FOIA Request: Law Dept Vetting

Invisible Institute filed this request with the City of Chicago Department of Law of Chicago, IL.
Submitted Feb. 25, 2017
Status
Rejected

Communications

From: Chaclyn Hunt

Subject: Illinois Freedom of Information Act Request: FOIA Request: Law Dept Vetting

Email

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 to 11), I hereby request the following records:

A Law Department lawyer told City Council in April 2016 that Johnson had been through “the same level of scrutiny and review” as candidates vetted by the Police Board, according to an Aldertrack report. I request the following documents related to that scrutiny and review:

• A description of the vetting process Eddie Johnson was subjected to before being confirmed as Superintendent of the CPD
• The names of who vetted Johnson
• The names of any and all CPD documents or materials reviewed during the vetting process. (This is not requesting the contents of the documents, simply their titles, eg Tactical Response Report or Complaint Register.)
• The names of any third-party groups, bodies, or organizations engaged in any way in the vetting process

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Chaclyn Hunt

From: LAWFOIA

Subject: RE: Illinois Freedom of Information Act Request: FOIA Request: Law Dept Vetting

Email

April 10, 2017

Chaclyn Hunt

Via email at requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>

Dear Ms. Hunt,

This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the City of Chicago Law Department, which was received in our offices on February 25, 2017. We thank you for your patience as we worked to process your FOIA. In your request, you seek:

A Law Department lawyer told City Council in April 2016 that Johnson had been through “the same level of scrutiny and review” as candidates vetted by the Police Board, according to an Aldertrack report. I request the following documents related to that scrutiny and review:

• A description of the vetting process Eddie Johnson was subjected to before being confirmed as Superintendent of the CPD
• The names of who vetted Johnson
• The names of any and all CPD documents or materials reviewed during the vetting process. (This is not requesting the contents of the documents, simply their titles, eg Tactical Response Report or Complaint Register.)
• The names of any third-party groups, bodies, or organizations engaged in any way in the vetting process

The Law Department has no responsive records.

Sincerely,

[FOIASignature]

Chloe K. Rasmas

Freedom of Information Officer

From: City of Chicago Department of Law

Subject: RE: Illinois Freedom of Information Act Request: FOIA Request: Law Dept Vetting

Email

February 21, 2018

Chaclyn Hunt

Via email at requests@muckrock.com

Dear Ms. Hunt,

On behalf of the City of Chicago Department of Law, I am responding to your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request which was dated February 13, 2018 received in our offices on the same day. At this time, the Law Department is seeking an extension of five additional working days to respond to the request for one or more of the following reasons identified in 5 ILCS 140/3(e) of FOIA:
( ) the requested records are stored in whole or in part at other locations than the office having charge of the requested records;
( ) the request requires the collection of a substantial number of specified records;
( ) the request is couched in categorical terms and requires an extensive search for the records responsive to it;
( ) the requested records have not been located in the course of routine search and additional efforts are being made to locate them;
( ) the requested records require examination and evaluation by personnel having the necessary competence and discretion to determine if they are exempt from disclosure under Section 7 of the FOIA or should be revealed only with appropriate deletions;
( ) the request for records cannot be complied with by the public body within the time limits prescribed by 5 ILCS 140/3(d) without unduly burdening or interfering with the operations of the public body;

(xx) there is need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another public body or among two or more components of a public body having a substantial interest in the determination or in the subject matter of the request.

Sincerely,

Tom Skelton

FOIA Officer – Department of Law

From: City of Chicago Department of Law

Subject: RE: Illinois Freedom of Information Act Request: FOIA Request: Law Dept Vetting

Email

February 28, 2018

Chaclyn Hunt

Via email at requests@muckrock.com

Dear Ms. Hunt,

On behalf of the City of Chicago Department of Law, I am responding to your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request which was dated February 13, 2018 received in our offices on the same day. You requested:

Requesting

• A description of the vetting process Eddie Johnson was subjected to before being confirmed as Superintendent of the CPD

• The names of who vetted Johnson

• The names of any and all CPD documents or materials reviewed during the vetting process. (This is not requesting the contents of the documents, simply their titles, eg Tactical Response Report or Complaint Register.)

• The names of any third-party groups, bodies, or organizations engaged in any way in the vetting process.

Your request is unduly burdensome. Section 3(g) of FOIA states that “[r]epeated requests from the same person for the same records that are unchanged or identical to records previously provided or properly denied under this Act shall be deemed unduly burdensome under this provision.” You made the exact same request to the Law Department on February 25, 2017. The Law Department properly responded that it had no responsive records on April 10, 2017. Thus, you request on February 13, 2018 is unduly burdensome because it is unchanged or identical from a request that was previously properly denied under the Act.

Sincerely,

Tom Skelton

FOIA Officer – Department of Law

Files

pages

 Close