Elmhurst City Worker Tied To April 2023 Disturbance: Records

ELMHURST, IL – At least one Elmhurst city employee and possibly more were tied to a disturbance nearly a year ago at City Hall, public records indicate.

The city has kept the April 2023 police report on disorderly conduct under wraps. The attorney general's office said the city is legally allowed to do so.

Last May, Patch requested the report and was denied.

A month later, Edgar Pal, who frequently files public records requests in the western suburbs, also submitted a request for the City Hall incident.

He, too, was denied. He filed a complaint with the attorney general.

In its response, the city said it had a "good faith belief" that both Pal and Patch "had knowledge of the identity of the specific employee(s) implicated by the disclosure."

At first, the city failed to give the police report to the attorney general's office in response to Pal's complaint, even though the office had requested it.

Under state law, the attorney general has the right to examine withheld documents. That way, the office can determine whether the secrecy is legal.

When Pal learned about Elmhurst's failure, he said the city should produce the document to the attorney general. The city then did so.

In December, the attorney general decided in the city's favor.

Through a public records request, Patch in January obtained a report of another incident of alleged disorderly conduct at City Hall.

In this case, a resident upset over a traffic issue threatened to harass a City Hall employee, according to the report.

Because the city released that report, Patch filed a new request for last year's incident, thinking the city may have changed its approach.

On Friday, Elmhurst denied Patch again. Like it did last year, it said the disclosure would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Such an invasion, the city said, does not outweigh a legitimate public interest in obtaining the information.

The city also said the information in question is subject to "strict confidentiality requirements" under state law.

"At this time, even the identification of the applicable State statute would violate the confidentiality provisions of the law and would infringe upon the privacy protections provided by the statute, exposing the City to additional independent civil liability," Amanda Melone, the city's Freedom of Information Act officer, said in a letter to Patch on Friday.

The reference to "civil liability" means the city fears it could be sued.

As part of the letter, Melone released a copy of the attorney general's opinion on the matter.