Electronic communications during city council meetings and pertaining to public business are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, regardless of whether they are stored on personal devices.
Decision by
Pope, joined by Appleton, Holder White
City of Champaign v. Madigan, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662, 992 N.E.2d 629 (2013), is a case decided by the Illinois Appellate Court in 2013 concerning the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The court ruled that messages sent and received by elected officials during a city council meeting and pertaining to public business are public records subject to disclosure, even when those communications are stored on personal electronic devices. It was the first court ruling in Illinois to hold that private messages were subject to public disclosure under FOIA.
The case addressed a public records request from a reporter for The News-Gazette in Champaign, Illinois, who observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as a public body. The court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.
Background
Patrick Wade, a reporter for The News-Gazette in Champaign, Illinois, observed members of the Champaign city council and mayor Don Gerard using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a public meeting. Curious about the contents of their private discussions,[1] Wade filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the city on July 15, 2011, for the following records:[2]:3[3]
All electronic communications, including cellphone text messages, sent and received by members of the city council and the mayor during city council meetings and study sessions since (and including) May 3. Please note that this request applies to both city-issued and personal cellphones, city-issued or personal email addresses and Twitter accounts.
City officials provided Wade with 24 pages of emails stored on city-owned accounts.[4] However, they denied his request for records from personal devices, responding that "private citizen's communications to the Council member's or the Mayor's privately owned electronic devices is not within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act." A city attorney also advised Wade that the Appellate Court had previously held, in Quinn v. Stone,[lower-alpha 1] that only a public body is subject to FOIA, not individual public officials such as the mayor or city council members.[5]
On August 1, 2011, Wade requested administrative review by the Public Access Counselor, the bureau of the Illinois Attorney General responsible for enforcing FOIA.[2]:3 Wade maintained that the requested records, even when privately held, are subject to disclosure because the officials were each communicating "in their role as a member of that public body during an ongoing public meeting".[5]
The Attorney General's office, led by Lisa Madigan, issued a binding opinion titled "Public Access Opinion 11-006" on November 15, 2011.[lower-alpha 2][6]:1 Binding opinions are rare; less than 0.5 percent of complaints submitted to the Public Access Counselor result in a binding opinion from the Attorney General.[lower-alpha 3][7] The ruling held that electronic communications, whether on publicly or privately owned devices, may be subject to disclosure under FOIA.[5]
The opinion referred to FOIA's definition of public records,[6]:4 which includes documents "pertaining to the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared by or for, or having been or being used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of any public body".[8] The Attorney General concluded that the city was narrowly focused on the phrase "in the possession of" when determining whether the requested communications were subject to disclosure. When construing FOIA as a whole, the opinion stated that records "in the possession of" the city are only one type of public record. The opinion further added: "Whether information is a 'public record' is not determined by where, how, or on what device that record was created; rather the question is whether that record was prepared by or used by one or more members of a public body in conducting the affairs of government."[5] The key factor in determining what constitutes a public record is whether the record relates to public business.[9]:9
The Attorney General also rejected the city's reliance on Quinn. In Quinn, the Appellate Court determined that a FOIA request cannot be directed at an individual official, but must instead be submitted to a public body. In this case, the opinion affirmed the court's decision in Quinn, but asserted that the communications of city officials are considered records of the city and not of the officials individually.[5]
Lastly, the city raised concerns that disclosure of private information could potentially implicate First Amendment rights. However, the opinion stated that records needed to be produced only when they relate to public business, and there was no evidence that such disclosure would violate the First Amendment. Family matters, political business, and other personal issues would not be subject to disclosure.[5]
The city attorney – handling the matter internally rather than through outside counsel – felt that the Attorney General's opinion had addressed a novel question that warranted further review by a court. The city had to make a strategic decision on where to appeal – either the Circuit Court of Cook County or that of Sangamon County.[4] The city ultimately appealed the Attorney General's opinion in Sangamon County.[10] In the circuit court proceedings, attorney Laura Hall represented the city, while attorney Don Craven represented The News-Gazette. Craven contended that the text messages are part of the city council's deliberations, and "voters are entitled to hear the deliberations" of public bodies.[11]
The circuit court affirmed the Attorney General's opinion in June 2012. The city then appealed to the Fourth District of the Appellate Court.[10] On July 16, 2013, the Appellate Court upheld the opinion that the messages were public records, but on more limited grounds.[9]:9 The court's opinion was written by Justice Carol Pope. The other members of the appellate panel, Justices Thomas R. Appleton and Lisa Holder White, agreed with Pope's opinion.[2]:1
First, the court clarified that messages concerning personal matters were not subject to disclosure, since FOIA addresses only records pertaining to the transaction of public business. Communications relating to community interests, rather than private affairs, constitute public records under FOIA. The city admitted that some of the communications related to this case were related to public business.[12]
The court found that, while the individual members of a city council are not considered a public body, they collectively form one during council meetings. Through this interpretation, messages sent to a council member's personal device at home are not subject to FOIA, even if related to public business, but messages created during council meetings are subject to FOIA.[1] Additionally, the court noted that a quorum of individual members constitutes a public body capable of making binding decisions. A communication becomes a record of a public body if sent to enough members to establish a quorum,[12] and it may also be subject to disclosure when sent to a government-owned account.[9]:14
This was the first court decision in Illinois to find that private messages were subject to disclosure under FOIA,[9]:9–10,14 reflecting a growing consensus interpreting freedom of information laws elsewhere in the United States.[13] The city announced that it intended to comply with the court's ruling, noting that there were "very few documents" to release, and did not plan to appeal the case any further.[10]
Reactions and subsequent developments
Illinois Policy, a conservative advocacy group, praised the ruling as "a victory for increased transparency in government", noting that the state's Open Meetings Act[lower-alpha 4] also requires transparency on what takes place during public meetings.[14]Frank LoMonte of the Student Press Law Center regarded the court's decision as "a positive step for accountability", but noted that its effects are meaningful only if public officials follow retention guidelines for any government-related messages on their personal devices.[13]
Because of the ambiguity in FOIA, the court recommended that the Illinois General Assembly expressly amend FOIA if it intended messages stored on personal devices to be subject to disclosure.[15] It also urged local governments to enact their own rules prohibiting city council members from using their personal devices during public meetings.[1] Legal experts noted that the ruling's implications on local governments remain uncertain.[14] John M. O'Driscoll, a local government attorney, has advised public bodies across Illinois to review their practices and ordinances to avoid having to disclose private communications. He also urged public officials to refrain from using their phones during public meetings, but this may prove difficult as officials heavily rely on their personal devices to conduct public business. O'Driscoll said that responding to FOIA requests for electronic communications remains difficult, and subsequent scenarios may be addressed by future litigation on a case-by-case basis.[1]
The court's decision left room for interpretation in other contexts. The disclosure requirements for council members was limited because a city council technically is not acting as a public body until it has convened a meeting to conduct its business. The applicability of City of Champaign to employees (rather than elected officials) of a public body remains unclear. Attorney Matt Topic, a FOIA expert based in Chicago, suggested that executive branch employees may still be required to disclose their records because they act on the public body's behalf. The University of Illinois System cited such ambiguity when it revealed in 2015 that it had failed to disclose emails stored on the private accounts of Phyllis Wise, chancellor of the university at Urbana-Champaign.[16] An internal investigation had found that Wise intentionally evaded FOIA by using her personal account when discussing sensitive topics (such as the Steven Salaita hiring controversy) and subsequently deleting those emails.[17]
A court ordered Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to disclose messages related to public business stored on his private devices.
In May2016, the Circuit Court of Cook County cited City of Champaign when it ruled that personal emails of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel may be subject to disclosure, even when stored on private devices.[18][19] Later that year, the Attorney General's office revisited this issue by issuing Public Access Opinion 16‑006, deciding that officers of the Chicago Police Department were required to release their private emails about the police-involved murder of Laquan McDonald.[9]:10 Journalists also pointed towards similar public access issues during the administration of Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner and the Hillary Clinton email controversy.[16] In 2020, the First District of the Appellate Court ordered the release of correspondence held on private devices of several Chicago officials, including the mayor, his staff, and the public health commissioner. In that ruling, the court noted that City of Champaign held "that personal communications are at least sometimes public records".[20]
In 2017, the General Assembly considered two bills, which appeared to be in response to City of Champaign and Public Access Opinion 16‑006. One bill would have made it more difficult to obtain records not already in the control of a public body. Another bill would have amended the Local Records Act[lower-alpha 5] to explicitly state that all emails sent or received by government officials and employees are public records, even when using a personal email address. The latter bill also would have required public officials and employees to use government-issued email addresses, and forward any emails related to public business on personal accounts to their governmental accounts.[9]:34 Both bills expired in January2019 without becoming law.[21][22]
A pen register, or dialed number recorder (DNR), is a device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line. The term has come to include any device or program that performs similar functions to an original pen register, including programs monitoring Internet communications.
The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, is the United States federal freedom of information law that requires the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased or uncirculated information and documents controlled by the U.S. government upon request. The act defines agency records subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures, and includes nine exemptions that define categories of information not subject to disclosure. The act was intended to make U.S. government agencies' functions more transparent so that the American public could more easily identify problems in government functioning and put pressure on Congress, agency officials, and the president to address them. The FOIA has been changed repeatedly by both the legislative and executive branches.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) was enacted by the United States Congress to extend restrictions on government wire taps of telephone calls to include transmissions of electronic data by computer, added new provisions prohibiting access to stored electronic communications, i.e., the Stored Communications Act, and added so-called pen trap provisions that permit the tracing of telephone communications . ECPA was an amendment to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which was primarily designed to prevent unauthorized government access to private electronic communications. The ECPA has been amended by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994, the USA PATRIOT Act (2001), the USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts (2006), and the FISA Amendments Act (2008).
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that creates a public "right of access" to information held by public authorities. It is the implementation of freedom of information legislation in the United Kingdom on a national level. Its application is limited in Scotland to UK Government offices located in Scotland. The Act implements a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in the 1997 general election, developed by David Clark as a 1997 White Paper. The final version of the Act was criticised by freedom of information campaigners as a diluted form of what had been proposed in the White Paper. The full provisions of the act came into force on 1 January 2005. The Act was the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, freedom of information policy is now the responsibility of the Cabinet Office. The Act led to the renaming of the Data Protection Commissioner, who is now known as the Information Commissioner. The Office of the Information Commissioner oversees the operation of the Act.
Email privacy is a broad topic dealing with issues of unauthorized access to, and inspection of, electronic mail, or unauthorized tracking when a user reads an email. This unauthorized access can happen while an email is in transit, as well as when it is stored on email servers or on a user's computer, or when the user reads the message. In countries with a constitutional guarantee of the secrecy of correspondence, whether email can be equated with letters—therefore having legal protection from all forms of eavesdropping—is disputed because of the very nature of email.
Public records are documents or pieces of information that are not considered confidential and generally pertain to the conduct of government.
Carol Ann Corrigan is an associate justice of the California Supreme Court. She is a former prosecutor.
Public Citizen Litigation Group is a public interest law firm in the United States.The group is the litigation arm of the non-profit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. Its attorneys work on cases involving health and safety regulation, consumer rights, separation of powers, access to the courts, class actions, open government, and the First Amendment.
Telephone call recording laws are legislation enacted in many jurisdictions, such as countries, states, provinces, that regulate the practice of telephone call recording. Call recording or monitoring is permitted or restricted with various levels of privacy protection, law enforcement requirements, anti-fraud measures, or individual party consent.
When government agencies outsource basic services to third-party non-profit contractors, one consequence is that the public may lose its access to information about the service that the public would have retained, had a government agency carried out the service directly.
Employee monitoring is the surveillance of workers' activity. Organizations engage in employee monitoring for different reasons such as to track performance, to avoid legal liability, to protect trade secrets, and to address other security concerns. This practice may impact employee satisfaction due to its impact on the employee's privacy. Among organizations, the extent and methods of employee monitoring differ.
The Stored Communications Act is a law that addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party Internet service providers (ISPs). It was enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA).
The California Public Records Act was a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 requiring inspection or disclosure of governmental records to the public upon request, unless exempted by law.
Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the right to privacy applies to electronic communications in a government workplace. It was an appeal by the city of Ontario, California, from a Ninth Circuit decision holding that it had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of two of its police officers when it disciplined them following an audit of pager text messages that discovered many of those messages were personal in nature, some sexually explicit. The Court unanimously held that the audit was work-related and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 990 A.2d 650 (2010) was a New Jersey Supreme Court case that provided guidance to employees as to what extent they may expect privacy and confidentiality in personal e-mails composed on company-owned computers. Through its decision, the court ruled on two key issues which concluded that there should be a "reasonable" expectation of privacy in personal e-mails on company computers, and that attorney–client communication privileges and privacy should not be violated. On March 30, 2010, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision by overturning the previous ruling made by the trial court. The trial court previously determined that a company-created policy provided sufficient warning to employees that all communications and activities performed on company-owned computers were subject to review by the employer and that there should be no expectation of privacy because of such policies.
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case on aspects of corporate personhood. It held that the exemption from Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements for law enforcement records which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" does not protect information related to corporate privacy.
The Public Records Act (PRA) is a law of the U.S. state of Washington requiring public access to all records and materials from state and local agencies. It was originally passed as a ballot initiative by voters in 1972 and revised several times by the state legislature. The definition of public records, especially concerning the state legislature, was subject to several legal challenges in the decades since the law was passed.
Illinois Public Access Opinion 16‑006 is a binding opinion of the Illinois Attorney General pursuant to the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Issued in 2016 in the aftermath of the police murder of Laquan McDonald, the opinion addressed a public records request from Cable News Network (CNN) for private emails by officers of the Chicago Police Department (CPD) related to the incident. After the CPD denied CNN's request, the Attorney General's office, led by Lisa Madigan, ruled that the police officers' private emails about McDonald's murder were subject to public disclosure, even though those emails were communicated on accounts outside of the police department's email servers.
The Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq., is an Illinois statute that grants to all persons the right to copy and inspect public records in the state. The law applies to executive and legislative bodies of state government, units of local government, and other entities defined as "public bodies". All records related to governmental business are presumed to be open for inspection by the public, except for information specifically exempted from disclosure by law. The statute is modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act and serves a similar purpose as freedom of information legislation in the other U.S. states.
The Illinois Public Access Counselor (PAC) is an attorney in the office of the Illinois Attorney General who is responsible for enforcing the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Open Meetings Act (OMA). The PAC is the head of the Public Access Bureau, a group of more than one dozen attorneys who process complaints against public bodies and provide education to the public on Illinois' transparency laws.
↑ Senat, Joey (Summer 2014). "Whose business is it: Is public business conducted on officials' personal electronic devices subject to state open records laws?". Communication Law and Policy. 19 (3): 323. doi:10.1080/10811680.2014.919799. ISSN1081-1680. S2CID144480344– via HeinOnline.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
