Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The City of Evanston's Motion To Dismiss Clerk Devon Reid's Lawsuit Alleging Violations of The Illinois FOIA
The City of Evanston's Motion To Dismiss Clerk Devon Reid's Lawsuit Alleging Violations of The Illinois FOIA
The City of Evanston's Motion To Dismiss Clerk Devon Reid's Lawsuit Alleging Violations of The Illinois FOIA
2019CH05714
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
5648056
DEVON REID, in his official )
capacity as Clerk of the City )
of Evanston )
)
Plaintiff, )
) 2019 CH 05714
v. )
)
CITY OF EVANSTON, et al. )
)
Defendants. )
Law Department, respectfully move this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
pursuant to Section 2-619.1 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure and, in support thereof,
Introduction
Plaintiff asks this Court to order the City of Evanston to disclose attorney-client
privileged communications and officer worn body camera footage to Plaintiff in his capacity as a
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) officer. See Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment (“Compl.”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, at ¶¶ 15, 22-
23, 27-28. Plaintiff further asks this Court to invalidate a Resolution passed by the City Council
as a Special Order of Business. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 33. Plaintiff, however, lacks standing to pursue these
claims. Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has standing, this Court lacks jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants Masoncup and Bobkiewicz should be dismissed because they are
not the real parties in interest in this matter. Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees
fails because Illinois law requires each party to be responsible for its own attorneys’ fees.
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
Finally, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is substantially insufficient in law because the legal
effect of his complaint as it is pled, is that the City is suing itself. Plaintiff’s First Amended
Factual Background
Plaintiff is the City Clerk of the City of Evanston. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶ 1. On October 23,
2017, City Council adopted Resolution 84-R-17 appointing Plaintiff to be the FOIA Officer for
1
the City. See Resolution 84-5-17, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; see also
Compl., Ex. A., at ¶ 1. The City’s Police Department is outfitted with officer-worn body cameras
per the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, 50 ILCS 706/10. The City receives
and complies with FOIA requests for body-worn camera footage. Id. at ¶ 8, 10. Plaintiff has
requested copies of that video footage for his record retention as a FOIA officer. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 22.
The City also receives and complies with FOIA requests for documents containing attorney-
client communications. Id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff has requested unredacted and unrestricted access to
all attorney-client communications. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 27. Plaintiff’s lawsuit does not bear on the
City’s compliance with specific FOIA requests. Rather, Plaintiff claims that the City generally is
in violation of FOIA by not granting his requests for copies of body-worn camera footage and
21, 26. In making this claim, Plaintiff asks this Court to declare that the City provide him with
1
Courts are permitted to take judicial notice of facts contained in public records where such notice will
aid in the efficient disposition of the case. Wright v. Pucinski, 352 Ill. App. 3d 769, 773, 816 N.E.2d 808,
813 (1st Dist. 2004) (citing Village of Riverwoods v. BG Ltd. Partnership, 276 Ill.App.3d 720, 724, 658
N.E.2d 1261 (1995)).
2
copies of body-worn camera footage and unredacted attorney-client communications produced in
Plaintiff also asks this Court to declare invalid Resolution 57-R-19, which was passed by
the City Council on May 28, 2019. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 32. Resolution 57-R-19 adopted a FOIA policy
wherein multiple individuals were designated as additional FOIA officers. Id. at ¶ 16. Among the
newly designated FOIA officers are Plaintiff and individuals within the Police Department and
the Law Department. Id. Resolution 57-R-19 was placed on the City Council agenda as a Special
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on July 1, 2019. Id. Defendants seek the
Legal Standard
Section 2-619.1 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure allows combined motions to
dismiss under Sections 2-615 and 2-619. 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1. Section 2-619 provides for
involuntary dismissal of claims based upon certain defects or defenses. Edelman v. Hinshaw &
Culbertson, 338 Ill. App. 3d 156, 164, 788 N.E.2d 740, 748 (1st Dist. 2003). Section 2-619(a)(1)
provides for involuntary dismissal where the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1). Lack of standing is properly challenged pursuant to § 2-
619(a)(9), as it completely defeats a plaintiff’s ability to successfully prosecute its claim against
the defendants. Mareskas-Palcek v. Schwartz, Wolf & Bernstein, LLP, 2017 IL App (1st)
162746, ¶ 29, 90 N.E.3d 463, 470 (1st Dist. 2017); McCready v. Illinois Sec'y of State, White,
382 Ill. App. 3d 789, 794–95, 888 N.E.2d 702, 707 (2008). When ruling on a Section 2-619
motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the Complaint as true and draw
3
all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the non-moving party. Edelman, 338 Ill.
portions thereof. Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corp., 2018 IL 120951, ¶ 23, 104 N.E.3d
1110, 1119 (2018). In ruling on a section 2-615 motion, a court must accept as true the
complaint’s well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may arise from them. Cochran
v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 2017 IL 121200, ¶ 11, 93 N.E.3d 493, 497 (2017). The
main inquiry is whether the allegations, when construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, sufficiently state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Bogenberger, 2018
Argument
“The standing doctrine seeks to ensure that issues are raised only by those parties with a
real interest in the outcome of the controversy.” Sierra Club v. Office of Mines and Minerals of
Dept. of Natural Resources, 2015 IL App (4th) 140405, ¶ 22, 29 N.E.3d 1068, 1073-74 (4th Dist.
2015). “Where a plaintiff lacks standing, the proceedings must be dismissed because of the lack
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit in his official capacity as the City Clerk. See Compl., Ex. A.
“In order to have standing to maintain a declaratory judgment action, the party seeking the
declaration must be interested in the controversy and must possess a personal claim, status or
right which is capable of being affected.” McCready, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 796, 888 N.E.2d at 708
(emphasis added). In other words, “[t]o have standing, one must have sustained, or be in
4
immediate danger of sustaining, a direct injury.” Sharma v. Zollar, 265 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1027,
638 N.E.2d 736, 740 (1st Dist. 1994). In proceeding in his official capacity, however, Plaintiff
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
highlights that he does not have the requisite standing to pursue the claims he has alleged. First,
Plaintiff does not possess a personal claim, status or right which is capable of being affected. He
admits as much by proceeding in his official capacity. Second, Plaintiff has not and cannot
identify any direct injury. In fact, his Complaint is entirely devoid of any allegation of injury or
potential for injury whatsoever. Because Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this declaratory
Plaintiff’s standing is further diminished by the nature of the claims he seeks to pursue.
According to Plaintiff, the City is violating Illinois’ FOIA by not providing him copies of
responsive documents released by the City pursuant to FOIA. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 8, 10-13, 22,
27. Plaintiff also claims that, in doing so, the City is circumventing FOIA’s requirements. Id. at ¶
11. In other words, Plaintiff alleges that the City is executing its powers in contravention of
Illinois law. In order to bring said action against the City, however, Plaintiff must do so by quo
warranto. “Quo warranto is a legal action whereby the legality of an exercise of powers by a
municipal corporation may be placed in issue.” People ex rel. City of Des Plaines v. Vill. of
Mount Prospect, 29 Ill. App. 3d 807, 811, 331 N.E.2d 373, 377 (1st Dist. 1975).
Quo warranto proceedings are governed by the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure
(“Code”). 735 ILCS 5/18-101 et seq. Included within the Code is an explanation of how quo
warranto proceedings may be instituted as well as by whom. 735 ILCS 5/18-102, 18-103.
“[W]here a case involves matters of purely public interest, only the [Attorney General] or the
[State’s Attorney] ‘as representatives of the people, have standing to institute quo warranto
proceedings.’” People ex rel. Wofford v. Brown, 2017 IL App (1st) 161118, ¶ 13, 76 N.E.3d 34,
5
38 (1st Dist. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Miller, 228 Ill. App. 3d 260, 266, 592 N.E.2d 570 (1st
Dist. 1992)). Plaintiff’s lawsuit does not bear on the City’s compliance with specific FOIA
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
requests. Rather, Plaintiff claims that the City is generally violating FOIA by not granting his
requests for copies of body-worn camera footage and unredacted attorney-client communications
produced in response to FOIA requests. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 21, 26. The legality of the City’s exercise of
its powers and authority in developing and executing policies under FOIA is a matter of purely
public interest. As such, Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue the claims set forth in Counts
There are circumstances where an individual can pursue quo warranto proceedings.
Plaintiff, however, fails to meet those conditions. Section 18-102 of the Code provides, in
735 ILCS 5/18-102. Plaintiff, however, fails to establish that he has met any of these
requirements. Plaintiff does not allege to have requested this suit be brought by the Attorney
General’s Office or the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office nor does he allege that those
offices declined to bring suit. Plaintiff also does not allege he had prior leave of court to file his
lawsuit against Defendants. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements
necessary to pursue an action quo warranto, he lacks standing to pursue the claims set forth in
because he does not possess a personal claim, status or right which is capable of being affected
6
and he cannot identify any direct injury. As a result, his First Amended Complaint should be
dismissed in its entirety. Alternatively, Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
should be dismissed because Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims attacking the legality of the
At the time he filed his amended complaint, Plaintiff was no longer the sole FOIA officer
for the City. See Compl., Ex. A, at ¶ 16. Rather, the City presently has multiple FOIA officers,
including Plaintiff and individuals within the Police Department and the Law Department. Id.;
see also City of Evanston Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (“City Council Minutes”), a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, at 5;2 see also May 28, 2019 Evanston City
Council meeting (“City Council Meeting Video”), referred to herein as Exhibit D and accessible
2:09:38. As a result, no actual controversy remains between the parties thereby rendering Counts
I and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint moot—a point Plaintiff acknowledges. See City
Council Meeting Video, Ex. D, at 40:13. Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
A successful action for declaratory relief requires the following: “(1) a plaintiff with a
legal tangible interest; (2) a defendant having an opposing interest; and (3) an actual controversy
between the parties concerning such interests.” Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363, 372, 789
2
Courts are permitted to take judicial notice of facts contained in public records where such notice will
aid in the efficient disposition of the case. Wright v. Pucinski, 352 Ill. App. 3d 769, 773, 816 N.E.2d 808,
813 (1st Dist. 2004) (citing Village of Riverwoods v. BG Ltd. Partnership, 276 Ill.App.3d 720, 724, 658
N.E.2d 1261 (1995)).
7
N.E.2d 1216, 789 N.E.2d 1216, 1223 (2003); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-701. “Although a
declaratory judgment action is proper to determine the parties’ existing rights, the court may
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
dismiss such an action where the party seeks to enforce his rights after the fact.” BMO Harris
Bank, N.A. v. Jackson Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 170781, ¶ 24, 108 N.E.3d
266, 271 (1st Dist. 2018) (citing Karimi v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, LLC, 2011 IL App (1st)
Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment complaint seek only a declaration that
the City provide Plaintiff, in his capacity as a FOIA officer, all body camera footage and
unredacted attorney-client communications subject to FOIA. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 23, 28. Those
claims, however, are moot. “An issue is considered moot where events occur which make it
impossible for the court to grant effectual relief.” Sharma, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 1027, 638 N.E.2d
at 740. Here, the City Council adopted a FOIA policy designating multiple FOIA officers in
addition to Plaintiff. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶ 16. As a result, there is not an actual controversy
between the parties capable of judicial determination. It is well established that a “claim must
contain an actual controversy capable of judicial determination.” Byer Clinic & Chiropractic,
Ltd. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 113038, ¶ 17, 988 N.E.2d 670, 675
(1st Dist. 2013). In this context, “actual controversy” means that “the underlying facts and issues
of the case are not moot or premature, so as to require the court to pass judgment on mere
abstract propositions of law, render an advisory opinion, or give legal advice as to future events.”
Beahringer, 204 Ill. 2d at 374-75, 789 N.E.2d at 1224 (emphasis and internal quotation marks
omitted.)
“When it becomes apparent that an opinion cannot affect the results as to the parties or
the controversy before it, the court should not resolve the question merely for the sake of setting
8
a precedent or to govern potential future cases.” Sharma, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 1027, 638 N.E.2d at
740. “The purpose of the declaratory judgment action is to give guidance for future conduct, not
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
to provide relief related to past conduct.” BMO Harris Bank, 2018 IL App (1st) 170781, ¶ 26,
108 N.E.3d at 271–72. In Counts I and II of his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks only a declaration that
the City provide him, in his capacity as a FOIA officer, all body camera footage and unredacted
attorney-client communications subject to FOIA, which he claims is necessary for him to keep a
copy of the City’s FOIA response. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 23, 28. However, as he alleges in his
Complaint, Plaintiff is not the City’s sole FOIA officer. Id. at ¶ 16. In addition to Plaintiff, the
City now also has FOIA officers within the Police Department and the Law Department. Id.
Plaintiff, therefore, can no longer claim it is necessary for the City to provide him copies of the
materials he requests. In other words, based on the facts as alleged by Plaintiff, any opinion from
this Court cannot affect the results as to the parties or the alleged controversy before it. Counts I
III. Defendants are entitled to dismissal of Count III under § 2-619(a)(1) because
this Court lacks jurisdiction.
Plaintiff in this case seeks to have Resolution 57-R-19 invalidated because the City
allegedly did not follow its own internal rules for placing an item on the May 28, 2019 City
Council Agenda as a Special Order of Business. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 17-19, 32-33. This Court,
however, cannot handle matters that effectively seek to overturn the decision of the legislative
body for an alleged failure to follow the rules set by that body. Chirikos v. Yellow Cab Co., 87
Ill. App. 3d 569, 574, 410 N.E.2d 61, 65 (1st Dist. 1980). In other words, “‘it is not the function
of the judiciary to pass upon the wisdom of legislative action.’” Id. (citing Finish Line Express,
Inc. v. City of Chicago, 72 Ill.2d 131, 138, 379 N.E.2d 290, 293 (1978)). A court may only
“overturn a legislative enactment for constitutional or statutory reasons.” Chirikos, 87 Ill. App.
9
3d at 576, 410 N.E.2d at 66; see also Baker v. Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cty., 2015 IL App (1st)
141157, ¶ 48, 33 N.E.3d 745, 756 (1st Dist. 2015) (courts may not adjudicate actions brought to
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
overrule the decisions of a legislative body based upon that legislative body’s alleged failure to
Chicago, 399 Ill. App. 3d 32, 43, 924 N.E.2d 596, 606 (1st Dist. 2010) (the mere failure of a
home rule municipality to follow its own self-imposed regulations in enacting an ordinance is
Plaintiff does not make any allegation that Resolution 57-R-19 should be invalidated for
constitutional or statutory reasons, only that the passage of the Resolution violates the City’s
own rules. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 32-33. This Court, however, lacks jurisdiction over legislative
matters. Therefore, Count III of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
In his complaint, Plaintiff purports to sue Defendants Masoncup and Bobkiewicz in their
official capacities. See Compl. The City is also named as a defendant. Id. A lawsuit against an
individual in their official capacity is not a lawsuit against the individual, but rather is a lawsuit
against the governmental entity of which the individual is an agent. Schlicher v. Bd. of Fire &
Police Comm’rs of Vill. of Westmont, 363 Ill. App. 3d 869, 883, 845 N.E.2d 55, 67 (2d Dist.
2006) (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3106 (1985)); see also
Office of Lake Cty. State’s Attorney v. Human Rights Comm’n, 235 Ill. App. 3d 1036, 1042, 601
N.E.2d 1294, 1298 (2d Dist. 1992). As a result, an official capacity lawsuit is to be treated as a
lawsuit against the governmental entity. Graham, 473 U.S. at 165–66, 105 S. Ct. at 3105; see
10
also Lake Cty. State’s Attorney, 235 Ill. App. 3d at 1042, 601 N.E.2d at 1298 (official capacity
In naming Masoncup and Bobkiewicz as defendants in their official capacities along with
the City, Plaintiff has, in effect, named the City as a defendant three times. There is no claim
against Defendants Masoncup and Bobkiewicz. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 165–66, 105 S. Ct. at
3105 (official capacity suits merely another way of pleading an action against an entity of which
an officer is an agent). An official capacity suit “is not a suit against the official personally, for
the real party in interest is the entity.” Graham, 473 U.S. at 166, 105 S. Ct. at 3105. It is clear
from Plaintiff’s Complaint that the real party in interest is the City. Defendants Masoncup and
Plaintiff purports to bring this lawsuit in his official capacity as Clerk of the City of
Evanston. See Compl. Where an individual is identified as being a party to a lawsuit in his
official capacity, the real party in interest in that lawsuit is the governmental entity. See Graham,
473 U.S. at 166, 105 S. Ct. at 3105 (official capacity suit is not a suit against the official
personally because the real party in interest is the governmental entity). In other words, an
official capacity lawsuit is to be treated as a lawsuit by or against the entity, not the individuals
named. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 165–66, 105 S. Ct. at 3105 (“[A]n official-capacity suit is, in all
respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.”). By bringing this lawsuit in
his official capacity, Plaintiff effectively brings it as or on behalf of the City, who he also names
as a defendant. The legal effect of that action is that the City of Evanston is pursuing claims
against itself. Such pursuit is substantially insufficient in law and should not be permitted to
11
VI. Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees should be stricken under § 2-615.
In addition to his request for declaratory judgment, Plaintiff also asks this Court to order
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
Defendants to pay his attorneys’ fees. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 24, 29, 34. The law in Illinois,
however, is clear that absent a statute or a contractual agreement “attorney fees and the ordinary
expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowable to the successful party.” Kerns v. Engelke,
76 Ill. 2d 154, 166, 390 N.E.2d 859, 865 (1979); see also Andrews v. Norfolk Southern Railroad
Corp., 2017 IL App (1st) 153007, ¶ 24, 77 N.E.3d 1028, 1036 (1st Dist. 2017) (Illinois follows
the “American Rule,” which requires each party to be responsible for his or her own attorneys’
fees). Plaintiff fails to identify any statute or contractual agreement that would justify awarding
him attorneys’ fees. As such, Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees should be stricken.
Conclusion
Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that Defendants provide him, in his capacity
as a FOIA officer, all officer-worn body camera footage and unredacted attorney-client
communications subject to FOIA. Compl., Ex. A, at ¶¶ 23, 28. Plaintiff, however, lacks standing
to pursue those claims. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a declaratory judgment action against
Defendants because he does not possess a personal claim, status or right which is capable of
being affected and he cannot identify any direct injury. As a result, his First Amended Complaint
should be dismissed in its entirety. Alternatively, Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims attacking the
Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has standing to pursue his claims, Counts I and II
of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are moot because Plaintiff cannot claim it is necessary
for the City to provide him copies of the materials he requests. Additionally, this Court lacks
12
jurisdiction over Count III of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which seeks to invalidate a
legislative action for the City’s alleged failure to follow its own self-imposed requirements.
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
The real party in interest in all three counts of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is the
City. Plaintiff, however, has identified not only the City, but also Michelle Masoncup, the City’s
Corporation Counsel, and Wally Bobkiewicz, the City Manager, as defendants. Plaintiff has
named both Masoncup and Bobkiewicz in their official capacities, which is no different than
proceeding against the City itself. Defendants Masoncup and Bobkiewicz should, therefore, be
dismissed. This Court should also strike Plaintiff’s prayer for attorneys’ fees because the general
rule in Illinois is that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees.
substantially insufficient in law in that by proceeding in his official capacity against the City,
Plaintiff has created an action the effect of which is the City suing itself.
Bobkiewicz, prays this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with
prejudice, with costs assessed against Plaintiff, and for such other and further relief this Court
Respectfully submitted,
13
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
EXHIBIT A
Return Date: No return date scheduled
Hearing Date: 9/4/2019 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM
Courtroom Number: 2008
Location: District 1 Court FILED
Cook County, IL 7/1/2019 1:42 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN
CIRCUIT CLERK
CHANCERY DIVISION, COUNTY DEPARTMENT COOK COUNTY, IL
1:42 PM 2019CH05714
2019CH05714
DEVON REID, in his official )
5608790
capacity as Clerk of the City )
of Evanston, )
) Case No. 2019-CH-05714
Plaintiff, )
7/1/2019 1:22
)
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019
Plaintiff Devon Reid, in his official capacity as Clerk of the City of Evanston, hereby files
his First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-701 against
the City of Evanston and its Corporation Counsel, Michelle L. Masoncup, and Wally Bobkiewicz,
1. Plaintiff Devon Reid (“Clerk Reid”) is a resident of the City of Evanston, Cook
County, Illinois. Clerk Reid is the elected Clerk of the City of Evanston and the duly appointed
735 ILCS 5/2-209 because Defendants reside in and/or regularly transact business in Illinois.
1:42 PM 2019CH05714
4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because the events
that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred substantially in Cook County, Illinois.
7/1/2019 1:22
5. Clerk Reid, as the City Clerk, is an Officer of Evanston and the custodian and
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019
keeper of all of Evanston’s records. See Evanston Municipal Code §§1-7-2, 1-9.
6. As the FOIA Officer of Evanston, Clerk Reid has certain authority and
responsibilities as set forth in the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. See 5 ILCS 140/1, et seq.
7. Among the statutory responsibilities of Clerk Reid as the FOIA Officer are to
“issue responses under th[e FOIA] Act” and to “create a file for the retention of the original
request, a copy of the response, a record of written communications with the requester, and a
8. Clerk Reid has requested from Masoncup, Bobkiewicz, as well as certain other
officers and representatives of Evanston, in his capacity as the Clerk and FOIA Officer of
Evanston, copies of body camera footage from police officers that are requested and produced
9. The Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act provides that video
footage is subject to release under FOIA in certain circumstances. See 50 ILCS 706/10-20(b).
10. In cases where Evanston has produced body camera footage pursuant to FOIA
under these exemptions, a copy of such footage must also be provided to Clerk Reid to enable
him to comply with his obligation to keep “a copy of the response” to the person making the
FOIA request; indeed, this was the standard policy and practice before Clerk Reid was elected.
2
11. By producing the body camera footage pursuant to FOIA without consulting
with the FOIA Officer, Evanston is further circumventing the authority and responsibility of the
1:42 PM 2019CH05714
12. Clerk Reid has also requested from Masoncup, Bobkiewicz, and certain other
7/1/2019 1:22
officers and representatives of Evanston, in his capacity as the Clerk and FOIA Officer for
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019
13. As the Evanston City Clerk, Clerk Reid is the official keeper of the City’s
documents, and as the City of Evanston’s FOIA Officer, Clerk Reid has the responsibility to issue
the response to a FOIA request and determine whether the response is appropriate, including
14. The Corporation Counsel represents Evanston as its client. Because Clerk Reid is
15. Accordingly, Clerk Reid should be provided with unredacted copies of the
documents he has requested, and those documents should be provided to him in the regular
16. On May 28, 2019, after being served with this Complaint and apparently
recognizing the validity of Clerk Reid’s claims, the Evanston City Council purportedly passed
Resolution 57-R-19, appointing additional FOIA officers other than Clerk Reid, in particular for
3
17. Resolution 57-R-19 was placed on the Council agenda as a “Special Order of
Business”.
1:42 PM 2019CH05714
18. Pursuant Rule 18.11 of the Rules and Organization of the City Council of the City
of Evanston dated April 16, 2019, a Special Order of Business “refers to Council consideration of
7/1/2019 1:22
a docket item which will be considered at a specified date previously agreed upon by a majority
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019
19. The Council had never previously agreed by majority vote to consider Resolution
57-R-19 at a specified date, whether the May 28, 2019 Council meeting or otherwise.
Accordingly, Resolution 57-R-19 was not properly on the Council agenda, and the Council’s vote
COUNT I
(Declaratory Judgment regarding Body Camera Footage)
20. Reid hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-19 as though
21. There is a current legal controversy between Clerk Reid and Defendants over the
scope of Clerk Reid’s authority and responsibilities as Clerk and FOIA Officer with respect to the
22. It is Clerk Reid’s position that all body camera footage requested and produced
in response to a FOIA request should be provided to him as the FOIA Officer enable him to issue
the FOIA response and maintain a copy of the response, but Defendants disagree and have
23. Clerk Reid therefore prays for a declaration from this Court that the Illinois FOIA
statute requires Defendants to provide all body camera footage subject to FOIA to Clerk Reid to
4
issue the response, including making determinations of whether body camera footage shall be
released, and to keep a copy of the response, including a copy of the footage.
1:42 PM 2019CH05714
24. Clerk Reid further prays that Defendants be ordered to pay his attorneys’ fees.
COUNT II
(Declaratory Judgment regarding Documents Redacted for Attorney-Client Privilege)
7/1/2019 1:22
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019
25. Reid hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-24 as though
26. There is a current legal controversy between Clerk Reid and Defendants over the
scope of Clerk Reid’s authority and responsibilities as Clerk and FOIA Officer with respect to
pursuant to FOIA.
27. It is Clerk Reid’s position that all documents requested and produced in response
to a FOIA request should be provided to him in unredacted form as the FOIA Officer enable him
to issue the FOIA response and maintain a copy of the response, but Defendants disagree.
28. Clerk Reid therefore prays for a declaration from this Court that the Illinois FOIA
statute requires Defendants to provide all documents that potentially contain attorney-client
communications subject to FOIA to Clerk Reid in unredacted form to issue the response,
29. Clerk Reid further prays that Defendants be ordered to pay his attorneys’ fees.
COUNT III
(Declaratory Judgment regarding Resolution 57-R-19)
30. Reid hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-29 as though
5
31. There is a current legal controversy between Clerk Reid and Defendants over
whether Resolution 57-R-19 was properly placed on the Council agenda as a Special Order of
1:42 PM 2019CH05714
32. It is Clerk Reid’s position that Resolution 57-R-19 was not properly placed on the
7/1/2019 1:22
Council’s May 28, 2019 as a Special Order of Business because a majority of the Council had not
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019
previously voted to consider it at that time and it is therefore an invalid Resolution, but
Defendants disagree.
33. Clerk Reid therefore prays for a declaration from this Court that Resolution 57-R-
19 is invalid.
34. Clerk Reid further prays that Defendants be ordered to pay his attorneys’ fees.
6
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
EXHIBIT B
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
EXHIBIT C
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
Present:
Alderman Fiske Alderman Rue Simmons
(8)
Absent:
Alderman Suffredin (1)
Devon Reid
City Clerk
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
Mayor Hagerty presented Sarah Agnew two awards in recognition of her bravery for
performing CPR on her father and ultimately saving his life.
Deputy City Manager Kimberly Richardson invited interim Health and Human Services Watch
Director, Ike Ogbo, to speak about the upcoming We’re Out Walking (WOW) Kick-Off event.
Director of Parks & Recreation, Lawrence Hemingway, gave a presentation for the U.S.
Lifesaving Presentation. Lastly, Chief Scott was invited to present the Fire Department
promotions.
City Clerk Reid gave a statement related to Mayor Hagerty’s proposal to appoint 3 more Watch
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers.
Public Comment
Harris Miller Asked City Council to opposed Resolution 57-R-19, designating Watch
additional Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers. Said it’s Clerk
Reid’s sole responsibility to maintain transparency. Also believes not
allowing public comment during last weeks Robert Crown meeting
could be a violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA).
Mike Vasilko Requested City Council vote against Resolution 57-R-19. Said this Watch
resolution is not designed to help FOIA but to prevent the information
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
the public is allowed to see. Stated the Clerk’s Office is doing a great
job handling FOIA’s. Would like Clerk Reid to remain as the FOIA
Officer for the City of Evanston. Claims this proposal is not a policy
matter but a direct attack against the City Clerk.
Curtis Evans Voiced his support for Clerk Reid and his office to remain the FOIA Watch
Officer for the city.
James Engelman Asked if the picnic tables at city parks could be made wheelchair Watch
accessible.
Jackson Paller Spoke against Mayor Hagerty’s proposal to appoint additional Watch
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers. Said this proposal would
damage public trust and looking at other municipalities which have
multiple FOIA Officers is not a justification to appoint more officers
here in the city.
Vicky Pasenko Co-Founder and Co-President of the Evanston Animal Shelter Watch
Association. Talked about the impact her organization has on the
community and its pets.
Elliot Zashin Opposed Resolution 57-R-19. Asked City Council to vote against the Watch
resolution or at the very least table the discussion until there can be a
demonstration of the necessity of additional FOIA Officers.
Tina Stevenson Believes City Councils action to appoint additional FOIA Officers in Watch
an attempt to undermine the voters who elected Clerk Reid. Would
like the of FOIA to be kept under Devon Reid.
Mary Rosinski She stated it is not democratic nor efficient in allowing the City Clerk Watch
to fulfill his responsibilities as an elected official. She also spoke
about the finances of the Robert Crown project.
Christopher Kruger Supported Clerk Reid’s decision to file a lawsuit against the City of Watch
Evanston. Said the proposed resolution is a dilution of the Clerk’s
powers.
Patrick Executive Director of the James B. Moran Center for Youth Advocacy Watch
Keenan-Devlin who spoke about Resolution 68-R-18 and Ordinance 159-O-18.
Jillian Gilburne Intern of the Clerk’s Office who voiced her support for Clerk Reid. Watch
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
Rodney Greene Former City Clerk Greene stated it was never the City Clerk’s Watch
responsibility as FOIA Officer to redact or hold Police or Fire
Department records. Suggested appointing an independent officer
who is well versed in FOIA law.
Carl Klein Talked about the proposed text amendment to allow office uses and Watch
revised special conditions for office use in a residential district which
will go before the Plan Commission.
Meg Welch Stated there was a petition with nearly 400 signatures that opposed Watch
the proposal to appoint additional Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Officers. Asked City Council members to vote against Resolution
57-R-19
Doreen Price Stated the City Council was looking to diffuse the powers of the City Watch
Clerk. Asked why there wasn’t a rush to replace the HHS Director.
Asked about funds being placed into funding Robert Crown.
Carlis Sutton Requested City Council to vote against Resolution 57-R-19. Is open Watch
to exploring possibilities that seek to resolve inefficiency of response
time relating to FOIA. Questioned the benefit of designating
additional FOIA Officers. Voiced his support for the
Fleetwood-Jourdain interior renovations and implored City Council
members to employ local minority contractors to lead the renovations.
Lastly, he voiced his support for Resolution 68-R-18.
Nancy Sreenan Asked City Council to vote against Resolution 57-R-19. Said the Watch
proposed resolution is an abuse of power and erosion of democracy.
Stated that the city continues to remain secretive on issues that
concern residents such as Robert Crown, Harley Clarke, and Albion
tower. Sought to understand the rush for approval of the resolution
and lack of public discussion.
Albert Gibbs Stated he was never treated respectfully throughout his entire life at Watch
Robert Crown. Said he was called a derogatory name as a child
when he would compete for the city at Robert Crown. Believes the
city is manipulating the African-American youth and others into
believing the city is all for inclusion for the community. Lastly, he
described the difficult process he faced when trying to obtain police
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
Bobby Burns Inquired about who would benefit from the proposal to appoint Watch
additional Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers. During his
time as interim Deputy City Clerk, Mr. Burns stated he spoke with
several individuals who said Evanston was the best place to submit
FOIA requests because of the progressive feature that places an
elected, independent office as the sole FOIA office. When the
decision to consider if this proposal is in the best interest of the
public, he asked the City Council to use the activist, journalist, and
individuals who have exposed wrongdoing by public bodies as the
witnesses. He is troubled to see there is the potential of removing the
FOIA office as the inspector of records and along with it, the trust
between residents and City Council. He still has not heard a valid
argument on how the proposal would make Evanston better.
For Action
Passed 5-3 Ald. Rue Simmons, Rainey and Fleming voted “No”
Consent Agenda
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
(M1) Approval of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 13, Motion: Ald. Watch
2019 Rue Simmons
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A1) Payroll – April 29, 2019 through May 12, 2019 $ 2,708,964.68
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A3) Contract Award with Culy Contracting, LLC for the 2019
Structure Lining Bid
City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for the
2019 Structure Lining (Bid No. 19-15) with Culy Contracting, LLC (5
Industrial Park Drive, P.O. Box 29, Winchester, IN 47394) in the amount of
$100,420. Funding for this project is from the Sewer Fund (Account
515.40.4535.62461- 419005), which has an FY 2019 budget of $165,000
for this work, all of which is remaining.
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A4) Contract Award with J.A. Johnson Paving Company for the 2019
Motor Fuel Tax Street Resurfacing Project
City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for the
2019 Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) Street Resurfacing Project (Bid No. 19-24)
with J.A. Johnson Paving Company (1025 E. Addison Court, Arlington
Heights, IL 60005) in the amount of $1,005,700. Funding will be provided
from the Motor Fuel Tax Fund (Account 200.26.5100.65515 – 418002),
which has a total FY 2019 budget allocation for this project of $1,206,000,
all of which is remaining.
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A5) Contract Extension with Corrective Asphalt Materials for
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for the
Fleetwood-Jourdain Community Center Interior Renovation (RFP 19-13)
with W Construction, Inc. (655 Paxton Place, Carol Stream, IL 60188) in
the amount of $585,000. Funding is available in the amount of $440,000
from 2019 General Obligation Bonds and $145,000 from Good Neighbor
Funds. A detailed project funding breakdown is included in the
corresponding transmittal memo.
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A7) Construction Bid Award with Hacienda Landscaping, Inc. for the
Garden Park and Playground Renovations
City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract for the
Garden Park and Playground Renovation Project with Hacienda
Landscaping Inc. (17840 Grove Road, Minooka, IL 60447) in the amount
of $463,637. Funding will be provided from Capital Improvements Fund
2019 General Obligation Bonds (Account 415.40.4119.65515.518002).
This project was budgeted at $500,000 in FY 2019, all of which is
remaining.
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A8) Purchase of Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
City Council approved preschool furniture purchases for the Robert Crown
Community Center, Ice Complex and Library from Lakeshore Learning
(2695 E. Dominguez Street, Carson, CA 90895) in the amount of
$40,454.46. Funding for this purchase will be provided from Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) 2019 General Obligation Bonds (Account
416.40.4160.65515 – 616017). The current Furniture, Fixtures and
Equipment (FFE) budget for this project is $910,000, all of which is
remaining.
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A10) Contract Award with Blessing Hancock for the Robert Crown
Community Center, Ice Complex and Library Public Art
City Council approved a public art contract for the Robert Crown
Community Center, Ice Complex and Library with Blessing Hancock (4340
79th Avenue NW, Olympia, WA 98502) in the amount of $325,000.
Funding for this purchase will be provided from Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) 2019 General Obligation Bonds (Account
416.40.4160.65515 – 616017). The current public art budget for this
project is $335,000.
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A11) Sole-source Agreement with Elcast Lighting for Street Light
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
Fixture Repairs
City Council authorized the City Manager to approve an agreement for the
sole-source repair of: 164 – Tallmadge Induction lighting units; and 57 –
Induction Davit fixtures with Elcast Lighting (815 S. Kay Avenue, Addison,
IL, 60101) in the amount of $42,424. Funding for this purchase will come
from the Capital Improvement Program 2019 General Obligation Bond
(Account 415.40.4119.65515-419022), which has a FY 2019 budget of
$210,000 for lighting and pavement marking projects. The remaining
balance in the account is $129,000.
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
City Council authorized funding for Chicago’s North Shore Convention and
Visitors Bureau (CNSCVB) in the amount of $83,609 for a period
commencing July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. Funding will be provided
from the Economic Development Partnership Account (Account
100.21.5300.62659). The City Council approved $147,000 in the 2019
budget with a commitment of $50,000 to Downtown Evanston for
maintenance contract reimbursements. To date, $12,500 has been
distributed, leaving a balance of $134,500.
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A14) Resolution 55-R-19, Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
For Introduction
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A17) Ordinance 48-O-19, Amending the City Code to Establish a
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
City Council adopted Ordinance 48-O-19 by which the City Council would
amend Section 10-11-5(D), Schedule V(D) of the City Code to establish a
4-Way Stop Control at the intersection of Brown Avenue and Noyes
Street. Funding will be through the General Fund-Traffic Control Supplies
(Account 100.40.4520.65115), with a budget of $58,000 for FY 2019.
For Introduction
Approved on Consent Agenda
(A18) Ordinance 42-O-19, Authorization to Enter into a Real Estate Motion: Ald. Watch
Contract for Sale of City-Owned Real Property at 2222 Oakton Street Rue Simmons
to Clark Street Real Estate, LLC
Motion to hold the item until the June 10 City Council meeting. Motion: Ald.
Rue Simmons
For Action
Held until June 10 City Council meeting
For Action
Approved on Consent Agenda
(O1) Resolution 52-R-19, Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate Watch
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
For Action
Passed 8-0
For Action
Passed 8-0
Ward 1st Ward meeting on June 4 at Fountain Square beginning at 7 p.m. Watch
1:
Ward Shared his remarks regarding the Robert Crown meeting held last week. Said it Watch
2: was unfortunate to see a lack of civility during the meeting. Offered an apology to
Madeline Ducree and others who felt their concerns weren’t being heard. Said it
was difficult to maintain order during the meeting while several members of the
public were shouting. Thanked and acknowledged the individuals who donate
towards different city projects.
Ward Shared her condolences to the family of Pauletta Kennedy-Moody. Ald. Rue Watch
5: Simmons called for all resources available to prevent gun crime. Asked residents
with information about gun crimes to contact the police. There will be a reception
for all 5th Ward graduates on June 12 at 7 p.m. in Room G300 at the Civic Center.
Made a referral to the Equity and Empowerment Commission on a local
reparations policy.
Ward Shared her congratulated Canal Shores Golf Course on their 100th Anniversary Watch
7:
Ward Made a referral to the Planning and Development Committee regarding Watch
8: inclusionary housing ordinance. Also congratulated all the firefighters promoted at
the City Council meeting.
Ward Made a referral to Human Services Committee regarding the healthy workplace Watch
9: process.
Adjournment
Mayor Hagerty called a voice vote to adjourn the City Council meeting, and by unanimous vote
the meeting was adjourned. Ald. Wilson led City Council into Executive Session. A roll call vote
was taken and by a unanimous vote (8-0) City Council recessed into Executive Session.
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
EXHIBIT D
May 28, 2019 Evanston City Council meeting
FILED DATE: 7/3/2019 1:22 PM 2019CH05714
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9aXCDU7ifU&feature=youtu.be