SB2167 amends the Illinois Freedom of Information Act to change how public bodies may charge fees for responding to public records requests, especially voluminous requests. The bill removes the requirement that a public body provide an accounting of all personnel hours when it imposes a fee for a voluminous request, while leaving in place the general fee framework for copies, electronic records, and commercial requests.
The measure keeps the existing structure that allows public bodies to charge set amounts for large electronic requests based on file size, and it continues to permit fees for search, retrieval, and redaction time only for commercial requests. It also preserves the current rules on free pages, copy charges, certification fees, and fee waivers when disclosure is in the public interest.
Impact
If enacted, SB2167 would amend Section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act by eliminating the obligation to provide a detailed accounting of personnel hours for voluminous-request fees, reducing one disclosure requirement for public bodies. The bill would not broadly change who can request records or the basic fee limits, but it would affect how agencies document and justify certain FOIA charges, particularly for large electronic requests and commercial requests. It would therefore primarily impact state and local public bodies that process FOIA requests, as well as requesters who seek records in bulk or for commercial purposes.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the overall sentiment appears neutral and administrative rather than ideological. The proposal is framed as a technical adjustment to FOIA fee procedures, suggesting an effort to simplify agency compliance and reduce paperwork. There is no available evidence in the provided materials of organized support or opposition, but the subject matter typically draws interest from transparency advocates, journalists, and public bodies that manage request burdens.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between government transparency and administrative burden. Requesters and open-government advocates may view the removal of personnel-hour accounting as reducing accountability and making it harder to challenge fees, while public bodies may support the change as a way to streamline processing and avoid detailed tracking requirements. A secondary issue is the continued distinction between commercial and noncommercial requests, since the bill preserves fee authority for commercial requests and large-volume electronic production, which can remain controversial for frequent or large-scale requesters.