Results of Algonquin Township Clerk’s Hidden Camera Subpoena

The information sought in the “camera” subpoena sought by Algonquin Township Clerk Karen Lukasik 

When I received information contained in the subpoena (see above) from Algonquin Township Clerk Karen Lukasik served on Township Supervisor employee Ryan Provenzano, I filed another Freedom of Information request for what was provided.

Township Attorney Jim Kelly replied that everything was exempt from discover through the FOI Act this was the reply:

“Algonquin Township has tendered no documents in response to the subpoena served upon Mr. Provenzano.

“Further the information which you are requesting is exempt from disclosure pursuant to section  140/7(1)(u) of the Freedom of Information Act.

“The information you are seeking is confidential information which pertains to the operation of security systems…

“You should be advised however, in the pending lawsuit concerning the records you are seeking there is also a pending motion for issuance of a protective order which will prevent the disclosure of the documents subject to the subpoena.”

After a second inquiry, Kelly responded,

“…there is one document which would be responsive to your request which is not exempt from disclosure.”

You can see it below:

Receipt for purchase of camera found in Algonquin Township Clerk’s storage room.


Results of Algonquin Township Clerk’s Hidden Camera Subpoena — 12 Comments

  1. Typical township skullduggery; I’m so glad the rotten Millers are cleaned out!

    All of this would have remained hidden.

    Nepotism reeks, and Algonquin was cesspool, uncleaned for half a century.

    Bandito Bobby’s Motto:

  2. A public body can’t run into court, request that the court enter a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of documents, and use that court order as a basis to deny a FOIA request.

    See Carbondale Convention Center v. City of Carbondale, 614 N.E.2d 539, 541 (5th Dist. 1993)

    (“Defendant asserts that the trial court’s dismissal order strictly prohibits defendant from disclosing the terms or conditions of the settlement agreement, and that such an order constitutes State law.

    (Assuming for purposes of this argument and without so holding that such an order is a ‘State law,’ we find this position incompatible with the intent of the Act.

    (In the case at bar, defendant requested the court to impose the gag order.

    (Therefore, the ‘State law’ defendant asserts as exempting disclosure of the agreement exists, in part, as a result of defendant’s efforts to prevent disclosure of the agreement.

    (Since such an action contradicts the purpose and intent of the Act under which the exemptions are intended as shields rather than swords, we hold section 7(1)(a) does not apply as a possible exemption in this case.”).

    Cal, you should sue out of principal.

  3. The receipt shows the purchase of a “3 Pack”. Where are the other two cameras?

  4. Cal don’t sue, there are more than enough lawyers making $$$ off this gov agency.

    Have patience, the leaked info out of that place is worst than in DC.

  5. If there’s a provenzano involved, there is sleaze present.

  6. Wow what did I mis

    s?….I don’t understand whats going on here…..

    So Lutzow buys some cameras…

    Is there an accusation?

    ..why did Ryan Provenzano get served?

    instead of calling each other names…why don’t we work together to get the to the truth?

    just saying

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.