State’s Attorneys Again Subject to Freedom of Information Act

A press release from the Illinois Press Association:

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ISSUES UNANIMOUS DECISION ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT

Springfield ─ The Illinois Press Association today applauded the Illinois Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Nelson v. Kendall County, which will significantly increase transparency in Illinois government.

The ruling, which the court issued this morning, concluded that State’s Attorneys’ Offices, as part of the executive branch of state government, are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and must make their public records available for public review.

Justice Lloyd Karmeier wrote the court’s opinion, with Chief Justice Rita Garman and Justice Charles Freeman, Robert Thomas, Thomas Kilbride, Anne Burke and Mary Jane Theis joining. The court reversed the decision of the appellate court, which held that State’s Attorneys’ Office are part of the judicial branch and, as such, are not covered by FOIA. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings in circuit court.

Dennis DeRossett, Executive Director of the Illinois Press Association, noted that the Supreme Court decision is in fact consistent with what most news outlets thought the law was all along. “Newspaper have traditionally obtained records from the States’ Attorneys across the state, often by way of FOIA requests. Even at the time the Kendall county States Attorney took the legal position that he was not subject to the Act, he identified a FOIA officer on his website. We are grateful that the Supreme court has clearly stated the law, requiring States Attorney to respond to FOIA requests.”

Dennis Lyle, Executive Director of the Illinois Broadcasters’ Association, joined DeRossett in praising the Courts decision. “The IBA was very pleased to support one of our members, the Plaintiff, Larry Nelson in this case. Larry is to be commended for his efforts to maintain access to public records via FOIA requests. This particular request obviously took a long and winding road, by Larry never wavered from his principles.”

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, whose office submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff seeking records from the Kendall County State’s Attorney, said “This ruling is a significant victory in our ongoing efforts to raise the bar on transparency in Illinois government. The Court reiterated that the Freedom of Information Act was intended to ensure that taxpayers are entitled to full and complete information about the work of the government officials acting on their behalf.”


Comments

State’s Attorneys Again Subject to Freedom of Information Act — 11 Comments

  1. Thanks for giving us up to date information which is by no means redundant.

  2. voter?

    Why do you ALWAYS misunderstand everything posted?

    Cal is NOT redundant.

    The whole issue IS!Can you please do some reading and figure something out for yourself, instead of being spoonfed tiny little tidbits then commenting on each tidbit?

    The whole idea of Supreme Court decisions are redundant, especially on something like this.

    Ever hear of sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

    Same rule applies to everything in life.

  3. Listen Miss Cindy,

    Enough of your bologna.

    I NEVER said you meant Cal was redundant.

    I SAID THAT THE INFORMATION HE GAVE IN THE ARTICLE WAS NOT REDUNDANT.

    SO STOP LOOKING AT THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE BLOG TO SEE WHO HAS COMMENTED.

    THEN WHEN YOU SEE MY NAME YOU IMMEDIATELY GO TO THE SIGHT JUST TO SEE WHAT I HAVE
    SAID.

    LOOKS LIKE YOU MISUNDERSTAND

  4. Cindy ,it looks to me like you are trying to always start a fight with voter.

    I understand what she is saying and you are the one twisting it around.

    This blog Cindy is not to do what you are doing to her/him.

    No one wants to hear your comebacks.

  5. I think ya’ll are nutz.

    This may be the big reason that this country has gone to Hell in a handbasket.

    When you treat your senior citizens with this much disdain…

    Have you seen what she said about me and to me in the last few months?

    This person is a chain yanker.

    Period.

    I am the one taking the high road here and you think that’s wrong?

    I didn’t start anything. I think voter is a simpleton or a troll.

    Condescension?

    “Listen Miss Cindy?”

    That’s not chain yanking?

    I really don’t appreciate the tone or the crappola this person has been dishing out to me.

    How dare you speak to me in that tone!

    Quit stalking me, voter.

    Here’s a promise: Keep your comments unpersonalized and on topic and I will surely ignore you.

    You people that think this is alright for voter to post on this forum — please go ahead and side with them!!!

    http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2014/05/01/police-roadside-safety-checks/#comments

    voter on 05/01/2014 at 5:54 pm said:

    Cindy go back to your trailer.

    You have no class and the way you would have treated me I really couldn’t care less.

    As for the other remarks,I have said that I did see your points but people still have to follow the law.

    I don’t agree with a lot of the laws but they are the laws.

    Cindy maybe you should live in the foot hills of Kentucky

  6. l.o.l. it sounds like two old bitties going after each other and I am including myself.

    I answer because I am trying to explain to you my views which YOU take wrong.

    Find out the definition of stalking before you threaten someone.

    Not nice.

  7. Time to move on and I apologize to all who have had to read this childish back and forth stuff.

    I will be the one who stops this and will not respond

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *