Opinion filed April 18, 2016 _____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2016

PEORIA JOURNAL STAR and MATT ) Appeal from the Circuit Court BUEDEL, ) of the 10th Judicial Circuit, ) Peoria County, Illinois. Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) Appeal No. 3-14-0838 v. ) Circuit No. 14-MR-288 ) The CITY OF PEORIA, ) The Honorable ) Michael P. McCuskey, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. _____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice O'Brien and Justice Carter concurred in the judgment and opinion. _____________________________________________________________________________

OPINION

¶1 Plaintiffs Peoria Journal Star and Matt Buedel filed a request, pursuant to the Illinois

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq. (West 2012)), seeking from defendant

City of Peoria (City) all special reports written by Sergeant Kerrie Davis of the Peoria Police

Department in 2013. The City responded by providing plaintiffs a copy of one report but refused

to provide another report written by Davis, asserting that it was exempt from disclosure under

FOIA. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking an order

compelling the City to release the undisclosed report. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding that the City failed to establish that the report

was exempt under FOIA. We affirm.

¶2 FACTS

¶3 On September 9, 2013, plaintiffs Peoria Journal Star, a newspaper, and Matt Buedel, a

crime reporter for the paper, filed a FOIA request with the City, seeking “[a]ll special reports

written by Sgt. Kerrie Davis in 2013, including any documents detailing the on-the-clock

activities of the Target Offender Unit.” The City responded, indicating that two reports were

prepared by Davis: one dated July 12, 2013, and one dated August 21, 2013. The City provided

plaintiffs a copy of the August 21, 2013 report but refused to provide the July 12, 2013 report,

asserting that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 7(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and 7(1)(n) of

FOIA (5 ILCS 140/7(1)(d)(i), (ii), 7(1)(n) (West 2012)).

¶4 Plaintiffs asked the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Bureau (Bureau) to

determine if the City’s denial complied with FOIA. After reviewing written arguments by both

parties, as well as the report itself, the Bureau issued a written opinion finding that sections

7(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and 7(1)(n) of FOIA did not exempt the report from disclosure. Nevertheless,

the City continued to withhold the report from plaintiffs.

¶5 In April 2014, plaintiffs filed a complaint against the City for declaratory and injunctive

relief, seeking an order compelling the City to release the report. Plaintiffs also filed a motion

for an order compelling defendant to provide an index of withheld documents. The City filed an

index of records withheld, stating that the special report of Davis dated July 12, 2013 “is a report

of an employee grievance and served as the factual basis which initiated two internal disciplinary

cases against two officers of the Peoria Police Department.” The City delivered a copy of the

report to the court for an in camera inspection.

2 ¶6 In August 2014, the trial court issued an order in favor of plaintiffs, finding that the City

failed to meet its burden of proving that the report was exempt from disclosure. The City filed a

motion to set aside the court’s order, which the trial court granted.

¶7 The City then filed a brief, asserting that the report was exempt under FOIA because it

was (1) created in the course of an administrative enforcement proceeding and would have

interfered with a pending law enforcement proceeding, and (2) related to a public body’s

adjudication of employee grievances or disciplinary cases. Attached to the brief was an affidavit

from Todd Green, Lieutenant of the City Police Department’s Professional Standards Division,

stating that the July 12, 2013 report was created as a grievance against employees and that based

on the report, formal disciplinary adjudications were conducted.

¶8 Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the City failed to meet its

burden of proving that the report is exempt under section 7(1)(n) of FOIA. The trial court

granted plaintiffs’ motion, holding that “the City has failed to meet its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Special Report is exempt under Section 7(1)(n).”

¶9 ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Under FOIA, “public records are presumed to be open and accessible.” Lieber v. Board

of Trustees of Southern Illinois University,

(1997); see also 5 ILCS 140/1.2

(West 2012) (“All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open

to inspection or copying.”). Section 1 of FOIA provides:

“Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of

government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that all

persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of

government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them as

3 public officials and public employees consistent with the terms of this Act. Such

access is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties of discussing public

issues fully and freely, making informed political judgments and monitoring

government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interest.” 5 ILCS

140/1 (West 2012).

¶ 11 Based on the legislature’s clearly stated intent, FOIA’s exemptions are to be read

narrowly. Illinois Education Ass’n v. Illinois State Board of Education,

(2003); Lieber,

. When a public body receives a request for information, it must

comply with the request unless one of the narrow statutory exemptions applies. Illinois

Education Ass’n,

; Lieber,

.

¶ 12 The public body has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a record

falls within a claimed exemption. 5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2012). To meet this burden, the public

body must provide a detailed justification for its claim of exemption, addressing the requested

documents specifically and in a manner allowing for adequate adversarial testing. Illinois

Education Ass’n,

.

¶ 13 FOIA’s exemptions are set forth in section 7. See 5 ILCS 140/7 (West 2012). Section

7(1)(n) provides an exemption for “[r]ecords relating to a public body's adjudication of employee

grievances or disciplinary cases.” 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(n) (West 2012). FOIA does not define

“adjudication;” however, it is “generally understood to involve a formalized legal process that

results in a final and enforceable decision.” Kalven v. City of Chicago,

. Additionally, the phrase “relating to” must be read narrowly and in light of

FOIA’s purpose to generally provide open access to public records. Id. ¶ 22.

4 ¶ 14 A complaint or grievance is part of an investigatory process that is separate and distinct

from a disciplinary adjudication. Id. ¶ 14. A complaint or grievance initiates an investigative

process; any disciplinary adjudication that may take place as a result of the investigation comes

later. Id. ¶ 20. Even if a substantiated complaint or grievance results in disciplinary proceedings

being instituted, the complaint or grievance does not fall within the section 7(1)(n) exemption

because the disciplinary proceedings “are a different matter entirely.” Id.

¶ 15 Here, the City asserts that the report at issue falls under section 7(1)(n) of FOIA. In its

pleadings, the City described the document as “a report of an employee grievance and served as

the factual basis which initiated two internal disciplinary cases against two officers of the Peoria

Police Department.” Further, according to Green’s affidavit, formal disciplinary adjudications

were conducted “based on the report.”

¶ 16 The report constituted a grievance that was investigated, substantiated and ultimately

resulted in disciplinary proceedings. However, the report was created well before any

adjudication took place and existed independent of any adjudication. That the report later led to

disciplinary action against two officers is insufficient to make it exempt under FOIA. See

Kalven,

. The trial court correctly ruled that the City did not

meet its burden of establishing that the report came within FOIA’s section 7(1)(n) exemption.

¶ 17 CONCLUSION

¶ 18 The judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.

¶ 19 Affirmed.

5