This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sunshine Laws |
Open Records laws |
Open Meetings Laws |
How to Make Records Requests |
Sunshine Litigation |
Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
Sunshine Nuances |
Deliberative Process Exemption |
Board of Regents of the Regency University System v. Reynard is a 1997 decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District.
The decision held that whether or not an agency in Illinois should be considered to fall under the definition of "public body" in the Illinois Freedom of Information Act is based on organizational structure.
The appeals court also agreed with a lower trial court that the Athletic Council that was under the supervision of the Academic Senate of Illinois State University was a public body, as defined in the Illinois FOIA.
Illinois State University (ISU) set up an Athletic Council. On March 22 and April 26, 1995, the Athletic Council held meetings about whether to eliminate the men's wrestling and soccer programs at ISU.
Charles Reynard was at that time the McLean County State's Attorney. He told the Board of Regents that the Illinois FOIA applied to meetings of the Athletic Council. Reynard also threatened to criminally prosecute the Board for violating the Act. The Board of Regents then filed a lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgement from the courts that Reynard was wrong about that.
During an investigation by Reynard, the Board of Regents gave Reynard a transcript of the March 22, 1995 Athletic Council meeting. The Peoria Journal-Star heard about this, a filed a FOIA askveing for a copy of that transcript. That request was denied. So was a request filed by Twin-Cities Broadcasting Corporation, WJBC-WBNQ Radio.
At a trial on June 5 and 12, 1996, Cohen, an ISU professor of history, testified about the governing structure of ISU and the role of the Athletic Council. According to his testimony:
After the close of all evidence, the trial court ruled that the Council is a public body subject to FOIA.[1]