Public info law could be strengthened
SPRINGFIELD -- Illinois residents who hit a brick wall when they seek information about what government does behind closed doors would gain new leverage under a proposal from Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office.
Madigan's plan would give her office new authority to investigate allegations that government officials are withholding public documents or improperly meeting in secret. It also would put pressure on governments to respond quickly to requests for documents and potentially allow criminal charges for violations.
The proposal is supposed to be introduced in the Illinois Legislature soon, to be debated along with other government reform measures before the session's scheduled end May 31.
Cara Smith, Madigan's deputy chief of staff, said existing laws on public documents and open meetings are riddled with loopholes, allowing some public bodies to create "an airtight government that people can't penetrate."
"I'm hopeful the teeth in the bill will really force compliance," Smith said.
Madigan's proposal is drawing applause from the Illinois Press Association and the Campaign for Political Reform.
But the organization that represents city governments around the state describes it as a confusing plan that would concentrate too much power in the hands of one person and potentially turn innocent mistakes into crimes.
"This does not bring about the needed reforms," Roger Huebner, general counsel for the Illinois Municipal League, said Tuesday. "It shouldn't be a torture puzzle. It should be simplicity (so) that I know what you're asking for and whether I can give it to you."
As it stands now, the Illinois Freedom of Information Act offers little help to people who want to look at government records.
The law includes dozens of exemptions that government agencies can cite to deny requests. Documents can be declared "preliminary drafts" or they can be deemed vital to a criminal case that might be taking place somewhere. The information could be withheld because of vague concerns over personal privacy.
The law also lets governments take a week to respond, and then they can simply state that they're going to take another week. In the end, however, they can take as long as they want to rule on requests because there are no penalties for violating the law.
The only way to force an uncooperative government body to release documents is the expensive option of going to court.
Last year, Madigan's office fielded 613 inquiries about disputes over public documents and 453 over open meetings. Sixty-two percent of those inquiries were from private citizens, with the rest from journalists and public officials.
Those inquiries were handled by a "public access counselor" who lacks any authority to force governments to release information. All the counselor can do is offer advice.
Madigan wants to write the position into state law and give it broad authority to settle disputes over public access. The counselor would have the power to subpoena documents and demand responses from government bodies, and its decisions would be binding.
Huebner said the counselor's power would be so broad that "I can't fathom the degree of misuse" possible if an unethical person controlled the office.
He also objected to proposals meant to keep governments from stalling when they are asked to release records.
Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, wants to shorten the government's response period to five days instead of seven, and to eliminate the automatic seven-day extension that is permitted. In addition, failing to respond within the allotted five days would bar the government body from later claiming the documents are exempt from release.
That means, for instance, that a city council could not take 10 days to respond and then argue that the requested documents can't be released because they are preliminary drafts. The only exception they'd be allowed to claim after missing the deadline would be an invasion of personal privacy.
A government agency violating the Freedom of Information Act could be fined up to $2,500 per offense. A violation would become a misdemeanor criminal offense, which already is true of open meetings violations, and people who wind up suing to obtain records could recover their legal costs.
Huebner objects to tightening the deadlines and adding penalties. He argues understaffed government bodies could wind up paying fines for perfectly innocent failures to produce records promptly. To comply, governments would have to make record-keeping their No. 1 priority, above crime and fires and sewers, he said.
"You can't care what it costs. You're going to put all your people on it and they're going to be answering FOIA requests because that's their primary function," he said.
Former Attorney General Jim Ryan, a Republican, made a similar proposal in 2000. It passed the House but died in the state Senate.
Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, was among the opponents of Ryan's plan back then. But she supports the Madigan version and says it has a strong chance of being approved along with other changes meant to clean up Illinois government and politics.
"I'm hopeful that we've got enough of a juggernaut on the reform front that some of the obstacles we've faced, we'll be able to mow down," Currie said.