Bill Text: IL HB2615 | 2019-2020 | 101st General Assembly | Introduced

---

Bill Title: Amends the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Provides that "substantially prevails" and "prevails" mean: (1) the party obtains some of his or her requested relief through a judicial order in his or her favor or through any settlement agreement approved by the court; or (2) the pursuit of a nonfrivolous claim was a catalyst for a unilateral change in position by the opposing party relative to the relief sought.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)

Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2019-03-29 - Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee [HB2615 Detail]

Download: Illinois-2019-HB2615-Introduced.html

---

101ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY State of Illinois 2019 and 2020 HB2615 Introduced , by Rep. Amy Grant SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
5 ILCS 120/3 from Ch. 102, par. 43
5 ILCS 140/11 from Ch. 116, par. 211
Amends the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act. Provides that "substantially prevails" and "prevails" mean: (1) the party obtains some of his or her requested relief through a judicial order in his or her favor or through any settlement agreement approved by the court; or (2) the pursuit of a nonfrivolous claim was a catalyst for a unilateral change in position by the opposing party relative to the relief sought.
LRB101 09710 HEP 54809 b
A BILL FOR
HB2615 LRB101 09710 HEP 54809 b
AN ACT concerning government.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:
Section 5. The Open Meetings Act is amended by changing
Section 3 as follows:
(5 ILCS 120/3) (from Ch. 102, par. 43)
Sec. 3. (a) Where the provisions of this Act are not
complied with, or where there is probable cause to believe that
the provisions of this Act will not be complied with, any
person, including the State's Attorney of the county in which
such noncompliance may occur, may bring a civil action in the
circuit court for the judicial circuit in which the alleged
noncompliance has occurred or is about to occur, or in which
the affected public body has its principal office, prior to or
within 60 days of the meeting alleged to be in violation of
this Act or, if facts concerning the meeting are not discovered
within the 60-day period, within 60 days of the discovery of a
violation by the State's Attorney or, if the person timely
files a request for review under Section 3.5, within 60 days of
the decision by the Attorney General to resolve a request for
review by a means other than the issuance of a binding opinion
under subsection (e) of Section 3.5.
Records that are obtained by a State's Attorney from a

HB2615 - 2 - LRB101 09710 HEP 54809 b
public body for purposes of reviewing whether the public body
has complied with this Act may not be disclosed to the public.
Those records, while in the possession of the State's Attorney,
are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act.
(b) In deciding such a case the court may examine in camera
any portion of the minutes of a meeting at which a violation of
the Act is alleged to have occurred, and may take such
additional evidence as it deems necessary.
(c) The court, having due regard for orderly administration
and the public interest, as well as for the interests of the
parties, may grant such relief as it deems appropriate,
including granting a relief by mandamus requiring that a
meeting be open to the public, granting an injunction against
future violations of this Act, ordering the public body to make
available to the public such portion of the minutes of a
meeting as is not authorized to be kept confidential under this
Act, or declaring null and void any final action taken at a
closed meeting in violation of this Act.
(d) The court may assess against any party, except a
State's Attorney, reasonable attorney's fees and other
litigation costs reasonably incurred by any other party who
substantially prevails in any action brought in accordance with
this Section, provided that costs may be assessed against any
private party or parties bringing an action pursuant to this
Section only upon the court's determination that the action is

HB2615 - 3 - LRB101 09710 HEP 54809 b
malicious or frivolous in nature. As used in this Section,
"substantially prevails" means: (1) the party obtains some of
his or her requested relief through a judicial order in his or
her favor or through any settlement agreement approved by the
court; or (2) the pursuit of a nonfrivolous claim was a
catalyst for a unilateral change in position by the opposing
party relative to the relief sought.
(Source: P.A. 99-714, eff. 8-5-16.)
Section 10. The Freedom of Information Act is amended by
changing Section 11 as follows:
(5 ILCS 140/11) (from Ch. 116, par. 211)
Sec. 11. (a) Any person denied access to inspect or copy
any public record by a public body may file suit for injunctive
or declaratory relief.
(a-5) In accordance with Section 11.6 of this Act, a
requester may file an action to enforce a binding opinion
issued under Section 9.5 of this Act.
(b) Where the denial is from a public body of the State,
suit may be filed in the circuit court for the county where the
public body has its principal office or where the person denied
access resides.
(c) Where the denial is from a municipality or other public
body, except as provided in subsection (b) of this Section,
suit may be filed in the circuit court for the county where the

HB2615 - 4 - LRB101 09710 HEP 54809 b
public body is located.
(d) The circuit court shall have the jurisdiction to enjoin
the public body from withholding public records and to order
the production of any public records improperly withheld from
the person seeking access. If the public body can show that
exceptional circumstances exist, and that the body is
exercising due diligence in responding to the request, the
court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency additional
time to complete its review of the records.
(e) On motion of the plaintiff, prior to or after in camera
inspection, the court shall order the public body to provide an
index of the records to which access has been denied. The index
shall include the following:
(i) A description of the nature or contents of each
document withheld, or each deletion from a released
document, provided, however, that the public body shall not
be required to disclose the information which it asserts is
exempt; and
(ii) A statement of the exemption or exemptions claimed
for each such deletion or withheld document.
(f) In any action considered by the court, the court shall
consider the matter de novo, and shall conduct such in camera
examination of the requested records as it finds appropriate to
determine if such records or any part thereof may be withheld
under any provision of this Act. The burden shall be on the
public body to establish that its refusal to permit public

HB2615 - 5 - LRB101 09710 HEP 54809 b
inspection or copying is in accordance with the provisions of
this Act. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt
from disclosure has the burden of proving that it is exempt by
clear and convincing evidence.
(g) In the event of noncompliance with an order of the
court to disclose, the court may enforce its order against any
public official or employee so ordered or primarily responsible
for such noncompliance through the court's contempt powers.
(h) Except as to causes the court considers to be of
greater importance, proceedings arising under this Section
shall take precedence on the docket over all other causes and
be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable
date and expedited in every way.
(i) If a person seeking the right to inspect or receive a
copy of a public record prevails in a proceeding under this
Section, the court shall award such person reasonable
attorney's fees and costs. In determining what amount of
attorney's fees is reasonable, the court shall consider the
degree to which the relief obtained relates to the relief
sought. As used in this Section, "prevails" means: (1) the
party obtains some of his or her requested relief through a
judicial order in his or her favor or through any settlement
agreement approved by the court; or (2) the pursuit of a
nonfrivolous claim was a catalyst for a unilateral change in
position by the opposing party relative to the relief sought.
The changes contained in this subsection apply to an action

HB2615 - 6 - LRB101 09710 HEP 54809 b
filed on or after January 1, 2010 (the effective date of Public
Act 96-542).
(j) If the court determines that a public body willfully
and intentionally failed to comply with this Act, or otherwise
acted in bad faith, the court shall also impose upon the public
body a civil penalty of not less than $2,500 nor more than
$5,000 for each occurrence. In assessing the civil penalty, the
court shall consider in aggravation or mitigation the budget of
the public body and whether the public body has previously been
assessed penalties for violations of this Act. The court may
impose an additional penalty of up to $1,000 for each day the
violation continues if:
(1) the public body fails to comply with the court's
order after 30 days;
(2) the court's order is not on appeal or stayed; and
(3) the court does not grant the public body additional
time to comply with the court's order to disclose public
records.
The changes contained in this subsection made by Public Act
96-542 apply to an action filed on or after January 1, 2010
(the effective date of Public Act 96-542).
(k) The changes to this Section made by this amendatory Act
of the 99th General Assembly apply to actions filed on or after
the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 99th General
Assembly.
(Source: P.A. 99-586, eff. 1-1-17; 99-642, eff. 7-28-16.)