Jump to content


Photo

ISPFSB Freedom of Information Act Request


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#31 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 11:45 AM

Uh oh......https://www.auditor....P-Comp-Full.pdf
FirstkOpDqqQ.jpg
And some more stuffBc20LFT.jpgYGUVfKR.jpg7KOhVdD.jpg03yb3cH.jpg
More in audit link, but numbers are definitely not matching up. Maybe someone with more bookkeeping knowledge can chime in....

Excellent work, SteveTA84. It looks like in 2016, The ISP FSB received $676,344 from FOID card applicants ($3 as prescribed by the FOID Act X 225,448) and $14,314,560 from processing CCL applications ($120 X 119,288). That sums up to $14,990,904 total income from FOID and CCL applicants. The FSB only spent $7,683,456, which leaves $7,307,448 unspent dollars from FOID and CCL processing. This begs the question- where the heck did that money ($7,307,448) go? Hopefully we will have more specifics after they comply with my request, but something seems really fishy.
You sparked the idea for me to investigate and dig further (call it a OSD thing when a lightbulb goes off), and yes, something VERY fishy here. Cant wait for your FOIA results :)

Edited by steveTA84, 02 December 2019 - 11:46 AM.


#32 carry

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Joined: 26-November 13

Posted 02 December 2019 - 11:50 AM

Uh oh......https://www.auditor....P-Comp-Full.pdf
First
And some more stuff
More in audit link, but numbers are definitely not matching up. Maybe someone with more bookkeeping knowledge can chime in....


You know some people have done federal time for backdating stock bonus awards to employees - the backdating of receipts into the “correct” fund brought this memory back...

#33 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,914 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:02 PM

And yet in press releases, committee hearings, etc did they not claim there was no money in the fund for making changes to process, updating software (we cant use mobile devices anymore...really), hiring staff, etc? The ISRA contested that based on numbers which I dont believe ever got a response.

Edited by InterestedBystander, 02 December 2019 - 12:02 PM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#34 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:04 PM

Uh oh......https://www.auditor....P-Comp-Full.pdf
First
And some more stuff
More in audit link, but numbers are definitely not matching up. Maybe someone with more bookkeeping knowledge can chime in....


You know some people have done federal time for backdating stock bonus awards to employees - the backdating of receipts into the “correct” fund brought this memory back...

AJ1H5Jt.gif

#35 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:06 PM

And yet in press releases, committee hearings, etc did they not claim there was no money in the fund for making changes to process, updating software (we cant use mobile devices anymore...really), hiring staff, etc? The ISRA contested that based on numbers which I dont believe ever got a response.


Well, the proof is in this thread. Where did the millions upon millions go?.......

#36 AllenG

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 23-November 19

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:11 PM

Attached File  ISP email.pdf   67.89KB   41 downloads Also, someone asked for a screenshot of my email, so here you go.



#37 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:21 PM

2018:

http://auditor.illin...P-Comp-Full.pdf

8ebQIfN.jpg

$28,250,000 total funding for both programs. Only $7,364,054 accounted for. Wheres the rest?

Edited by steveTA84, 02 December 2019 - 12:26 PM.


#38 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,146 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:21 PM

 

 

I don’t pretend to know, but it certainly appears that way

 

 

I put in an inquiry to an accountant who has worked for a government finance accounting company and major not-for-profits to get clarification as to what that means. From my understanding, it seems that the lapsed balance is the appropriated amount not used for the designated purposes, and so if it is not brought forward to the next period, or allowed to be brought forward, it is no longer usable to pay bills.

 

If that is indeed the case here, then failure to use those funds as required by law is illegal, or at the very least there should be a reevaluation of the fees that generate them, so that these funds are not being built up as waste surplus. Additionally, if they are not used, then reasonably they should be returned to those who paid them, i.e., the individuals who paid for their licenses expecting that the funds would, in fact, be put to use as the law designated that they are.

 

So, it appears that those funds should either be returned to the licensees in percentage to what was not used, or Illinois needs hire and expand the apparatus and employees that process firearm use/ownership licenses, with the appropriate controls and auditing, to make use of it, and thus properly and effectively serve the people whose taxes fund the state's operations. If not, then the fees are too high and should be lowered to correspond with the actual expenses needed to administer the state's licensing scheme.

 

 

^^^^^

Pretty much throws out the fee increases associated with Fix the FOID if it is in fact funds that are not used, is its millions upon millions just sitting there. And if it is the case (that its just wasted money not being used for intended purpose), perhaps lawsuit time????


Please report back as to what your contact says

 

My contact had this to say:

 

Lapsed balances in restricted funds generally get transferred to the general, i.e., an unrestricted fund category unless there is a stipulation or resolution that the unused funds are returned to the donor/entity by a certain date.

 

What this means is that based on the language of the legislation, since those funds are specifically designated to be put to use for administering firearm licensing and the mental health aspects, et cetera they should be used for only those purposes, since there shouldn't be an allowance for the funds not used to be put into the State's or ISP's general funds. That would be entirely contrary to the stated purpose and reasons of the CCL and FOID licensing fees. There is absolutely no reason for those licensing funds to be used for anything other than administering the following:

 

Fees (Funds) $150 application fee

• $120 to the State Police Firearm Services Fund;

• $20 to the Mental Health Reporting Fund;

• $10 to the State Crime Laboratory Fund.

 

Police Firearm Services Fund used to cover the cost of administering and enforcing Concealed Carry and FOID card laws.

Mental Health Reporting Fund used to cover the cost of collecting and reporting mental health data

 

That's what those funds are only intended for by the people who are forced to pay them, and therefore if they are not being used in only those ways, then the remainder needs to be returned to the people, AND the licensing fees adjusted to cover what the actual expenses are. Otherwise, it's just a scheme by the State to take money from its citizens that it doesn't intend to use as the law requires.

 

So, yes, a class-action lawsuit with every CCL and FOID owner (because those funds aren't being fully used as well, even though they are being collected) as members of the class is in order, as well as having the legislation changed to modify the fees to more appropriate levels, since the funds are not being used as the State said they were supposed to be when the legislation was passed—nor are they apparently required, since there is a repeated pattern of non-utilization of the funds that borders on government malfeasance.

 

On the chance that the legislation does have some sh!t-weaseling out that the funds not used for the above reasons can be dumped into the general fund, that NEEDS to be changed, by legal and legislative action.


Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 02 December 2019 - 12:26 PM.

"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#39 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 12:21 PM

attachicon.gifISP email.pdf Also, someone asked for a screenshot of my email, so here you go.


Only reason I asked is “new guy” with an awesome inquiry. Nicely done :)

#40 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 01:32 PM

https://www.mom-at-a...the-money-going

#41 carry

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Joined: 26-November 13

Posted 02 December 2019 - 06:09 PM

Sounds like a large reduction in fees and or a refund of excess fees could be in order.

 

I would be totally OK with a reduction in fees including an elimination of fees for those who cannot afford them -  this whole fee structure reminds me of "Saturday Night Special" laws designed to prevent firearm protection by those who probably need it most.

 

 

.... that or constitutional carry ...


Edited by carry, 02 December 2019 - 06:11 PM.


#42 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 02 December 2019 - 07:52 PM

They are essentially taxing us to exercise our Constitutional rights, where non-gun owners don't have to pay. The general fund dump of intentional excess is illegal in this case. It's not a matter of a a 5%-10% overage due to minor variances in collections/expenditures which are out of their control. We are being penalized for exercising our rights, and further deprived of the services we are paying for.

CLASS ACTION AND MANDAMUS!!

#43 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,063 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 02 December 2019 - 09:25 PM

It won't be long until this makes a legal firm FILTHY STINKING RICH, and people with FOID's will get a check in the mail if they opt in, for $00.02 each


Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.


#44 Helpdesk9

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 491 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 02 December 2019 - 11:02 PM

https://www.mom-at-a...the-money-going

Reached out to TTAG and a couple others with this...

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk



#45 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 02 December 2019 - 11:52 PM

https://www.mom-at-a...the-money-going

Reached out to TTAG and a couple others with this...

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Same here lol. Rhonda Ezell/Chicago Guns Matter sent it out on social media as well

#46 FST_Kent

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,257 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 03 December 2019 - 09:06 AM

On the chance that the legislation does have some sh!t-weaseling out that the funds not used for the above reasons can be dumped into the general fund, that NEEDS to be changed, by legal and legislative action.

 

 

This was brought up before and I said ask Todd V. about this with the Motorcycle Education Fund and ABATE.

 

Here's how I remember it.

 

Special funds had been swept by several governors into the general fund.  A law was passed to end this practice.  Blago swept the funds.  ABATE sued and won, but............

 

The judge ordered to only restore the motorcycle fund and all the other groups must file individual suits to get their money back.  Not sure if any ever did.  ABATE is probably the only group that keeps a good eye on "their" fund.



#47 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,458 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 03 December 2019 - 12:05 PM

Hello, I am new to this site, and this is my very first post, so please be forgiving of any errors on my part.

 

I am a 21 year old Southern Illinois University-Carbondale student and a resident of Shelby county, and I submitted my CCL application about a month ago. I happened to be leisurely reading the Firearm Concealed Carry Act when I noticed that $120 of every application is supposed to go to the ISPFSB, which got me wondering why they are so darn slow and understaffed. According to my research, there are over 300,000 concealed carry licenses in the state, which equates to over $36,000,000 going into the firearms services bureau just from Concealed Carry Licenses. In an effort to figure out where that money has gone, I have filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records pertaining to these funds. I have attached my request to this post for your entertainment. I will keep you all updated.

 

 

AllenG, GREAT first post!  Welcome to IllinoisCarry.  We look forward to seeing the results of your FOIA request!


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#48 AllenG

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 23-November 19

Posted 03 December 2019 - 12:48 PM

I have an update on my FOIA Request:

 

According to Mr. Bruce Kugler, the ISP FOIA Officer, they have received my request. My reference number is 19-3694 and, according to Mr. Kugler, they receive approximately 4,000 FOIA requests annually. He also said that there are currently about 500 requests in front of mine.

 

This being said, it certainly wouldn't hurt to submit more FOIA requests concerning this same topic. If 40 or 50 people submit very similar requests, they would probably be more willing to prioritize it to cut into their backlog.



#49 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,788 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 03 December 2019 - 01:08 PM

I have an update on my FOIA Request:
 
According to Mr. Bruce Kugler, the ISP FOIA Officer, they have received my request. My reference number is 19-3694 and, according to Mr. Kugler, they receive approximately 4,000 FOIA requests annually. He also said that there are currently about 500 requests in front of mine.
 
This being said, it certainly wouldn't hurt to submit more FOIA requests concerning this same topic. If 40 or 50 people submit very similar requests, they would probably be more willing to prioritize it to cut into their backlog.

Listen to him, folks! And itll be a few months till you get your response, OP.

In the meantime, this was provided by the ISP from a prior FOIA. If any of these can be connected to anyone that works for the state/has been in office for awhile, further digging can be done

Attached Thumbnails

  • 714A637C-2592-4428-AE97-202684880359.jpeg


#50 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 04 December 2019 - 10:00 PM

I have an update on my FOIA Request:

 

According to Mr. Bruce Kugler, the ISP FOIA Officer, they have received my request. My reference number is 19-3694 and, according to Mr. Kugler, they receive approximately 4,000 FOIA requests annually. He also said that there are currently about 500 requests in front of mine.

 

This being said, it certainly wouldn't hurt to submit more FOIA requests concerning this same topic. If 40 or 50 people submit very similar requests, they would probably be more willing to prioritize it to cut into their backlog.

 

You have made a great start Allen.  Good luck.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#51 newshooter

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 19

Posted 06 December 2019 - 12:06 PM

The FOIA law in case anyone is interested. Note that you have legal recourse if they blow the allowed timeline.

https://www2.illinoi...mation_Act.aspx

http://www.ilga.gov/...=85&ChapterID=2

Edited by newshooter, 06 December 2019 - 12:09 PM.


#52 newshooter

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 19

Posted 06 December 2019 - 12:14 PM

The FOIA response timing language. They don't get to delay you more than ten days.

(d) Each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section. Denial shall be in writing as provided in Section 9 of this Act. Failure to comply with a written request, extend the time for response, or deny a request within 5 business days after its receipt shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the requisite periods in this Section but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for such copies. A public body that fails to respond to a request received may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g).
(e) The time for response under this Section may be extended by the public body for not more than 5 business days from the original due date for any of the following reasons:
(i) the requested records are stored in whole or in

part at other locations than the office having charge of the requested records;
(ii) the request requires the collection of a

substantial number of specified records;
(iii) the request is couched in categorical terms and

requires an extensive search for the records responsive to it;
(iv) the requested records have not been located in

the course of routine search and additional efforts are being made to locate them;
(v) the requested records require examination and

evaluation by personnel having the necessary competence and discretion to determine if they are exempt from disclosure under Section 7 of this Act or should be revealed only with appropriate deletions;
(vi) the request for records cannot be complied with

by the public body within the time limits prescribed by subsection (d) of this Section without unduly burdening or interfering with the operations of the public body;
(vii) there is a need for consultation, which shall

be conducted with all practicable speed, with another public body or among 2 or more components of a public body having a substantial interest in the determination or in the subject matter of the request.
The person making a request and the public body may agree in writing to extend the time for compliance for a period to be determined by the parties. If the requester and the public body agree to extend the period for compliance, a failure by the public body to comply with any previous deadlines shall not be treated as a denial of the request for the records.
(f) When additional time is required for any of the above reasons, the public body shall, within 5 business days after receipt of the request, notify the person making the request of the reasons for the extension and the date by which the response will be forthcoming. Failure to respond within the time permitted for extension shall be considered a denial of the request. A public body that fails to respond to a request within the time permitted for extension but thereafter provides the requester with copies of the requested public records may not impose a fee for those copies. A public body that requests an extension and subsequently fails to respond to the request may not treat the request as unduly burdensome under subsection (g).
(g) Requests calling for all records falling within a category shall be complied with unless compliance with the request would be unduly burdensome for the complying public body and there is no way to narrow the request and the burden on the public body outweighs the public interest in the information. Before invoking this exemption, the public body shall extend to the person making the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempt to reduce the request to manageable proportions. If any public body responds to a categorical request by stating that compliance would unduly burden its operation and the conditions described above are met, it shall do so in writing, specifying the reasons why it would be unduly burdensome and the extent to which compliance will so burden the operations of the public body. Such a response shall be treated as a denial of the request for information.
Repeated requests from the same person for the same records that are unchanged or identical to records previously provided or properly denied under this Act shall be deemed unduly burdensome under this provision.
(h) Each public body may promulgate rules and regulations in conformity with the provisions of this Section pertaining to the availability of records and procedures to be followed, including:
(i) the times and places where such records will be

made available, and
(ii) the persons from whom such records may be

obtained.
(i) The time periods for compliance or denial of a request to inspect or copy records set out in this Section shall not apply to requests for records made for a commercial purpose, requests by a recurrent requester, or voluminous requests. Such requests shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.6 of this Act, as applicable.
(Source: P.A. 101-81, eff. 7-12-19.)

#53 newshooter

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 19

Posted 06 December 2019 - 12:18 PM

One more thing on FOIA as I deal with it frequently: news agencies tend to get far more traction than individuals. If there is a 2A friendly reporter at a larger newspaper, you can probably get more traction. They also have the legal resources to sue if the state digs its heels in.

Edited by newshooter, 06 December 2019 - 12:18 PM.


#54 AllenG

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 23-November 19

Posted 09 December 2019 - 03:21 PM

Update:

 

The ISP has responded today with a notice of extension. It can be found attached to this post. I wish I had more to tell you guys, but now it is just a waiting game (CCL people should have a good idea of what that is like.)

Attached Thumbnails

  • FOIA # 19-3694 EXTENSION -.jpg

Edited by AllenG, 09 December 2019 - 03:23 PM.


#55 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 21,057 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 09 December 2019 - 05:19 PM

Thanks for the follow up.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users