On August 26th, 2011, Governor Quinn approved a new bill that adds a new category to the Freedom of Information Act. The bill "establishes procedures that public bodies are to use in responding to requests from recurrent requesters."*

A recurrent requestor is a person that submits a request to the same public body "a minimum of 50 requests for records, a minimum of 15 requests for records within a 30-day period, or a minimum of 7 requests for records within a 7-day period"*, all within 12 months. 

Less than one month after Governor Quinn signed the ‘Recurrent Requester’ provision of FOIA, public bodies are invoking it to punish civic participants, as shown in this letter. They combined the number of requests of a husband and wife to say that they are recurrent requesters, and denied their FOIA request. 

What is your opinion on this?

By Maryam Judar

Redistricting and the Illinois experience are illustrative of why the people clamor for transparency, and how public officials cynically use transparency to gain advantage. The clamor is easy to explain: Fair redistricting practices drive competition at the ballot. Competition is central to our nation’s democracy: robust debate is a foundational value of our political system. A lack of competitive views reflected on the ballot reduces voters’ choices. The lack of meaningful choice on ballots is a common complaint by voters. Revised redistricting procedures that benefit the public rather than elected officials may ameliorate the public’s frustration with lack of candidate choice, and it may spur more people to vote.

These days the term “transparency” is bandied about at all levels of our government. Some of the clamor comes from the citizenry who are anxious about the activities of their governments and need a means of holding them accountable; and while some public officials jump on the transparency bandwagon and trumpet its virtues in hopes of using it as a political vehicle to gain advantage, others sincerely believe in transparency’s importance and join the discussion. Transparency, while having little-examined benefits for government officials and employees, ultimately protects the people from government mismanagement and unethical behavior. In the national and state-wide debates, the importance of transparency is best told by stories that exemplify what is at stake for all members of the public, and from the public’s perspective. 

Read the entire blog here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/09/01/illinois-and-the-case-for-open-redistricting/