New Proposed FOIA Legislation Seeks Practical Relief for Public Bodies

The Illinois General Assembly is back in session. In response to real issues facing our public sector clients, we worked with our colleagues at ED-RED, Franczek P.C., and Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn, to introduce legislation sponsored by House Representative Daniel Didech that would make helpful changes to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for our clients, while still recognizing the intent and purposes of FOIA. None of the bills have been voted on, and they may be amended. A summary of the legislation is below.

HB4681:  If signed into law, this would:

• Change the definition of “commercial purpose” to also include using records to provide services to a specific customer or client.
• Define “business day” or “working day” and specify days that do not count as business or working days for public educational institutions.
• Add and define a “mass requester” status and allow a response within at least 21 business days after receipt, which may be paused to verify a mass requester’s status.
• Add and define a “vexatious requester” status and allow a public body to petition the Public Access Counselor for relief from such a requester, including an order that the public body need not comply with requests from the vexatious requester for up to one year.
• Require persons denied access to inspect or copy any public record, before filing a lawsuit, to first notify the public body of their intent to file suit and provide an opportunity to confer orally, within 10 business days after receipt of the notification, about curing or resolving the issue.
• Provide for the award of attorney’s fees and costs to a public body if it prevails in litigation filed by a commercial purpose requester, recurrent requester, mass requester, or vexatious requester.

HB4682:  If signed into law, this would:

• Provide that repeated requests for commercial purposes shall be deemed unduly burdensome if the requests are from the same person and seek similar or updated records.

HB4683:  If signed into law, this would:

• Add and define a “mass requester” status and allow a response within at least 21 business days after receipt, with a requirement that a requester must verify their status if requested to do so or have their request denied.
• Require a mass requester to notify the public body of an objection before filing a request for review with the Public Access Counselor, and require review by the Public Access Counselor before judicial review.
• Limit awards of attorney’s fees to mass requesters.

HB4684:  If signed into law, this would:

• Change the definition of “commercial purpose” to also include using records to provide services to a specific customer or client.
• Add a mechanism by which a public body can designate a request as a “purposeless mass request” and establishes procedures for notice, requester response, and a final determination concerning the request, after which the public body has at least 21 business days to respond.
• Prohibit attorney’s fees in actions where the public body reasonably determined a request was a purposeless mass request.

Should you have questions about these bills, please do not hesitate to reach out to any Robbins Schwartz attorney. We encourage public bodies to reach out to their representatives and constituents in an effort to advance the legislation to bring necessary relief to public bodies which still upholds the intent and purposes of FOIA. We will continue to monitor these bills and keep you posted.