DuPage C0. (ECWd) –
When a public body responds to a Freedom of Information request there are some basic requirements for them to comply with.
One requirement is to be honest!
COD’s Response to one of my FOIA request: “On December 22, 2014, the College of DuPage (“College”) received your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request via email dated December 22, 2014. On December 30, 2014, we advised you via email that the College was extending the time period for response to your FOIA request by an additional five business days, as authorized by Section 140/3(e) of the FOIA, because a substantial number of records need to be collected and examined by appropriate personnel to determine if any of the materials are exempt from disclosure or require redaction. 5 ILCS 140/3(e).” (Click here for a copy of the response document)
I have n0 problem with extending a FOIA request the 5 days allowable by law however when you inform the requester the reason for the extension is because a substantial number of records need to be collected and examined it directly implies that there are in fact records – Records that have to be examined to determine if they are exempt from disclosure or require redaction.
COD has abused the 5 day extension process and basically fabricated an excuse that clearly did not apply. It is yet another black eye for the management of COD and their King, Robert Breuder.
The records they claim they don’t have are records that were required to be submitted to them by the Architect named on the contract, Herricane Graphics. A contract with their own COD Foundation Board member!
- Copy of insurance certificates and policies, in form and substance as outlined in the contract provided between COD and Herricane Graphics. Specifically, item 2.6 of said contract outlines the requirement. I am seeking the records outlined in that section of the contract to include the certificates of insurance, insurance policy, and copies of the amendatory riders to any such policy for Herricane Graphics.”
From the Herricane Graphics Contract, which names them as the Architect: “2.6 Architect shall submit valid certificates and policies, in form and substance satisfactory to Owner evidencing the effectiveness of the foregoing insurance policies along with original copies of the amendatory riders to any such policies to Owner for Owner’s approval before Architect commences the rendition of any services hereunder.”
So you have a case here where COD is in a contract with a company that is bound by the contract to submit valid certificates and policies pertaining to insurance and the College has no records!
Who was the compliance officer for this contract?
The paper trail reflects that not only was this company the Architect in charge but was also the successful contractor for installation of part of the project that they were in charge of, ……………………all without any proof of insurance?
No Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.