The Institute argued against this bill, saying it would threaten transparency in government by prohibiting the release of public employee performance reviews under FOIA. The idea started with some lawmakers wanting to exempt teachers’ performance evaluations, and then it expanded to all public employees.

Fortunately, the State Journal Register reports, “Quinn’s change to House Bill 5154 would exempt only state and local law enforcement personnel from the requirement that performance evaluations be public information.”

This is definitely an improvement:

Quinn wrote in his veto message, “House Bill 5154 exempts all public employees’ performance evaluations from disclosure under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This exemption is a departure from groundbreaking legislation that I approved just last year, making our State’s open information laws among the most robust in the entire country.”

However, Quinn thinks public safety officials should have their evaluations kept from public view: “If disclosed, these evaluations could be used by criminal suspects or defendants to undermine a police investigation or attack the credibility and integrity of a police officer,” Quinn wrote.

Quinn has made a positive move regarding this bill. If it had received his signature as is, its passage would have been a major step backwards in the movement for more transparency and accountability in government.

The report also reveals Chicago’s sweeping disregard for the Freedom of Information Act:

The problem, it seems, is that public officials in Chicago act like it’s their money – and their government. Aside from relying on your money to fund them, you are incidental at best and a treacherous obstacle at worst.

The Beachwood provides a slew of examples highlighting the City of Chicago’s poor response, which you can find here.

Sound familiar?

The site is getting mixed reviews from some media and members of the public, reacting to one addition, which involves listing information about the actual person filing Freedom of Information requests to the city. Although not required by law to do so, the city will list the name, requesting organization, and the documents requested through the FOIA.

Posting FOIA requests and the city’s responses to those requests would be helpful information to have online. However, some are questioning, “Why can’t they post the FOIA request without names and affiliations?”

For a look at the site, click here.

One new piece of legislation (SB2270), introduced by Senators Dan Cronin, Kirk W. Dillard, Chris Lauzen and John J. Millner states “every school district must post on its Internet site a compensation report for every employee who holds an administrative certificate and who works in that capacity. The report must include such details as base salary, bonuses, pension contributions, the cost of health insurance and any other form of compensation.”

This legislation requires quick attention by school districts, which must comply by October 1 of every year – meaning, this Thursday. You can find an entire reading of the bill here.

The second bill (HB2235), introduced by House members Monique D. Davis,  Jack D. Franks,  Mike Boland, Randy Ramey Jr., Fred Crespo and Elizabeth Coulson, requires every school board “report the base salary and benefits of the school superintendent, all administrators and teachers by July 1, starting in 2010. The information, including vacation and sick days, bonuses and retirement enhancements, will be sent to the State Board of Education.” This law includes public universities and community colleges.

These pieces of legislation are good steps in promoting government spending transparency. It would also be worthwhile for them to require posting all expenditures online – not just salaries – which would include, vendors, contracts, and grants. In addition, transparency legislation should apply to every level of government, from villages, city councils, county boards, park districts, library boards, and so on.

Any body operating off tax dollars should implement transparency policy –  not only school districts need it. And, as always, it takes an active public to make sure their various bodies of government are complying with transparency legislation (or any legislation), so hold your school district accountable and keep an eye out for posted information by October 1.

Is this really what has to happen before government run agencies decide to publish their information freely and in an easily accessible way?  Must we have to file FOIA requests, only for them to be delayed or denied? (You can watch Adam Andrzejewski call out Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office on these delays and denials here).  It’s not that hard for these records to simply be published, something that the new FOIA legislation urges government offices to do, if they maintain a website.  There’s an important step, however, between legislative “urging” and actual online record. It’s called leadership.  Often times, it just takes one person, with a little influence and some elbow grease, to make it a reality.

It will be interesting to see what develops out of the Trib’s legal case.  In the meantime, check out their website section dedicated to transparency issues such as these.  And keep demanding access to your government.

In a unanimous vote yesterday, the Illinois House approved a new revision of the Freedom of Information ACT (FOIA). The bill passed yesterday was not the watered down draft that lawmakers released last week after a large outcry from open government advocates.

Some provisions of the bill would increase fines on those who violate FOIA requests, but does not make FOIA request refusal a misdemeanor. Increasing the fines on denial of FOIA requests helps to put pressure on government officials to first, release documents when request and second, release documents more quickly. Also, the new bill removed the words ‘personnel file’ which would make it mandatory to report any disciplinary action of an employee once the matter is final. This ensures that the people of Illinois know the manner of business being conducted by state employees as well as highlighting problems that continue to be systemic.

However, the bill does still allow the government not to release any document that is considered a ‘draft’ despite the efforts to get that provision changed. Changing this provision would help to eliminated the stigma that government is keeping secrets.

The bill passed is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It adds more transparency requirements and will help to crack down those who deny FOIA requests. All agreed the current FOIA laws need revised and this is a move towards a more transparent Illinois.

The Illinois Legislature recently released new provisions and changes to the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA as it is commonly referred.

The article referenced lists the following changes as:

*Elimination of criminal penalties to punish public officials who refuse to release records.

* Increasing civil penalties to between $1,000 and $5,000. Under the package put forth by the attorney general, the maximum civil fine would have been $1,000.

* A blanket prohibition on releasing home addresses and license plate numbers. (What do they honestly have to hide, probably Honesty)

* Allowing public officials to satisfy FOIA requests with paper records, and charging for each page, rather than providing information in electronic format. (This is nothing more than inconvenience. I guess they need revenue from somewhere. )

* Stripping provisions that would bar government from claiming most exemptions to the law if FOIA requests aren’t addressed within five working days. (No one said government is expedient, but this just takes it a little bit too far…)

* Restoring language that states information in personnel files can be kept secret. The attorney general’s version didn’t include references to personnel files, but the Statehouse version adds medical files “or other similar files” to the list of files in which privacy must be considered before information can be released.

* Reducing the power of a proposed public access counselor who would be tasked with refereeing disputes over public records. (So they are going to effectively make the referee ineffective; a kind of  little engine that could mentality is needed to combat this provision.)

Information is a right of the citizenry and as such should not be curtailed and shredded at a whim. It seems that, even though the state has gotten rid of Blago, the legislators still have more to hide. The proposed changes fly in the face of all that is proper in governance and should be an offense to all citizens of Illinois, and to the trees for all the paper that is being wasted. Talk about not being green.

If Illinois is to ever be a fully transparent state, the legislators seriously can’t think that this is even remotely acceptable and in fact, it just goes to show that it is politics as usual in Springfield.

]]> http://www.openillinois.org/needs-accountability/you-cant-handle-the-truth-proposed-foia-changes/feed/ 0 http://www.openillinois.org/posting-online/school-district-105-lagrange-chooses-not-to-post-expenditures/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=school-district-105-lagrange-chooses-not-to-post-expenditures http://www.openillinois.org/posting-online/school-district-105-lagrange-chooses-not-to-post-expenditures/#comments Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:11:20 +0000 Richard Lorenc http://www.openillinois.org/?p=676 In some disappointing news, LaGrange-based School District 105 has decided not to post its expenditures online. In a letter dated January 22, 2009 to Liberty Leader Victoria Franzese, the district’s director of business services Cathy Johnson writes:

Thank you

…

As noted in the Washington Post, Obama said in a FOIA memo, “The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.” He added, “In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public…Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”

Let’s see if Obama’s home state will follow his example. You can find executive orders here.

First of all, let me give credit where credit is due. Joan Agnew of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners–she’s their FOIA officer–responded to my request for information promptly, professionally and cordially. She should be commended for being so on-the-ball. Thanks, Joan.

Now, here’s the untoward stuff: Apparently, Illinois law allows only political or government entities to access electronic copies of voter data. Since the Illinois Policy Institute is not a partisan or government organization, we are not allowed to acquire the data electronically.

10 ILCS 5/6-35 reads: 

The State Board shall furnish copies of such tapes, discs, other electronic data or compilations thereof to state political committees registered pursuant to the Illinois Campaign Finance Act or the Federal Election Campaign Act and to governmental entities, at their request and at a reasonable cost. To protect the privacy and confidentiality of voter registration information, the disclosure of electronic voter registration records to any person or entity other than to a State or local political committee and other than to a governmental entity for a governmental purpose is specifically prohibited…

So there we have it. Non-profit research institutions–and media companies, I would imagine–cannot acquire electronic voter data in Illinois. Ms. Agnew offered to print out the list (with a charge) for me, but there would be no way that that information would be useful to me. 

Why can’t Ms. Agnew provide me with this information? She’s just following the law–it’s not her fault. But, then, why is the law so restrictive?

Some people have said that this is because the government doesn’t want voter lists to become available to marketing companies that can use the lists to send product pitches out. Well, I can understand that. But then why not make the information available to non-profit and media organizations?