Customer Name:
David Giuliani
| (Note: This is largely the reproduction of a previous public records request for documents from another requester. For that requester| the results were redacted documents. I believe they should be not redacted. I will explain to school officials why I believe that to be mistaken.) The June 16| 2020 letter from Saxman and Nuñez produced at pages 7-8 of the FOIA response to FOIA Request R000923- 092021 on the D86 FOIA log| states in the last paragraph: “Once we are able to finalize the project scope| we will submit a contract and invoice.” Please produce PDF’s (electronic copies) of the following documents: Any emails or other correspondence dated on or after August 1| 2021 through the date of this FOIA request| to/from/between ANY current board member (Walker| Hirsman| James| Levinthal| Waters| Held| Hanson)| Superintendent Prentiss and/or Deb Kedrowski that reference the contract mentioned in the June 15| 2020 letter — i.e. the first contract D86 entered into with Saxman and Nuñez (also known as ANEW). 3. Any emails or other correspondence dated on or after August 1| 2021 through the date of this FOIA request| to/from/between ANY current board member (Walker| Hirsman| James| Levinthal| Waters| Held| Hanson)| Superintendent Prentiss and/or Deb Kedrowski that reference any other contract with Saxman and ANEW that was presented for board approval at the August 12| 2021 board meeting. |
Response:
| Your request is denied. As the District has previously stated| the records have been redacted pursuant to valid FOIA exemptions as the communications in question are preliminary drafts| notes| recommendations| memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed| or policies or actions are formulated| pursuant to Section 7(1) (f) of FOIA; this includes “predecisional and deliberative material” which the Attorney General has repeatedly stated falls within the Section 7(1)(f) exemption. Harwood v. McDonough| 344 Ill. App. 3d 242| 247 (1st Dist. 2003). Moreover| the redacted portions of the emails have not been publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body. Further| while the redacted materials reference a past contract| they consist of opinions and recommendations for future policies or actions. While some of the redacted materials are| in fact| preliminary to policy formulation| others are preliminary to other Board actions| including action on a contract| which falls within the “policies or actions” language under 7(1)(f). 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(f). As you know| the exemption is “intended to protect the communications process and encourage frank and open discussion among agency employees.” Harwood| 344 Ill. App. 3d at 247-48. In this case| the redacted materials fit within the spirit and letter of exemption 7(1)(f). |