Dear Public Access Counselor,

I am contacting you to request a review of Elmhurst Community Unit School District 205’s denial of my
Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated May 21, 2020 and follow-up communications.
District 205 found my request “unduly burdensome and the burden on the School District outweighs the
public interest in the information.”

My May 21 FOIA request had 2 main components. The first sought information from the spring during
which COVID-19 and the associated executive order prevented students from attending school in person.
It sought expectations and requirements of teachers, and the guidance and direction offered to them by
the District for e-learning/remote learning instruction. My request was limited to kindergarten through fifth
grade instruction and excluded early childhood, middle school and high school.

For the second component of my FOIA request, I asked for information about plans or suggestions for
possible e-learning/remote learning the for 2020-2021 academic year, for kindergarten through high
school (including special education transition).

I would like to request that you please review the 5 items below:

1) The following response from District 205 FOIA Officer was improper: “If I do not hear from you, I will
assume you have withdrawn your FOIA request. If my interpretation is incorrect please email me.” (email
May 22, 2020)

2) My May 21, 2020 FOIA request was not unduly burdensome. District 205 has 1,160 employees and I
sought documents involving five administrators. The subject of my request related to requirements and
expectations of teachers during the COVID-19 stay at home executive order, which should have excluded
a significant number of student, disciplinary and medical records. The request spanned 73 days, or 48
business days.

If a FOIA request prompted a search for “all email messages containing ‘e-learning’ or ‘remote learning’”
to or from 5 administrators, and that search yielded 8500+ messages, few would be expected to contain
sensitive information requiring redactions (compared to a search for student names or records). That was
the search conducted, though it did not reflect my FOIA request.

When I asked about the possibility of an extension and/or a reasonable schedule to allow 205 additional
time to identify and provide requested documents in segments, the FOIA Officer stated she would not be
able to fulfill my request because she had other full-time responsibilities with the district. (phone call, June
8, 2020, summarized in email June 9, 2020)

3) District 205’s search for documents was inadequate. It would seem methods to identify and obtain
responsive documents with more precision than the broad email-only search that was conducted (as
described in #2) would yield a smaller number of documents, more relevant to my request. In an attempt
to identify irrelevant documents that could be filtered out and/or to determine how I could alter the
request, I asked the FOIA Officer a number of questions. Three questions I posed and 205’s responses
are below (email, June 6, 2020):

- Approximately how many documents can be described as emails sent from an "@ltcillinois.org"
or an "@dupageroe.org" address that were not forwarded on? “District's Response: To answer
this quesiton (sic) would rquire (sic) a review of all 8500+ emails.”

- How many text/sms communications/exchanges have been identified? “District's Response:

None”

- Approximately how many GoogleDoc documents/documents available via logging in to shared

files and/or available using a "share screen" feature were identified? “District's Resposne (sic):
To answer this question would require a review of all 8500+ emails.”
These responses raised additional questions. For example, given District 205’s position that to review the
captured 8500+ emails would be unduly burdensome, and that seeking documents from a Google drive
would require an unduly burdensome review, then was 205 indicating that the Google drive search is also
an undue burden? Similarly, was 205 conveying that sorting and estimating the number of emails from 2
specific domains within the captured set also poses an undue burden?

4) District 205’s response to my follow-up June 9 FOIA request was inadequate. I requested “any
proposals, plans, direction or suggestions considered for potential remote and/or e-learning instruction
during the 2020-2021 academic year.” On or about June 16 (I did not find it posted on June 14), District
205 revealed on its Boarddocs meeting agenda a memo dated May 29, 2020, announcing a Start of
School Planning Steering Committee and related committees and subcommittees. The following
information is communicated by the memo:

- 78 individuals, including 205 Board members, administrators, teachers and parents had been
selected to serve.
- A Steering Committee of 7 members was created, Members were assigned as chairs to
committees.
-The remaining individuals had been assigned to committees and/or subcommittees.
- Committees and subcommittees will focus on 19 topics listed across 4 named areas.
- Steering Committee meets weekly but the date of their first meeting was not provided.
- The memo was dated May 29 yet it stated committees “began meeting the week of June 1”
- The work of the Steering Committee and committees is expected to conclude by the end of
June.

With the Start of School Steering Committee and multiple committees expected to have completed their
work product no later than June 30, it does not seem realistic that by May 29 (and possibly sooner),
District 205 had established a Steering Committee, identified 78 participants, identified 19 topics to be
addressed, assigned people to committees and subcommittees yet on June 9, District 205 had no
documents pertaining to “any proposals, plans, direction or suggestions considered for potential remote
and/or e-learning instruction during the 2020-2021 academic year.” (response from June 9 FOIA, June
16, 2020)

I did obtain, via a follow-up FOIA request dated June 10, copies of 3 side letters to The Agreement
Between Elmhurst Community Unit School District 205 and Elmhurst Teachers’ Council Local 571
American Federation of Teachers, July 1, 2018-June 30, 2021. There were no public approvals of these
documents, and I am not aware of them being made available to the public outside of the response to my
FOIA request.

Had the side letters and/or information communicated in District 205’s May 29 memo been in the public
domain, I would have been able to include more detail in my May 21 FOIA request.

Please see the timeline of my communications with District 205 below. Emailed messages are attached.

May 21, 2020

I submitted my FOIA request via email.

May 22, 2020

District 205 FOIA Officer Ellen Walsh called to inform me that my request was too broad and asked me if I
could offer terms to be used in an email search. I said that my request wasn’t just for emails and that
when the request is sent to the superintendent and cabinet, they should be able to identify responsive
documents. The FOIA Officer said, “That’s now how we do it,” and explained that 205 would need email
search terms to narrow down the request. I told her I needed to think about it and would get back to her
later.
The FOIA Officer sent 2 email messages later that day. The second ended with, “If I do not hear from
you, I will assume you have withdrawn your FOIA request. If my interpretation is incorrect please email
me.”

May 25, 2020

I emailed the FOIA Officer to confirm my request had not changed.

District 205 later sent a response to communicate that they were extending response time.

June 3, 2020
The FOIA Officer emailed a letter notifying me that my FOIA request was denied and also inviting me to
contact her to clarify and narrow my request.

June 4, 2020
I emailed the FOIA Officer with 5 questions for the purpose of clarifying how documents were identified
and determining if/how some emails could be potentially categorized.

June 8, 2020
I received an emailed response to my questions.

I called the FOIA Officer to ask if 205 would consider an extension to respond to my request, how much
additional time 205 would require, and if it I could receive documents on a rolling basis as they were
identified. She explained that she had full-time responsibilities outside of FOIA and that it wasn’t possible
to fulfill the request. I also asked if it was correct that there were zero Googledocs identified and she
confirmed that there were none.

June, 9, 2020
I sent another FOIA request to the FOIA Officer, also about e-learning.

June 10, 2020

After learning that District 205 and Elmhurst Teachers’ Council Local 571 American Federation of
Teachers mutually agreed upon an amendment or side letter to their existing contract, I sent a FOIA
request seeking a copy.

June 16, 2020

I received responses to my June 9 and June 10 requests. Included were three contract side letters in
response to the June 10 request were provided.

I sent a follow-up message to the FOIA Officer asking how the three District 205/Elmhurst Teachers’
Council side letters were initiated and how they were determined to be finalized and ready for signatures.

(end of timeline)

I am concerned by the amount of time and level of effort required for me to seek documents from this
public body and I appreciate any assistance you may be able to provide. Please let me know if you have
questions.

Thank you.

Dannee Polomsky
263 Indiana St.
Elmhurst, IL 60126
630-650-1168