal.
Comment by narrow interpretation of request Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:47 pm
Either I made a typo or they did. Resubmitted.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 12:51 pm
It would seem there would have to be some type of due process requirement, for example, providing notice, regarding individuals banned from the Capitol Complex. Maybe ask for notifications to individuals?
Also, maybe call the FOIA Officer (or in your case the SOS media person) just to see if they have anything that they can provide that in someway has information about the banned folks. I wouldn’t expect the only information about banned individuals would reside in the General Orders, there has to be some other record(s) containing names.
Comment by JSS Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:32 pm
Appeal it
Comment by Just Another Anon Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:46 pm
maybe I am missing something…but does it seem that they know exactly what you are wanting, but don’t want to provide you with the information?
Comment by reddevil1 Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:54 pm
Gotta read the law first, Rich.
Comment by A State Employee Guy Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 1:56 pm
===I am requesting the list of people who are currently banned from entering the Illinois Statehouse and/or the Statehouse complex===
You need to use more lawyerly terms such as:
I request 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, regardless of physical form or characteristics, pertaining to: (1) the people who are currently banned from entering the Illinois Statehouse and/or the Statehouse complex, (2) summary information about such bans such as the number of currently banned people or the number of bans per year for the last 3 years, (3) the request and/or implementation of such a ban, and (4) the process by which such as ban is established.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:01 pm
So a public entity bars people from a public building and then says that action isn’t a public record.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:05 pm
===You need to use more lawyerly terms===
From the original response: “In balancing the privacy rights of the alleged victim, the banned individual and any witnesses, with the public interest in disclosure, the Office of the Secretary of State respectfully declines to invade the personal privacy of, or expose the victim, the banned individual and any witnesses to, potential harm either personally or professionally by revealing their identities through the release of the requested information.”
I’ve asked for any specific SoS written policy on this topic.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:13 pm
By asking for more than just the people, such as all records pertaining to those people and for summary information about the bans in general, they can protect the privacy of the victims, banned person, and witnesses while still giving some information. Just knowing that there were 3 bans last year does not tell you who, when, or why they occurred.
They just need a broad enough request and a bit of context to know what you are looking for so that they can crack out the redaction wand and get you something, even if 95% of it is redacted.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:21 pm
Could Attorney-Client Privilege, etc. also come into play in the FOIA rejection?
Comment by Leatherneck Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 2:56 pm
=== It would seem there would have to be some type of due process requirement, for example, providing notice ===
I’m an elected official of a small public body that, once or twice a year or so, bans individuals from entering our property for a period of time (depending on the infraction). Each individual receives a notice and a right to appeal.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 3:06 pm
You’re going to have to appeal it to the PAC. They are using an expansive definition of privacy that, IMO, won’t be upheld. The PAC tends to be very skeptical of such claims.
Its also a very strange grouping for privacy.
5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c) is the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, but the standard is a reasonable person. Highly subjective, but I dont think a list of people being banned off government property would be objectionable to a reasonable person.
5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(iv) is about confidential informants or interfering with investigations.
5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(vi) is “vi) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person; or”
Comment by DuPage Guy Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 3:17 pm
It might be the old “needle in the haystack” situation. Maybe know what you want and may know they can provide it to you but until the request is 100% properly worded or formatted they will not provide it. It’s similar to making an information request to your friendly HR department or Benefits department; if you don’t use the correct terminology, e.g. co-pay versus deductible, they will either say the information doesn’t exist or you get a response that doesn’t relate yo your request.
Comment by nadia Monday, Feb 10, 20 @ 4:20 pm