Jump to content

ISPFSB Freedom of Information Act Request


AllenG

Recommended Posts

 

Uh oh......https://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Compliance-Agency-List/ISP/FY16-ISP-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 :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh......https://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Compliance-Agency-List/ISP/FY16-ISP-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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Uh oh......https://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Compliance-Agency-List/ISP/FY16-ISP-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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

post-16014-0-92031400-1575400125_thumb.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., December 14, 2019 at 06:39 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., December 14, 2019 at 06:39 PM - No reason given
Your thread sparked a $h!tstorm, thats for sure. Whole other thread on it the other day, but was deleted.
Link to comment

Perhaps it’s time to take the FOID legislation to the big bill bucket?

All it is a money generating scheme, which infringes on a right, that we get the pleasure of paying for like every thing in this *$#% hole tyrannical state. I feel a void the FOID rant coming on....

 

By the way does anyone know where I go to get my permission slip, so that my state 6th amendment and federal 4th amendment protections for warrant less searches and seizures cannot occur? What’s the fee or tax that must be shelled out for that protection from government? I know, those are not “absolute rights either”.

 

Oh and when did we get a 4th branch of government called the “police powers”? I can’t find it in our state constitution....

 

Rant is building up.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update: I know it has been a while since I filed my FOIA (a little over six weeks), but hopefully you guys haven't totally given up on working toward exposing the questionable financing of the ISP FSB. I received my one page response today, January 16. It can be found attached. It certainly isn't much, but it confirms straight from the horse's mouth that the FSB, and the other outlets for FOID and CCL revenue, are consistently receiving more income than they are spending. My best interpretation is that these surplus funds are being dumped into the state's general fund instead of going to their mandated accounts.

FOIA 19-3694.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...