Des Plaines denies release of settlement details

Des Plaines city attorneys once again have denied the news media’s request for the release of details of a settlement agreement in a harassment lawsuit against a former city alderman.

A former paralegal, Debra Lathom, sued the city claiming 6th Ward Alderman Tom Becker sexually harassed her at city hall in December 2002 and accused city officials of allowing a pattern of abuse. The lawsuit was settled in December 2005. Becker has denied the allegations.

The city’s insurance pool handled the case and settlement on behalf of the city, and the city did not pay any money directly to Lathom, an attorney representing the insurance pool said at the time.

State law at the time allowed certain exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, including a choice to keep information decided by a third party or insurance pool from the public.

However, changes to the law — Public Act 96-542 — allowing for the release of such agreements became effective in 2010.

Des Plaines City Attorney Dave Wiltse Friday denied the Freedom of Information Act request on the basis that details of the confidential settlement agreement are exempt from release because disclosure “would violate a federal court order.”

“The terms of the settlement agreement state, in pertinent part, that “the Parties, their legal counsel, and all agents shall maintain in strict confidence, and shall not disclose to any other person or entity, unless required by law, any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement …” Wiltse wrote in a letter to the Daily Herald.

Wiltse continues, “In 2005, when this settlement was entered, the Illinois Freedom of Information Act did not require the disclosure of settlement agreements.”

Wiltse added, “disclosure would have an improper retroactive impact that impairs the rights the parties possessed when they entered the agreement. It is a fundamental rule of law that statutes are presumed to apply prospectively, not retroactively.”

Wiltse said the settlement agreement was reached with the understanding that both parties would be protected under confidentiality rules, which Lathom asserted in an April 27 letter to the city.

In that letter, Lathom objected to the disclosure of any terms entered into and agreed upon regarding the lawsuit.

“Finally, the city believes that the settlement amounts are personal information and disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” Wiltse wrote, citing a state statute in support of his position.

The city’s denial may be reviewed by the Illinois attorney general’s Public Access Counselor, who has the authority to potentially overturn the city’s finding.

The attorney general’s office in a December 2005 letter told the city the document is public. But the city then denied having a copy of the settlement agreement at city hall.