IDOC – Where is the Truth And Transparency?

Illinois (ECWd) –

We recently reported on the $30,000 plus Christmas parties that the Illinois Department of Corrections hosted in this article.  Within the Office of Executive Inspector Generals’ report in that article was a specific claim regarding cash that was distributed to certain employees at the party.

“[IDOC Employee 6] was asked about the checks for $6,100 and $3,000 that were made out to him from the EBF account. He explained that the $6,100 check was prize money for the Christmas party; he said the cash from the check was stuffed into envelopes and distributed to prizewinners at the party, who signed receipts for the amounts. He said the $3,000 check was for awards given to the Employee of the Year and nominees for that award; he said there were also receipts for those awards.” (emphasis added)

We submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the following.

1. A copy of the check written from the EBF Springfield account on November 28, 2016, for $6,100.00 with a description of “Christmas Party Cash Prizes”.
2. A copy of the check written from the EBF Springfield account on May 4, 2017, for $3,000.00 with a description of “Employee/Officer of the Year Nominees.”
3. A copy of all signed receipts for the prize winners at the 2016 Christmas party. 
4. A copy of all signed receipts for the awards given to the Employee of the Year and nominees for that award in 2017
5. A copy of all expenditures, to include receipts, hotel receipts/invoices related to the 2016 Christmas party in Springfield.

The response, as expected:

“IDOC does not possess or maintain records responsive to your request.”

It would appear IDOC needs a lesson on the FOIA law.  Checks written could be easily obtained from the bank, which would have brought transparency and accountability as it relates to items #1 and #2.

Noted in the response was the following:

**Please note: the records have exceeded the retention period required under policy.**

Policy?

The retention obligation of public records does not fall under a policy but rather a state-issued authorization to destroy records as outlined in the State Records Act at this link.

Each FOIA response leads to another request.

1. A copy of the record retention policies that have been in place since 2016.
2. A copy of all the requests for record destruction since 2016.
3. A copy of all the records destruction certificates issued in the last 10 years.

The response is yet another sign of how bad our government accountability is.

They provided an unsigned and not dated APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY Application No. 86:123 TO DISPOSE OF STATE RECORDS and claimed that it was for item number 1. There is a huge difference between a policy and a state-issued authorization.  Not only was the document not signed or dated by any DOC  Agency Head as required, but we found nothing that would have allowed signed receipts for cash and invoices for hotels to be destroyed in that application after our review of over 220 pages of information.  If we missed it, please let us know so we can update accordingly.

“Response: The above requests are vague and overly broad. A reasonable description requires the requested record to be reasonably identified as a record not as a general request for data, information and statistics to be gleaned generally from documents which have not been created and which the agency does not generally create or require. (Krohn v. Department of Justice, 628 F.2d 195 (D.D.Cir. 1980), 5 ILCS 140/3(g)). While intended to be more inclusive, phrases such as “any and all”, or “including but not limited to” have the opposite impact on an agency like IDOC. IDOC oversees dozens of facilities, central offices, parole offices, adult transitional housing centers, county jails and more. At any given time IDOC oversees 30,000+ Individuals in Custody and staff numbering near 10,000. Many IDOC records are decades old and kept in formats unfriendly to discovery and rapid reproduction.

Given the above, IDOC asks you to tailor your request more narrowly by date, location, and the name or as close to possible description of the records being sought.  If there are specific instances or events that center the records being sought, please include those as well.

We narrowed our request for items #1 and 2; however, we disagree that it was necessary.

#2 – A copy of the requests for record destruction submitted to the state records commission since 2016.
#3 – A copy of the records destruction certificates issued by the state records commission in the last 10 years

By removing the word “all” from the original request and providing the above as the narrowed request, IDOC responded.

“Response: IDOC does not possess or maintain records responsive to your request.”

So as it stands, IDOC has no records to support the extravagant Christmas party and no records of the distribution of actual cash to people, which the OEIG report alleged there were, in fact, signed receipts.  There is no indication in the OEIG report that they took any steps to secure the alleged records. In our opinion, this once again exposes the failures of state agencies and their lack of transparency as it relates to the spending of our tax dollars.

Not only do they not possess the expenditures, but they also do not have any of the required record destruction requests and destruction authorizations from the State, yet they justified not having records by claiming the records had exceeded the retention period required under policy.

So much for honesty and transparency.