McHenry County Blog

McHenry County Blog published this reference to McHenry County Sheriff’s Department Sgt. Greg Pyle’s membership on the Illinois Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force:

This is the first page of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's Illinois Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

“In a recent interview with Detective Gregory Pyle of the McHenry County Sheriff’s department, I learned that approximately 1 in 5 children with full internet access were approached by a predator on the internet last year.

“Detective Pyle is a member of the Illinois Chapter of the ICAC, or Internet Crimes against Children Task Force.

“The task force is a subset of The Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Department of Justice. Education is the key according to Detective Pyle. Unfortunately they do not have the budget to educate everyone. This, I believe, is our Calling.”

Pyle is on paid administrative leave.

Read the ten-count warrant and make  your own judgment if this was an appropriate role for Deputy Pyle.

I inquired of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office of the status of Pyle’s membership on this task force, considering his arrest on ten counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault.

Lisa Madigan’s Press Secretary Robyn Ziegler sent the following reply:

“It is our understanding that his employer has relieved him of his duties and Mr. Pyle’s involvement in the ICAC task force comes exclusively through his employment with the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office – it’s not separate from his job.

“As a result, once the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office took quick action to remove him from work, he is also no longer affiliated in any way with ICAC.

“In addition, the Attorney General’s office has taken immediate action to make sure that any organization that may provide access to information to officers who are involved with ICAC (as part of their duties for their law enforcement employer) has revoked access for Mr. Pyle.”

What is the program, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention? Here’s what’s on the D.C. web site:

The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program (ICAC program) helps state and local law enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyber enticement and child pornography cases. This help encompasses forensic and investigative components, training and technical assistance, victim services, and community education.

The program was developed in response to the increasing number of children and teenagers using the Internet, the proliferation of child pornography, and heightened online activity by predators seeking unsupervised contact with potential underage victims. The FY 1998 Justice Appropriations Act (Pub, L. No. 105–119) directed OJJDP to create a national network of state and local law enforcement cyber units to investigate cases of child sexual exploitation. The Providing Resources, Officers, and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to Our Children Act (“the PROTECT Act”)of 2008, (P.L. 110-401, codified at 42 USC 17601, et seq.), authorized the ICAC program through FY 2013.

The ICAC program is a national network of 61 coordinated task forces representing over 2,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. These agencies are engaged in proactive investigations, forensic investigations, and criminal prosecutions. By helping state and local agencies to develop effective, sustainable responses to online child victimization and child pornography, OJJDP has increased their capacity to address Internet crimes against children.

Since the ICAC program’s inception in 1998, more than 338,000 law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other professionals have been trained in the United States and in 17 countries on techniques to investigative and prosecute ICAC related cases.

Since 1998, ICAC Task Forces have reviewed more than 280,000 complaints of alleged child sexual victimization resulting in the arrest of more than almost 30,000 individuals.

In fiscal year (FY) 2011, the ICAC program trained over 31,000 law enforcement personnel, over 2,800 prosecutors, and more than 11,000 other professional working in the ICAC field.

In FY 2011, ICAC investigations led to more than 5,700 arrests and over 45,000 forensic examinations.

In FY 2011 ICAC investigations contributed to the arrests of nearly 5,700 individuals, with nearly 40 percent of those arrests (2,248) resulting in the acceptance of a plea agreement by the defendant in lieu of trial.

It couldn’t be characterized as “transparent,” but the secret meeting the McHenry County Board held on Feb. 14, 2011, to discuss legal bills from Special Prosecutor Henry Tonigan doesn’t qualify as “Illegal.’

Former McHenry County Board member Lou Anne Majewski filed a complaint about it on March 28th with the Public Access Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office about the closed door session.

In a letter dated June 3, 2011, Assistant Public Access Counselor Amanda Lundeen ruled that the Board was discussing “pending litigation.” Weighing in on the matter is the fact that the County is an intervenor in the case involving the appointment of the special prosecutor. Majewski argued that the Appellate Prosecutor was the intervenor.

Majewski also argued that the meeting concerned the payment of the special prosecutor’s bills in his criminal case against McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi, which she contended was not eligible to hide from the public.

The Public Access Counselor’s Office ruled that the resolution concerning Tonigan’s bill was discussed “only as a part of the Board’s overall litigation strategy”… and, therefore, was “proper” to discuss in private.
Prior to issuing the opinion, AG Office staff read the minutes of the Executive Session and listened to a tape of the meeting behind closed doors.

Yesterday, Kevin Craver wrote an article for the Northwest Herald in which three members of the McHenry County Board’s Legislative Committee were reprorted to have met in private.

The Open Meetings Act provides that a majority of no committee may meet in private and, in any event, must give 48 hours notice.

Democrat Kathy Bergan Schmitt told the paper that such action was “inappropriate.”

The three committee members involved were Marc Munaretto, John Jung and Nick Provenzano.

Munaretto said that the three were not in the room at the same time, that when a third one came in another left.

The NW Herald has referred the matter to the Public Access Counselor, the article says.

A press release from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office:

ATTORNEY GENERAL MADIGAN FILES IMMIGRATION FRAUD CASES

Madigan Joins FTC Initiative in Combating Immigration Services Scams

Chicago – Attorney General Lisa Madigan today filed two lawsuits against Chicago area immigration servicers for accepting more than $30,000 from consumers but failing to help them with their immigration status.

Madigan, along with the Federal Trade Commission, filed the suits as part of a national crackdown against illegal immigration service providers found to have defrauded consumers across the country.

Madigan filed

• suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Martha Fernandez, of West Chicago, and Corrianne Chairez, of Chicago, and
• filed a second lawsuit in McHenry County Circuit Court against Calvin Meziere, of Huntley,

for using a variety of misleading and deceptive tactics to convince consumers that the government was considering their requests for a work permit, permanent residency or U.S. citizenship.

Lisa Madigan

“The immigration process is often intimidating and confusing, which is why many people seek assistance,” Attorney General Madigan said. “But unfortunately, much of the help offered is expensive and illegitimate. That’s why it’s so important to know the warning signs of an immigration scam and where to find honest assistance.”

In her suit against Meziere, the Attorney General alleges the defendant duped a group of immigrant workers in 2009 into paying him large upfront fees to help them obtain work permits and thus the ability to travel freely in and out of the United States.

Madigan alleges Meziere charged the consumers for credit checks, improving their bad credit history and for fake citizenship exams – all steps he falsely claimed were necessary to gain a permit.

Consumers reported to Madigan’s office losing at least $25,000 to Meziere in the scheme.

Madigan’s suit against Fernandez and Chairez alleges they conspired to solicit upfront fees based on promises of helping two immigrants with their immigration paperwork, charging them more than $10,000 for work that was never completed. Despite Fernandez’s promises of a refund, it never arrived.

The Attorney General is asking the court to enter a permanent injunction against the three defendants barring them from providing immigration services in Illinois.

The lawsuit also asks the court to order the defendants to pay restitution to consumers, civil penalties of $50,000 for violating the Consumer Fraud Act, and an additional $50,000 for each violation committed with the intent to defraud. Assistant Attorneys General Andrew Dougherty and Vivian Velasco Paz are handling the case for Madigan’s Consumer Fraud Bureau.

Attorney General Madigan urged the public to learn how to identify potential immigration scams and find legitimate sources for help with the immigration process. By state law, immigration service providers should:

Provide you with a written contract in English and your native language
Provide you with a three-day right to cancel your contract
Return all documents to you upon demand
Register with the Illinois Attorney General’s office

Finally, immigration service providers may not provide legal advice or accept fees for legal advice unless they are licensed attorneys. To check the status of a service provider or to file a complaint, please call the Attorney General’s office at:

Chicago 1-800-386-5438
Springfield 1-800-243-0618
Carbondale 1-800-243-0607
Spanish-language Hotline: 1-866-310-8398

David Moore sits in the front row unobtrusively taping a Grafton Township Board meeting. From left to right at the table are Grafton Township Trustees Barb Murphy, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon, all of whom voted to banish videographers, photographers and those making audio recordings to the back of the room. Reporter Pete Gonigam sits to his far right taking notes. Trustee Rob LaPorta left the meeting early.

Just as whites were more privileged than blacks on Montgomery Alabama, buses, those trying to video or audio tape and photograph Grafton Township meetings seem to be now less equal than print reporters with pencil and pad.

This picture of David Moore was taken at a December, 2009, Grafton Township Board meeting. Donna McMahon and attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer sit to his right.

The Public Access Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office has issued a non-binding ruling to yours truly and Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore seemingly affirming the resolution passed on April 8, 2010, restricting

“the use of audio and video recording equipment and photography equipment to either the final row of seats or behind the final row of seats in the meeting room,”

as Assistant Public Access Counselor Steve Silverman puts it in his letter of April 14, 2011.

David Moore tapes from the front row. Note how he is not obstructing anyone's view of the meeting.

When I received a communication asking if I had any rebuttal to what was sent in by former Grafton Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer of the law firm Ancel Glink, you can bet I did.

You can read it here.

But, it apparently fell short.

The “Determination” is not a binding opinion, so it cannot be appealed to Circuit Court under Administrative Review Act.

The Determination, in which I have separated the sentences to make it easier to read on a screen, follows:

Determination

Section 2. 05 of OMA provides that “any person may record the proceedings at meetings required to be open by this Act by tape, film or other means. The authority holding the meeting shall prescribe reasonable rules to govern the right to make such recordings.”

5 ILCS 140/ 2.05. In an informal opinion ( a copy of which is attached hereto), the Office of the Attorney General previously advised that ” reasonable rules” under Section 2. 05 are ” guidelines which protect the integrity of a public meeting and those participating in it” and “guidelines that prevent interference with the overall decorum and proceedings of a meeting.”

Thus, the right of the public to record open meetings should only be limited pursuant to prescribed rules of the public body, and only to the extent truly necessary to prevent disruptions or safety hazards.

Based on the available information, it appears that the Board’ s restriction on the use of photography and recording equipment constituted a reasonable rule governing the right to record under Section 2. 05 of OMA.

The meeting minutes show that the Board member who made the motion to approve the rule indicated that Board members had been distracted during meetings by close range flash photography.

At an October meeting Trustee Gerry McMahon got so out of control that Trustee Barb Murphy (on the left) moved to censure him. The motion passed.

The restriction limited Mr. Skinner’ s choice of angles for photographing Board members, but did not bar Mr. Skinner or any other individual from photographing or recording meetings.

This shot of the meeting room shows the amount of space behind the tables where the public officials sit.

We also note that, in light of the relatively small size of the meeting rooms used by the Board, restricting the use of photography and recording equipment to either the last row of seats or behind the last row of seats constituted a relatively minor limitation which did not substantively interfere with the statutory right to record meetings.

Therefore, we conclude based on the information at our disposal that the action taken by the Board on April 8, 2010 to restrict the placement of individuals operating recording and photography equipment did not violate the public’ s right to record Board meetings under Section 2. 05 of OMA.

Here's a view of a regular meeting room from the back.

This Board subsequently enacted a comprehensive ordinance to establish rules for recording, including a similar restriction on the placement of individuals operating video and photography equipment.

That ordinance is not at issue in this determination letter as the Board enacted it after Mr. Skinner filed his Request for Review.

A November, 2009, shot of the officials' table and space behind.

However, Mr. Skinner objected to parts of the ordinance in his reply to the Township’ s response to his allegations and we are concerned that certain portions may constitute unreasonably restrictive rules under Section 2.05.

A view of the not-so-small room from its back.

Most notably, the ordinance requires that individuals provide advance notice of their intent to record meetings by signing a sign- in sheet, and authorizes the Board to ” prohibit the recording of any audience member who objects to being recorded.”

It is not readily apparent why those rules and certain other restrictions in the ordinance are necessary to prevent disruptions or safety hazards at Board meetings.

We strongly suggest that the Board review the entire ordinance for compliance with Section 2. 05 of OMA based on the standard for ” reasonable rules” set forth above.

This letter will serve to close this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (312) 814- 6756.

Sincerely,

Steve Silverman
Assistant Public Access Counseloriz

The April 4, 2011, letter to McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler. Click to enlarge any image.

The Public Access Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office is looking into a complaint about a possible violation of the Open Meetings Act on February 15, 2011.

“We have determined that further inquiry into this allegation is warranted,” wrote Assistant Public Access Counselor Amanda Lundeen to McHenry County Board Chairman Ken Koehler on April 4th.

Minutes (or draft minutes) of the closed meeting, plus the recording were requested.

Koehler was given seven days after the receipt of the April 4th letter to reply.

Click to enlarge.

There are three possible outcomes, according to Lundeen:

• A finding that no violation has occurred.
• Resolution through informal mediation.
• The issuance of a binding opinion.

At the end of Tuesday night’s meeting Koehler announced that the board would go into Executive (secret) Session in order to discuss “litigation filed and pending , probable and imminent litigation.”

= = = = =

If “informal mediation” is the route taken, I hope the recording of the meeting will be made public.

The McHenry County Sheriff’s Department has lost an April 29, 2010, appeal filed by McHenry County Blog to obtain SWAT training records for Deputy Eric Woods.

Diagram from the internal investigation showing where Sheriff's deputies were standing at the shooting range during March 15, 2010, when Eric Woods was injured.

Under the decision, received yesterday from Assistant Public Access Counselor Matthew C. Rogina, the Sheriff’s Office must provide “the dates and times that Deputy Woods was present at SWAT training sessions.”

The opinion continues,

“The Sheriff has not demonstrated a basis as to how the disclosure of the previously scheduled SWAT team practices of Deputy Woods could pose a security risk.”

Woods is the deputy that was injured at the shooting range. The handling of that incident was an issue raised by Democrat Mike Mahon in the his unsuccessful fall campaign against Keith Nygren. Nygren had characterized the wounds as “road rash.”

The Sheriff’s Department claimed exemption from revealing the scheduling information contending its release would

• “endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person,”
• reveal “vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent or respond to potential attacks upon a community’ s population or systems, facilities, or installations, the destruction or contamination of which would constitute a clear and present danger to the health or safety of the community…”

The text of the full decision follows.  You can see the original here.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Lisa Madigan
ATTORNEY GENERAL
February 14, 2011

Ms. Jan Weech
Freedom of Information Act Officer
McHenry County Sheriff’s Office
foiasheriff@co.mchenry. il.us

Mr. Cal Skinner
calskinner2@gmail.com

RE: FOIA Request’ for Review’ 2010 PAC-7125.

Dear Ms. Weech and Mr. Skinner:

We have received a request for Review Lot Act (FOIA) request submitted to the McHenry County Sheriff by Mr. Skinner and the responsive documents submitted to the Office of Public Counselor by the Sheriff.

In Mr. Skinner’ s April 29, 2010, Request for Review, he indicates that on April 8 he submitted a FOIA request to the Sheriff seeking a copy of assignment-sheets for his shift, which show Eric Woods’ previous SWAT Team practices.

On April 13, 2010, the Sheriff denied Mr. Skinner’ s request for information. In its denial letter, the Sheriff asserted that the records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the following exemptions:

1. Section 7( 1)( d)( vi) of FOIA (5 ILCS 140/ 7( 1)( d)( vi)) which exempts from inspection and copying information that would “endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person,” and
2. Section 7( 1)( v) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 7( 1)( v)) which exempts from inspection and copying “vulnerability assessments, security measures, and response policies or plans that are designed to identify, prevent or respond to potential attacks upon a community’ s population or systems, facilities, or installations, the destruction or contamination of which would constitute a clear and present danger to the health or safety of the community, but only to the extent that disclosure could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of the measures or the safety of the personnel who implement them or the public. Information exempt under this item may include such things as details pertaining to the mobilization or deployment of personnel or equipment, to the operation of communication systems or protocols, or to tactical operations.”

This Office initiated further review of this matter on May 10, 2010 and requested that the Sheriff provide us with a written explanation as to why Section 7( 1)( v) and Section 7( 1)( d)( vi) exempts the documents from disclosure. The Sheriff submitted its response on May 17, 2010 together with an affidavit from Lt. John Miller that clarified that the ” only documents that the McHenry County Sheriff’ s Department maintains regarding SWAT Team practices are the shift schedules.” The Sheriff provided us a representative sample of those schedules on February 8, 2011.

Determinations

Section 3( a) of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 3( a)) provides that “[ e] ach public body shall make available to any person for inspection or copying all public records, except as otherwise provided in Section 7 of this Act.” Under Section 1. 2 of FOIA ( 5 ILCS 140/ 1. 2), “[ a] ll records in the custody of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection and copying.” This section further states that “[ a] ny public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it is exempt
In its May 17, 2010 letter, the Sheriff states the following with regard to the disclosure of the shift schedules:

The only records/ documents that we maintain that show the dates of Deputy Wood’ s SWAT Team practices are our monthly department shift assignment schedules ( see the attached affidavit). The shift schedules are for internal department use and are not shared with the general public. These schedules show the pattern which we assign our squads to specific areas, how we over lap our assignments, and the times of day in which we rotate our squads in and out of our patrol areas, showing when and where a Deputy may possibly be without the close back up assistance of another squad. If the general public were aware of these unique technique details we feel that it would not only put a Deputy at risk but also the public. Crimes could be planned around disclosure of this specific information.

The Sheriff further notes:

The release of these schedules will cause this Department to immediately change all of our schedules and create a different pattern unique from the one presently used.

Although Mr. Skinner’ s request is somewhat ambiguous, we interpret it as a request for the dates and times that Deputy Woods was present at SWAT training sessions. According to the Sheriff, this information is contained only in shift schedules of the type we have examined, which includes shift information and assignments for a number of deputies. Because Mr. Skinner seeks a very narrow set of records regarding only Deputy Woods, it is the finding of this Office that disclosure of this specific information would not fall within the scope of Section 7( 1)( d)( vi) and Section 7( 1)( d)( v). The Sheriff has not demonstrated a basis as to how the disclosure of the previously scheduled SWAT team practices of Deputy Woods could pose a security risk. However, to the extent that the shift schedules contain information regarding any other assignments for Deputy Woods, and any information regarding the schedules or assignments of any deputies other than Deputy Woods, that information may be redacted from the schedules.

Accordingly, we find that the Sheriff has not met its burden pursuant to Section 7( 1)( d)( vi) or Section 7( 1)( v) and must disclose the shift schedules to Mr. Skinner, subject to the redactions noted above.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at ( 312) 814- 5383. This correspondence shall serve to close this file.

Sincerely,

Matthew C. Rogina
Assistant Public Access Counselor

7125 F RFR pb a improper county
500

The stalling tactics of McHenry County College didn’t work.

OK, so it's photo shopped. You get the point, right?

You may remember that I filed a Freedom of Information request for the performance evaluations of ex-President Walt Packard.

You remember him.

The one sent packing Feb. 26, 2009 with no explanation, but with a golden parachute that kept him on the payroll through this summer and he and his sick wife on tax-paid health benefits through August 21, 2012, according to the MCC press release.

That’s three and a half years.

The reason given for hiding this man’s performance evaluations follows:

“because it contains personal information, which if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

The denial letter then quotes Section 7(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act thusly,

an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy means “…the disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and which the subject’s right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information.”

Now comes Public Access Division Assistant Attorney General Matthew Sebek telling the college that it has not met its burden of proof in its lawyer-prepared denial.

Ex-MCC President Walt Packard

“Evaluations of public employees directly address the manner in which public employees perform their public duties.  Public bodies use these evaluations to determine the public duties of public employees for purposes of Section 7(1)(c) of FOIA.  Accordingly, disclosure of such evaluations would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

The letter goes on to say,

“We further note that MCC’s citation to Section 24A-7.1 of the Illinois School Code and House Bill 5154, in support of its 7(1)(c) assertion, is unpersuasive.”Section 24A-7.1 of the Illinois School Code, which exempts from disclosure performance evaluations for certain public educators is simply not applicable to MCC, which, as a community college, is governed b y the Public Community College Act [citation given] and not the School Code.”

Is that a smack down of MCC law firm Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor or what?

But there’s more.

“With respect to House Bill 5154′s proposed amendment of Section 11 of the Personnel Record Review Act to exempt performance evaluations of public employees, that Bill was amendatorily vetoed by the Governor on July 26, 2010 in a manner that significantly limits the scope of that legislative change to certain law enforcement personnel.

“In accordance with this letter, MCC may release the requested records to the requester.”

The opinion is below. Click to enlarge it.

In my quest to find out more about what the Crystal Lake Police reported about

“…a suspected misappropriation or theft of funds from South High School,”

I filed a Freedom of Information Request with District 155 requesting request to provide the names of people currently on leaves of absence and the dates those leaves began.

Let’s call the encounter “Round 1.”

I was denied the leave of absences part of what I sought, but I did get the email that Supt. Jill Hawk sent to district employees.

No, no, District Public Information Officer Jeff Puma replied.

It’s exempt, don’t you know? Look at FOIA Section 7(1)(c).

“Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”

To refresh your memories, here’s the relevant part of the District’s denial letter of April 15th:

“The District intends to deny your request for “the names of any faculty members who are currently on leave of absence and the date(s) such leave(s) of absence began:’ FOIA Section 7(1)(c) exempts the following:

personal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information. “Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” means the disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject’s right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information. The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy.

“Here, I believe that the disclosure of the requested information concerning employees’ leaves of absence would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of the employees’ personal privacy within the above definition.

“Leaves of absence are highly personal events (which do not necessarily involve an expenditure of public funds since many leaves of absence are unpaid) and their disclosure would be objectionable to a reasonable person.

“Moreover, the District’s employees have not consented to the disclosure of such information. Finally, though I acknowledge that the public may have a legitimate interest in this information, I believe this interest is outweighed by the employees’ rights to privacy.

“For these reasons, I intend to deny a portion of your request under Section 7(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act. Pursuant to Section 9.5(b) of FOIA, I will forward this letter to the Public Access Counselor for her review, for a determination whether any further inquiry is warranted, and for a determination whether the records you have requested are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 7(1)(c).”

Needless to say, I appealed to the Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General.

And I won.

Here’s the reply from Amalia Rioja, Chief Deputy Public Access Counselor:

“Section 7(1)(c) of FOIA exempts from inspection and copying “[p]ersonal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information.” 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c).

“The exemption defines “[u]nwarranted invasion of personal privacy” as “the disclosure of information that is highly personally or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject’s right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information.” Id. The disclosure of information that bears upon the duties of public employees, however, “shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy.” Id.

“The School District’s use of the Section 7(1)(c) exemption with regard to the names of faculty members who are currently on leaves of absence and the dates said leaves began is denied.”

“We have determined that the names of public employees who are on a leave of absence and the dates that said leaves of absence began bears on the their public duties and the disclosure of this information would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Whether a public employee is currently working or on a leave of absence is information, to which the public has a right to know. Moreover, even if an employee had a right to privacy with regard to this type of information, any such right is outweighed by the public’s legitimate interest in obtaining this information.”

“Accordingly, the School District should provide Mr. Skinner with the names of faculty members currently on leaves of absence and the dates upon which any such leaves commenced.”

Round 2.

Here’s what the Crystal Lake High School District provided on May 6, 2010 (received May 6th):

The information District 155 supplied about employees on leaves of absence and the dates such leaves began. Note the redactions.

My guess is that most of these leaves of absence result from the birth of a child. I know that is the case in one instance.

But, there is are redactions. One name and date is missing.

The excuse for keeping the information of whoever entered into a leave of absence between March 4th and March 29th (assuming the employees are listed in calendar order) is another section of the Freedom, Section 7(1)(n).

“Please see the included list for employees currently on leaves of absence including the date that such leaves began. The District has redacted an employee’s name since said employee is on administrative leave for a disciplinary case that has not yet been adjudicated. Records relating to a public body’s adjudication of employee disciplinary cases are not subject to FOIA under Section 7(1)(n).”

So, at least District 155 is admitting that someone is on leave of absence “for a disciplinary case that has not yet been adjudicated,” but won’t reveal who.

Is this one of those “two steps forward, one step back” situations?

We’ll find out as my second appeal is answered.

It is so delightful to have some referee other than circuit court for Freedom of Information request appeals.

I never appealed to circuit court. I figure I’ve spent enough time in McHenry County courtrooms to last a life time during my divorce proceedings. I spent every vacation and personal day for a couple of years there. So much so that I started calling it the “McHenry County Courthouse and Spa.”

Now, a simple email to the Public Access Attorney of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office gets an answer.

The most recent denied request I have appealed concerned Crystal Lake High School District 155′s refusal to provide the names of people currently on leaves of absence and the dates those leaves began.

Amalia Rioja, Chief Deputy Public Access Counselor wrote the following “Determination” April 26th,

“Section 7(1)(c) of FOIA exempts from inspection and copying “[p]ersonal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information.” 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c).

“The exemption defines “[u]nwarranted invasion of personal privacy” as “the disclosure of information that is highly personaly or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject’s right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information.” Id. The disclosure of information that bears upon the duties of public employees, however, “shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy.” Id.

“The School District’s use of the Section 7(1)(c) exemption with regard to the names of faculty members who are currently on leaves of absence and the dates said leaves began is denied.” (Emphasis in the original.)

“We have determined that the names of public employees who are on a leave of absence and the dates that said leaves of absence began bears on the their public duties and the disclosure of this information would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Whether a public employee is currently working or on a leave of absence is information, to which the public has a right to know. Moreover, even if an employee had a right to privacy with regard to this type of information, any such right is outweighed by the public’s legitimate interest in obtaining this information.” (Emphasis in the original.)

“Accordingly, the School District should provide Mr. Skinner with the names of faculty members currently on leaves of absence and the dates upon which any such leaves commenced.”

When the Northwest Herald started running articles about money being missing from some account at South High School, I tried to think of how I might be able to verify some of the elements of the story.

I got a statement from the Crystal Lake Police Department on April 9th.

I sought and received through a Freedom of Information request the email that was sent out to employees (turns out on the night of April 7th.) It was provided and you can see it below:

From: Jill Hawk
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 835 PM
To: D155-AII Email Recipients
Subject: information

Good Evening:

There is likely to be media coverage in the next few days of an incident relating to the management of funds by a staff member at one of our high schools.

At this time, we are not able to share details with you or the public as this is a confidential personnel issue. The situation is still evolving as we investigate.

However, I am mindful that many members of our D155 family will be impacted by what will be brought forward. I know your professionalism will serve the district well as rumors and speculation abound.

I have confidence that we will we work through this together.

Sincere [That's how my copy ends.]

Here is the denial of my leave of absence request from District 155 Freedom of Information Officer Scott Puma to my April 9th request for leave of absence information:

April 15,2010
Mr. Cal Skinner
275 Meridian St.
Crystal Lake, IL 60014

Response to FOIA Request -Community High School District 155

Dear Mr. Skinner:

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for Community High School District 155′s (“District”) public statement on the possible theft of money from Crystal Lake South High School and names of any faculty members who are currently on leave of absence and the date(s) such leave(s) of absence began. Your request was received on April 8, 2010, by the District, and is granted in part and it is the District’s intention to deny the request in part as follows.

Your request for the public statement on the possible theft of money from Crystal Lake South High School is granted and included here.

The District intends to deny your request for “the names of any faculty members who are currently on leave of absence and the date(s) such leave(s) of absence began:’ FOIA Section 7(1 )(c) exempts the following:

personal information contained within public records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information. “Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” means the disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject’s right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information. The disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy.

Here, I believe that the disclosure of the requested information concerning employees’ leaves of absence would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of the employees’ personal privacy within the above definition.

Leaves of absence are highly personal events (which do not necessarily involve an expenditure of public funds since many leaves of absence are unpaid) and their disclosure would be objectionable to a reasonable person.

Moreover, the District’s employees have not consented to the disclosure of such information. Finally, though I acknowledge that the public may have a legitimate interest in this information, I believe this interest is outweighed by the employees’ rights to privacy.

For these reasons, I intend to deny a portion of your request under Section 7( 1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act. Pursuant to Section 9.5(b) of FOIA, I will forward this letter to the Public Access Counselor for her review, for a determination whether any further inquiry is warranted, and for a determination whether the records you have requested are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 7(1 )(c).

Please be aware that our response to your request is pursuant to our understanding of your FOIA request. If we have misunderstood your request, please let us know as soon as possible so we may provide the correct information.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Here is the video that David Moore took of Grafton Township Trustee Betty Zirk making a motion to require all photographs, video recordings and tape recordings to be taken from the back of the room. It is Section 14 of the recordings of the April 8, 2010, meeting of the Grafton Township Board. From left to right, the trustees are Barbara Murphy, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon.

Betty Zirk makes the motion for what she calls “reasonable rules.” Photo is from David Moore's video.

Trustee Barb Murphy points to the back of the room where the Township Trustees' $250 a meeting videographer is recording the meeting. Photo is from David Moore's video taken from the front row of seats.

Gerry McMahon makes sure the public record includes his intention that Township Supervisor Linda Moore's husband, who took the video above, is included in the motion that all taking pictures of the meeting must be at least in the back row of chairs.

The article with my complaint and the initial reply from the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor’s Office can be found here. You may remember that the McHenry County Board considered a similar plan to banish photographers to the back of the county board room.  After pressure from the Northwest Herald, the board members changed their minds. And, here’s an ironic twist. The Northwest Herald lawyer who sued my on my birthday last summer defended my actions in taking photos. My guess is that, having sued me, the Northwest Herald won’t get involved this time around. They have no corporate stake in the matter. I’ve never seen a NW Herald photographer at one of Grafton Township’s regular or special township board meetings. Usually, there’s not even a reporter.