Municipal Minute

A little more than 14 years ago, I created Municipal Minute because I love to write and I thought it would be a helpful resource for local government officials and employees on all things local gov - it wasn't because I am a self-described local government nerd, really. As many of you know, I am retiring at the end of 2025 but I'm not yet ready to give up Municipal Minute, so I will continue authoring the blog through 2026. So, my plan is to be mostly-retired (as opposed to semi-retired) since I am also staying on at Ancel Glink to do some part-time consulting work. I hope you stick around to see what's new in the local gov world moving forward and what interesting developments come out of the courts, legislature, and PAC office. 

Thank you for your continued readership!

Julie Tappendorf (soon-to-be-mostly-retired)

      

Following our earlier summary of the 2025 PAC binding opinions on FOIA, today we focus on the PAC’s 3 binding opinions issued on OMA matters in 2025, which are summarized below.

PAC Op. 25-007 (City Committee was Subsidiary Body Subject to OMA)

In PAC Op. 25-007, the PAC found that a city pool committee (Committee) violated the OMA by holding meetings closed to the public regarding building a new pool in a city, because the Committee was a “subsidiary body” subject to OMA requirements. The PAC determined that the Committee was a subsidiary body because it did not legally exist independently on the city, the city exerted significant governmental control over the Committee, the Committee performed governmental activities typically performed by a municipal committee, and the Committee received at least some indirect public funding by virtue of being part of the city.

PAC Op. 25-009 (Board Violated OMA by Not Naming Candidate for Appointment)

In PAC Op. 25-009, the PAC concluded that a village board violated Section 2(e) of the OMA because it took “final action” by voting on a motion to appoint a person to fill a vacancy on the village board without providing sufficient detail to inform the public about the matter being voted on, because the board did not name or identify the person whose appointment the board considered prior to taking the vote.

PAC OP. 25-011 (improper meeting)

In PAC Op. 25-011, the PAC determined that a county board violated the OMA by holding an improper private meeting when a majority of a quorum of the board discussed public business at an informational event hosted by a private energy company, without posting advance notice of the meeting and complying with other OMA requirements. While there were no specific items concerning the energy company pending before the board, and the board did not reach an accord on any specific matters at the event, the event was nonetheless a meeting subject to OMA’s requirements, because a majority of a quorum of board members engaged in the collective inquiry phase of deliberations by gathering and exchanging information concerning the renewable energy project in anticipation of possibly taking future action. 

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

     

Related Stories

• Governor Signs Bill Amending OMA and FOIA
• Illinois General Assembly Passes Bill Amending OMA and FOIA
• Charges Brought in Wisconsin Regarding an Unlawful Recording of Closed Meeting

 

It's that time of year when we close out 2025 with a summary of the binding opinions issued by the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Counselor's office (PAC). To-date, the PAC has issued 14 binding opinions, which are all published on the Attorney General's website. Today, we will focus on the PAC’s 11 binding opinions on FOIA.

PAC Op. 25-003, PAC Op. 25-005 (Failure to respond to FOIA requests)

In binding opinions PAC Op. 25-003 and PAC Op. 25-005, the PAC found that several public bodies violated FOIA by failing to respond to FOIA requests. 

PAC Op. 25-001 (Disclosing Electronic Records in Format Specified by Requester)

In PAC Op. 25-001¸the PAC found that a County Housing Authority violated Section 6(a) of FOIA by disclosing a password-protected locked versions of Microsoft Excel budget workbooks, instead of unlocked versions sought by the requester, because the requester specifically requested an unlocked versions, and it was feasible for the Authority to disclose the unlocked versions 

PAC Op. 25-002 (Improperly Withheld Resignation/Termination Records)

In PAC Op. 25-002, the PAC concluded that a city police department improperly withheld termination/resignation letters, because it did not demonstrate how and why disclosing the records would interfere with either (1) a pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceeding, (2) an active administrative enforcement proceeding, or (3) create a substantial likelihood of depriving people of a fair trial or an impartial hearing. The PAC also determined that the records were not exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 7(1)(d-6) of FOIA, because the Illinois Police Training Act does not exempt local law enforcement agencies from disclosing public records subject to FOIA.

PAC Op. 25-004 (Record Not “Related to” Adjudicatory Proceeding)

In PAC Op. 25-004, the PAC found that a municipal police department improperly withheld a video recording of a former deputy chief's DUI arrest pursuant to Section 7(1)(n) of FOIA, because the video was created before any disciplinary proceeding took place and existed independently on the subsequent adjudication. The PAC stated that a record can only "relate to" an adjudication within the meaning of Section 7(l)(n) of FOIA if it is created in the process of conducting the adjudication itself.

PAC Op. 25-006 (Settlement Records Improperly Withheld)

In PAC Op. 25-006, the PAC found that that a city department improperly withheld a settlement records concerning a class action lawsuit against a named alderperson pursuant to Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA, because the alderperson was represented by a private attorney, while the city was represented by attorneys from its law department, so the parties had separate interests in the subject matter of the withheld record, and there was no indication that the city’s attorney were acting as the alderperson’s attorneys in connection with the settlement. Because the withheld record was not an attorney-client privileged communication, and related to the obligation, receipt, or use of city funds regarding the settlement, the PAC determined that the public had a right to know the purposes for which public funds were expended in connection with the settlement.

PAC Op. 25-008 (Record of Billing Dispute with Former Attorney Improperly Withheld)

In PAC Op. 25-008¸ the PAC found that an email attachment regarding a billing dispute between a school district with its former attorney was improperly withheld pursuant to Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA, because the record pertained to a billing dispute and did not reveal the substance of matters for which the school district sought legal advice or any legal advice the school district’s former attorneys provided while acting as their legal advisor. The record was also not exempt pursuant to Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA, because the record did not reflect deliberations with a third party acting on the school district’s behalf, since the school district’s former attorney was acting with independent interests that were not aligned with the school district’s interests at the time of the communication. 

PAC Op. 25-010 (Separation Agreement Improperly Withheld)

In PAC Op. 25-010, the PAC concluded that a public body improperly withheld a police officer’s separation agreement pursuant to Sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of FOIA, because the withheld records concerned a public employee’s separation from employment which "bears on the public duties" of a public employee," and are therefore subject to disclosure. However, the public body was authorized to discreetly redact exempt private or personal information within the record.

PAC Op. 25-012 (Construction Plans Properly Withheld)

In PAC Op. 25-012, the PAC found that a county land use department properly withheld construction-related technical documents relating to a proposed commercial solar farm, because the records were commissioned by the private company, and no public funds were used to construct or develop the project, so these records were per se exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 7(1)(k), and the department did not have to demonstrate that disclosure would compromise the security of the project.

PAC Op. 25-013 (Improperly Charged Fee for Electronic Copy of Report)

In PAC Op. 25-013, the PAC determined that a city violated Section 6(a) of FOIA by improperly assessing a fee for disclosing an electronic copy of the incident report. Because state law does not expressly authorize imposing a statutory fee in excess of the cost of the recording medium for electronic copies of incident reports, and it was feasible for the city to disclose the report in the electronic format without the need to purchase a recording medium, the city was prohibited by FOIA from assessing the requester a fee for disclosing an electronic copy of the incident report.

PAC Op. 25-014 (Imposing “redaction charge” violates FOIA)

In PAC Op. 25-014, the PAC determined that a city police department violated FOIA by imposing a per minute “redaction charge” for redacting body camera footage. Because FOIA imposes fiscal obligations on public bodies, Section 6 of FOIA does not authorize reimbursing public bodies for redaction costs, and FOIA restricts fees for electronic records to the cost of purchasing the "recording medium" (i.e., CD, flash drive) and not other costs, the police department could not impose a "redaction charge" on FOIA requesters.

PAC Op. 25-015 (Redactions improper)

A requester filed a FOIA request with a county state's attorney's office (SAO) seeking copies of records showing law enforcement officers or experts who responded "yes" to a question on a "Brady/Giglio Form" regarding professional misconduct, credibility, or disciplinary history. The SAO provided four police officer questionnaires but redacted the officers' names, as well as other information. The requester filed a request for review with the PAC, and the PAC issued binding opinion PAC Op. 25-015, finding that the redactions were improper because the information was not exempt under FOIA's personal privacy exemption because the information "bears on the public duties of public employees."  The PAC also rejected the SAO's other arguments that the information was exempt under the "deliberative privilege" and attorney-client privilege exemptions, finding that the SAO did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that those exemptions applied.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink 

     

Related Stories

• Summary of 2025 Binding PAC Opinions (FOIA)
• PAC Finds that Imposing a "Redaction Charge" Violates FOIA
• Court Upholds City's Response to FOIA that No Records Exist

 

City police officers responded to a report of gunshots in Chicago’s Austin neighborhood. While investigating the report, the officers approached Juan Mendez on the front porch of his home. Mendez initially did not respond to the officers questions and suddenly fled. A brief foot chase ensued during which Mendez jumped a fence and ran down an alley. According to body-worn camera footage of the incident, Mendez held an unidentified object in his right hand as he was running from the officers. The officers shouted warnings at Mendez and then fired three shots. Mendez fell to the ground and a gun landed nearby.

Mendez sued the City of Chicago and the responding officers alleging excessive use of force, battery, and an indemnification claim against the City for the actions of the officers. The district court reviewed the body-camera footage of the event and concluded that a reasonable officer would have had probable cause to belief that Mendez threatened the safety of the officers.

Mendez appealed, and the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court's ruling in favor of the City in Mendez v. City of Chicago. First, the Court considered whether the officers had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a threat of serious harm to the officers or the public. If the officers had probable cause, it would be constitutionally reasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Like the district court, the Seventh Circuit reviewed the video footage and determined that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers had probable cause to believe that Mendez posed a threat to the safety of others.

The Court also resolved Mendez’s claims for battery and indemnification. The Court held that because the officers had a reasonable belief as to the threat of danger posed by Mendez, their conduct did not rise to the level of willful and wanton, and, as a result, the officers were granted immunity under the Tort Immunity Act. Because the individual officers were not liable, Mendez’s claim that the City had a duty to indemnify the actions of the officers also failed.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink

     

Related Stories

• The New Year Countdown – Amendments Relating to Public Safety
• Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Library Book Removal Case
• Court Dismisses Discrimination Charge relating to Code Enforcement Action

 

This year, Municipal Minute will be counting down to the New Year with updates on legislation that will be effective starting on January 1, 2026.

Public Act 104-0141 amends the Illinois Vehicle Code to update the definition of the word “bicycle” following the recent e-bike trend. Previously, a “bicycle,” for purposes of the Illinois Vehicle Code, was defined as: “Every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels except scooters and similar devices.”

Under this Act, the definition has been replaced with: “Every human-powered device and every low-speed electric bicycle, as defined in Section 1-40.10, with two or more pedals, and designated seats for the transportation of one or more persons.”

This revision incorporates bicycles with more than two wheels (a ‘trike’) and low-speed e-bikes. Riders of these types of bicycles will now be required to follow the same rules of the road for regular bicycles. 

Post authored by Alexis Carter, Ancel Glink