Bill that Changes the Way Governments Respond to FOIA Requests Sent to Governor

Not even two years after sweeping changes streamlined and simplified parts of the state's rules for obtaining public information, a bill that some feel throws a wrench in the system awaits a decision by Governor Pat Quinn.

House Bill 1716, sponsored by Sen. Ron Sandack (R-21st, Downers Grove) and approved by state legislators in the waning days of the spring session, most notably changes how government entities respond to Freedom of Information Act requests by private citizens who frequently ask for materials under the law.

The measure came in response to claims by government agencies that they had become bogged down by an increased number of requests since revised FOIA rules went into effect in 2010. The measure also adds fees to commercial requests involving research and retrieval of information in storage.

Currently, all government bodies must respond to all FOIA requests within five business days. But under the changes approved by the state House (84-31) and Senate (43-16), citizens who make more than 50 requests a year, 15 in 30 days or seven in seven days would have no guarantee as to when they might receive a response.

Those folks would be declared "recurrent requestors" by a government body. Instead of a firm deadline for officials to respond to the FOIA request, those deemed "recurrent" would only be guaranteed an estimate of when they might receive a response.

The Citizen Advocacy Center, a watchdog group in Elmhurst, has aggressively spoken out against the bill and had asked citizens via Facebook to contact their legislators to do the same.

"HB 1716 seeks to limit how many FOIA requests can be made by one person in a year," the CAC posted on Facebook. "It was introduced to combat the undocumented problem of the 'vexatious' or 'reccuring requester' who uses FOIA to harass government bodies. Contact the Sen. Pres. and House Speaker and tell them you oppose the HB 1716."

CAC Executive Director Terry Pastika previously has said government agencies need to remember that these records do not belong to them, they belong to the citizens "who paid for them."

The bill also has officials with the Better Government Association concerned.

"It's arbitrary," Emily Miller, BGA's policy and government affairs coordinator, said. "The problem is that this is the first step."

While the "recurrent requestor" provision exempts the media, non-profit, academic and scientific organizations, the law doesn't specify whether citizen watchdogs—which help the BGA's efforts, Miller said—and freelance journalists could be subjected to the rule, and, as a result, face longer waits for information.

"It's possible for a public body to interpret that for themselves," Miller said, referring to use of the "recurrent" tag. "For some reason, public officials think FOIA is not part of their public duty."

For its part, the Illinois Attorney General's Office supported the bill because it included a provision lifting a preauthorization requirement that had government bodies regularly asking for approval to issue denials citing two common FOIA exemptions.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan previously said removing preauthorizations would give her office's public access counselor—the lone legal oversight on FOIA in Illinois—more time to focus on enforcement and education. Preauthorization work accounted for 62 percent of the counselor's load in 2010, according to Madigan's office.

"By streamlining the FOIA review process and increasing our ability to enforce the law, we will help to ensure greater transparency at all levels of government in Illinois," Madigan said in a statement.

That statement did not address the "recurrent requestors" declaration, which is seen by the BGA as an obstacle to timely release of information.

BGA has argued against HB1716, as well as preceding bills that featured even more FOIA rollbacks, including a provision that could have allowed school districts to delay responses to requests made during summer months, and is now calling on Quinn to veto the measure.

Miller said she and others have been unsuccessful in getting a response from the governor's office about his intentions with the bill. The bill was sent to the governor for his signature on Wednesday, June 29. The governor has 60 days to review and either sign or veto it.