STATE OF THE STATE
Illinoisans should have opportunities to get a firsthand look at government
by Burney Simpson

The old saying that likens law making to sausage making still applies in the state that claims the city known as hog butcher to the world.

In fact, in a state with more than 6,000 governmental units, Illinoisans should have plenty of opportunities to get a firsthand look at politics in action. But sometimes it isn’t all that easy. And this spring, Illinois lawmakers chose not to make it any more so.

In this past session, a number of initiatives were introduced that were designed to further open the process of governance. None made it to the governor’s desk. One proposal would have required legislators to post debates and votes on the Internet. Several were designed to strengthen the state’s Freedom of Information Act. All of these ideas were stifled in legislative committees by a leadership uncomfortable with or indifferent to sharing with the public information about their deliberations.

Senate President James “Pate” Philip responded to the Internet proposal by arguing it would just “clutter up” the computer information system. And who, he asked, would even want to read that stuff ? When he was asked about the idea, Gov. George Ryan said “I don’t care.”

In Illinois, proposals to open government have always faced outright hostility or indifference. Ignorance, too. Even among those some might assume to be more sophisticated.

Last March, for example, The News-Gazette in Champaign reported that the board of the University of Illinois met behind closed doors to plan for a public debate on its controversial mascot Chief Illiniwek. The newspaper reported that was an apparent violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act, which allows for closed meetings in narrowly defined cases, including personnel matters. And the board of Northern Illinois University faces a lawsuit from the student paper on that campus for closing its meetings to discuss personnel — it was looking for a new president — but failing to adequately inform the public the meetings were taking place.

The emphasis on open government in the spring legislative session arose from an investigation last year by The Associated Press and 14 other news organizations across the state. Reporters went to municipal offices in all 102 counties and requested a variety of documents, all of them part of the public record. From the jails, they wanted a list of prisoners. From some cities, they asked for council meeting minutes. To minimize special treatment, the reporters did not identify themselves or say why they wanted the information. In nearly two-thirds of the cases, the reporters left the offices without the information, according to the AP. And in 25 percent of all cases, the reporter never received the information, even after filing a written request and allowing officials time to reply.

This investigation followed a similar project organized in Indiana in 1997. Reporters in that state found the same response as their Illinois colleagues. But the newspaper series that followed prompted Indiana to create a public access office to help citizens with information requests. In addition, anyone who sues and wins an appeal after being denied public information will get their legal costs reimbursed.

According to one leader of the investigation in Illinois, this state’s newspapers knew many local officials had difficulty complying with the law. “All the editors had been in situations where they or their reporters had been denied [access] when they shouldn’t have been,” says Dana Heupel, Statehouse editor for The State Journal-Register in Springfield. Heupel analyzed the findings of the Illinois investigation.

But according to the Illinois Municipal League, which represents cities and towns before the General

Illinois Issues May 2000 | 8

Assembly, there is another side to this story. Ken Alderson, the league’s director, says the AP investigation may have been flawed because it wasn’t clear whether the investigators were even asking the right person for information. “They may have spoken to a file clerk who probably doesn’t know FOI law. We have suggested that municipalities name someone as their FOI officer and set a procedure on dealing with requests,” says Alderson.

The league also is concerned about the occasional gadfly who pesters municipalities for information. Chicago alone gets anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 requests a year, according to Martin Stack, the city’s FOI coordinator. Many of those requests are formalities necessary to help a contractor move through the government maze in the departments of revenue and buildings. But Stack and his one assistant must address thousands of requests with the uneven assistance of city agencies.

“Some departments are better than others. Let’s face it; this is a bureaucracy with 45,000 employees,” he says. “And there are departments like the police that have a lot of angst about FOIs. It may take them time to decide or to just turn over [the information].”

Even with these concerns, the AP investigation was an eye-opener. There is no way to determine how many information requests are filed in Illinois, or the compliance rate by local and state offices. Individual state agencies, though, may keep their own records.

One proposal promoted this spring by Attorney General Jim Ryan was similar to the Indiana law. Those denied an FOI request could go to his office for help in appealing the decision. If an appeal proved the denial was in error, the office that denied the request could be liable to pay legal fees. The measure included a provision that would deter reckless filing of information requests.

A similar proposal by Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie would have hung a Sword of Damocles over those governmental bodies that turn down a request. Under the measure, those seeking information could be reimbursed legal fees if their request were denied and they sued to overturn that decision.

“We don’t have an effective means of enforcing FOI,” says Currie. “This is one way to address an unresponsive bureaucracy. If someone wins their appeal, they get reimbursed.”

Efforts weren’t confined to municipalities. A good-government group called the Coalition for Consumer Rights was pushing a measure that would open up court records in cases involving public hazards where a settlement has been reached. One impetus was a case involving BP Amoco. The multinational petrochemical giant found that occupational exposure probably caused six of its workers in a Naperville building to develop a rare form of brain cancer. The firm reached a settlement with five of the workers in March, but fought to keep the details sealed. A judge ruled that in some of the cases, terms of the settlements should be made public. Still, the coalition argued that opening all of the settlements could help workers and businesses avoid potential medical disasters.

All of these proposals passed the House but were assigned to a Senate committee, where they were stopped cold. Another measure suffered a similar fate, but became a major open-government success story.

Common Cause pressed to put the General Assembly’s records on the Internet for all to see and hear. The leaders of the two chambers — Speaker Michael Madigan in the House, and Philip in the Senate — have the authority to allow that, but the law does not require it. A proposal, sponsored in the House by Rep. Art Tenhouse, a Republican from Liberty, called for the posting of roll call votes online within two business days, broadcasting floor debate on the Web through audio streaming and making searchable transcripts of floor debates available 10 days after the beginning of the following legislative session.

The proposal sailed through the House and earned bipartisan support in the Senate. Co-sponsor Sen. Christine Radogno said, “This is public information that citizens are entitled to. And there’s no reason not to pass it.” At a press conference, the Republican from LaGrange and Rep. Lou Lang, a Democrat from Skokie, discounted concerns that legislators would grandstand for live debates. The proposal ended up stalling, but supporters could count two victories. A Senate subcommittee will hold three public hearings this summer to explore expanding information the General Assembly could put on the Internet. And Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, ordered that House roll calls and the daily journal of floor activity be provided on the Internet. Real time audio is still in the planning stages.

That’s a good first step, allows Jim Howard, executive director of Illinois Common Cause, adding that information shouldn’t be controlled by politicians. “Citizens need to know this will be available and not released at the whim of a legislative leader,” he says. “The bottom line is we need legislation to protect citizen access to information.”

Meanwhile, Beth Bennett, government affairs manager for the Illinois Press Association, says her group plans to promote a comprehensive open government measure next year that will include many of the proposals that have been simmering in Springfield for the past several years. And, she says, if that means jettisoning the Freedom of Information Act itself, so be it. “I’m tired of putting out good legislation and getting no enthusiasm from the General Assembly. If we have to go around FOI, we will.”

Of course, no one has come up with a way to guarantee that Illinoisans will get better laws — or sausages. .

Illinois Issues May 2000 | 9