01/07/2014

By: Brittany Flaherty Theis

The Fourth District Appellate Court handed down a decision in favor of multiple taxing bodies from Madison County in November 2013.Whitt Law LLC and Donald M. Craven, P.C. fought hard for the taxing bodies’ interests in Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. WRB Refining, LP, 2013 IL App (4th) 120825, and are pleased to share the appellate court’s decision regarding the Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act.

In March 2012, Whitt Law and Donald M. Craven, P.C. filed a complaint against the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”), the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”), the Illinois Department of Revenue, and WRB Refining, LP (“WRB”) on behalf of several Madison County taxing bodies (the “Taxing Bodies”) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for the defendants’ violations of the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Specifically, the Taxing Bodies alleged the Agency failed to timely respond to multiple FOIA requests. In one such instance, the Agency waited nearly three months before providing the requested information to the Taxing Bodies.

The Taxing Bodies also alleged that the Board violated the OMA by holding “closed deliberative sessions” in which it analyzed applications for preferential property tax treatment for pollution control facilities. In its filings, WRB claimed these facilities cost billions of dollars. Once certified, these alleged pollution control facilities would be removed from the local property tax rolls. For that reason, the Taxing Bodies sought to intervene and participate in public hearings regarding the potential certification of these facilities. However, after discussions in “closed deliberative session,” the equipment was certified as pollution control facilities in a meeting that the public could attend, but at which the public could not comment. The Taxing Bodies alleged this process violated the OMA.

In August 2012, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the Agency and Board complied with the requirements of the FOIA and the OMA. The Taxing Bodies appealed arguing that the uncontested facts showed the Agency violated the FOIA by not providing the requested public records as statutorily mandated. The Fourth District Appellate Court agreed with the Taxing Bodies. The court stated it was not persuaded by the defendants’ claim that the Taxing Bodies were not entitled to any relief because the Agency eventually complied with the FOIA request. It held that the Agency “clearly violated FOIA by not providing the public records plaintiffs requested as statutorily mandated, and the trial court erred by finding otherwise.” The Taxing Bodies’ requests for attorney fees and a civil penalty survive, regardless of the fact the information was eventually provided to the Taxing Bodies. This issue was remanded to the trial court for further consideration.

On appeal, the Taxing Bodies also argued the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in the defendant’s favor because the uncontested facts showed the Board violated the OMA. The appellate court agreed and held that 1.) the Board’s consideration of the applications for certification in “closed deliberative session” did not fall under exception 2(c)(4) regarding evidence or testimony presented in open hearing, and 2.) the subsequent approval in public meetings that did not allow for public comment violated the OMA. The Board’s “actions not only violated the aforementioned specific sections of the Open Meetings Act but also its overarching purpose.” Therefore, the Fourth District Appellate Court ruled in favor of the Taxing Bodies and reversed the trial court’s judgment on that Count as well.

If you have questions regarding how Whitt Law can assist your school district or government body with the Freedom of Information Act or Open Meetings Act, contact Whitt Law Partner Stuart Whitt.