Faiyaz Khalid: Difference between revisions
(Cases) |
(Article) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="mw-parser-output"><p><i>The case addressed a public records request from a reporter foho observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as he court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.</i> | <div class="mw-parser-output"><div class="mw-parser-output"><p><i>The case addressed a public records request from a reporter foho observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as he court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.</i> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<h1><span class="mw-headline" id="Introdcution"><i>Introdcution</i></span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=1" class="mw-editsection-visualeditor" title="Edit section: Introdcution">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-divider"> | </span><a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=1" title="Edit section's source code: Introdcution">edit source</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h1> | <h1><span id="Introdcution.5B.3Ca_href.3D.22.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DFaiyaz_Khalid.26veaction.3Dedit.26section.3D1.22_class.3D.22mw-editsection-visualeditor.22_title.3D.22Edit_section:_Introdcution.22.3Eedit.3C.2Fa.3E_.7C_.3Ca_href.3D.22.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DFaiyaz_Khalid.26action.3Dedit.26section.3D1.22_title.3D.22Edit_section.27s_source_code:_Introdcution.22.3Eedit_source.3C.2Fa.3E.5D"></span><span class="mw-headline" id="Introdcution[<a_href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=1"_class="mw-editsection-visualeditor"_title="Edit_section:_Introdcution">edit</a>_|_<a_href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=1"_title="Edit_section's_source_code:_Introdcution">edit_source</a>]"><span class="mw-headline" id="Introdcution"><i>Introdcution</i></span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=1" class="mw-editsection-visualeditor" title="Edit section: Introdcution">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-divider"> | </span><a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=1" title="Edit section's source code: Introdcution">edit source</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></span></h1> | ||
<p><i>The case addressed a public records request from a reporter foho observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as he court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.</i> | <p><i>The case addressed a public records request from a reporter foho observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as he court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.</i> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
<h1><span class="mw-headline" id="Sources">Sources</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=2" class="mw-editsection-visualeditor" title="Edit section: Sources">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-divider"> | </span><a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=2" title="Edit section's source code: Sources">edit source</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h1> | <h1><span id="Sources.5B.3Ca_href.3D.22.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DFaiyaz_Khalid.26veaction.3Dedit.26section.3D2.22_class.3D.22mw-editsection-visualeditor.22_title.3D.22Edit_section:_Sources.22.3Eedit.3C.2Fa.3E_.7C_.3Ca_href.3D.22.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DFaiyaz_Khalid.26action.3Dedit.26section.3D2.22_title.3D.22Edit_section.27s_source_code:_Sources.22.3Eedit_source.3C.2Fa.3E.5D"></span><span class="mw-headline" id="Sources[<a_href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=2"_class="mw-editsection-visualeditor"_title="Edit_section:_Sources">edit</a>_|_<a_href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=2"_title="Edit_section's_source_code:_Sources">edit_source</a>]"><span class="mw-headline" id="Sources">Sources</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=2" class="mw-editsection-visualeditor" title="Edit section: Sources">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-divider"> | </span><a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=2" title="Edit section's source code: Sources">edit source</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></span></h1> | ||
<p><i>The case addressed a public records request from a reporter foho observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as he court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.</i> | <p><i>The case addressed a public records request from a reporter foho observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as he court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.</i> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
</div> | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
NewPP limit report | NewPP limit report | ||
Cached time: | Cached time: 20240520121022 | ||
Cache expiry: 86400 | Cache expiry: 86400 | ||
Reduced expiry: false | Reduced expiry: false | ||
Complications: [] | Complications: [] | ||
CPU time usage: 0. | CPU time usage: 0.005 seconds | ||
Real time usage: 0. | Real time usage: 0.006 seconds | ||
Preprocessor visited node count: | Preprocessor visited node count: 12/1000000 | ||
Post‐expand include size: 0/2097152 bytes | Post‐expand include size: 0/2097152 bytes | ||
Template argument size: 0/2097152 bytes | Template argument size: 0/2097152 bytes | ||
Highest expansion depth: | Highest expansion depth: 1/100 | ||
Expensive parser function count: 0/100 | Expensive parser function count: 0/100 | ||
Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 | Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 | ||
| Line 28: | Line 29: | ||
--> | --> | ||
<!-- Saved in parser cache with key aklcwuks_wiki-wiki_:pcache:idhash:2-0!canonical and timestamp | <!-- Saved in parser cache with key aklcwuks_wiki-wiki_:pcache:idhash:2-0!canonical and timestamp 20240520121022 and revision id 151. Rendering was triggered because: edit-page | ||
--> | --> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Article]] | ||
Revision as of 17:57, 20 May 2024
The case addressed a public records request from a reporter foho observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as he court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.
<span class="mw-headline" id="Introdcution[<a_href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=1"_class="mw-editsection-visualeditor"_title="Edit_section:_Introdcution">edit</a>_|_<a_href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=1"_title="Edit_section's_source_code:_Introdcution">edit_source</a>]">Introdcution[<a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=1" class="mw-editsection-visualeditor" title="Edit section: Introdcution">edit</a> | <a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=1" title="Edit section's source code: Introdcution">edit source</a>]
The case addressed a public records request from a reporter foho observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as he court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.
<span class="mw-headline" id="Sources[<a_href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=2"_class="mw-editsection-visualeditor"_title="Edit_section:_Sources">edit</a>_|_<a_href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=2"_title="Edit_section's_source_code:_Sources">edit_source</a>]">Sources[<a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&veaction=edit§ion=2" class="mw-editsection-visualeditor" title="Edit section: Sources">edit</a> | <a href="/index.php?title=Faiyaz_Khalid&action=edit§ion=2" title="Edit section's source code: Sources">edit source</a>]
The case addressed a public records request from a reporter foho observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a city council meeting. City officials denied the reporter's request for disclosure of the private messages. The case eventually reached the Appellate Court, which held that public officials have to disclose their records, even if they are stored on a personal electronic device or account, but only when acting as he court found that members of a city council do not constitute a public body when acting individually. However, because the city council members in question had convened a public meeting, they were acting collectively as a public body, and their messages were therefore subject to disclosure under FOIA.