The following is a complete survey of nearly 60 suburban Chicago towns, on their responsiveness to open government laws. A December 2007 electric bill for the city, village or town’s main municipal building was requested from each.

Grading
A: Exemplary
Government went above and beyond its legal requirements, such as waiving fees or offering to send the information electronically. Information provided was complete and provided well within the time allotted.
B: Above average
Government adhered to the law and made the process easy. Information provided was complete and provided within the time allotted.
C: Average
Government adhered to the law but made the process cumbersome. Information provided was complete and provided within the time allotted.
D: Below average
Government failed to adhere to the law, but made a sincere effort to comply. Information provided was complete but might not have been submitted within the time allotted.
F: Failing
Government failed to adhere to the law, and made the process unnecessarily inconvenient. The information might have been incomplete, provided beyond the legally required time frame or not provided at all.

• Addison
A: Addison was among the first governments to respond, mailing out the information well within the seven-day allotment. The information was sent by mail but was bounced back to the village. The village then called, asked for a fax number and re-sent the information. The fax was received Feb. 15, and all fees were waived.

• Bartlett
A: Bartlett was among the first governments to respond, mailing out the information well within the seven-day allotment. The information was sent by mail Feb. 12, free of charge. A note scrawled on the original request indicated when it was received by the office Feb. 11 and when the information needed to be mailed out, by Feb. 20. Bartlett clearly knows the law.

• Batavia
A: Batavia was among the first governments to respond, mailing out the information well within the seven-day allotment. The information was sent by mail Feb. 12 with a letter from executive assistant Angelique Parker that said if any additional information was needed, it was a phone call away. The information was provided free of charge.

• Bensenville
F: Did not respond within the seven-day allotment. When no response was received, a phone call was placed to the clerk’s office Feb. 20 and an employee of the clerk’s office directed the requester to go online and fill out a form to request the information again. The clerk’s office said a denial letter was sent Feb. 11, but that letter was not received. The form was sent by fax Feb. 28. An employee of the clerk’s office said in a phone call March 3 that the office was processing the request.

• Berkeley
A: Out of 59 governments, Berkeley was the first to respond. Village Administrator Larry DiRe called and asked if he could fax the information, so it could be sent faster. The information arrived by fax Feb. 11, and all fees were waived.

• Berwyn
D: Did not respond within the seven-day allotment. However, Berwyn did send the correct information by fax Feb. 28 with a note apologizing for the delay. One of the deputy clerks had been ill. While Berwyn technically violated the open government law, and an employee out sick is not a valid excuse, it appeared that City Clerk Thomas Pavlik did his best to fulfill the request, and all fees were waived. Although late, the process worked more smoothly in Berwyn than many other governments who followed the law but made the process painful.

• Bloomingdale
A: Bloomingdale was among the first governments to respond, mailing out the information well within the seven-day allotment. The information was sent by mail Feb. 12, free of charge.

• Bolingbrook
A: A government official called immediately after receiving the request with a question, and asked for a fax number. Through an ordinance consideration, Bolingbrook does not pay ComEd for electricity used in its main municipal building, and the official wanted to know if the zero balance bill should be sent. The information was sent by fax Feb. 15, and all fees were waived.

• Broadview
F: Did not respond within the seven-day allotment. When no response was received, a call was placed to Village Clerk Patricia Williams Feb. 20. On Feb. 28, a second call to Williams was made. Williams said the request never made it to her office, but that she could fax the information. A fax was received March 3 with the amount for the bill typed in the comments area. However, the request was for an actual bill, not just the total amount.

• Brookfield
A: Brookfield was among the first governments to respond, mailing out the information well within the seven-day allotment. The Feb. 8 letter from Village Manager Riccardo Ginex indicated that due to an ordinance consideration with ComEd, Brookfield does not pay electricity for its municipal buildings. However, as requested, Ginex sent a copy of the zero balance bill from ComEd. Many of the 59 governments that have the same consideration were unwilling, at least initially, to send the same information. Ginex also waived all fees.

• Burr Ridge
A: Burr Ridge was among the first governments to respond, faxing the information well within the seven-day allotment. The cover letter from Village Clerk Karen Fox indicated that due to an ordinance consideration with ComEd, Burr Ridge does not pay electricity for its municipal buildings. However, as requested, Fox sent a copy of the zero balance bill from ComEd. Many of the 59 governments that have the same consideration were unwilling, at least initially, to send the same information. Fox also waived all fees.

• Carol Stream
A: Carol Stream was among the first governments to respond, mailing the information well within the seven-day allotment. A letter from Deputy Village Clerk Wynne Progar included the formal name of the main municipal building, and a phone number to call in case any additional information was needed. All fees were waived.

• Cicero
F: Cicero was one of just four governments  of 59 that did not comply. A phone call was placed to the clerk’s office Feb. 20, and the requester was told  the request was received Feb. 11, but the office is closed Fridays — not a valid excuse. Other messages were left Feb. 28 and March 6; the latter date also included a copy of the request, which was faxed to the clerk’s office. A letter was sent from legal assistant Jeff Wagner Feb. 26, 10 days after the initial request was received, asking for an extension. The letter said the document would be sent March 10; however, a document was never received.

• Clarendon Hills
C: On Feb. 14, a representative of Clarendon Hills called and asked for 20 cents to process the request. The fee was mailed Feb. 15, and a fax was received Feb. 15 from village fiscal analyst Jenneane Timreck, with a phone number to call in case any additional information was needed. The postage to mail the 20 cents to the village was more than the fee itself, but the information came promptly, and was complete. Clarendon Hills clearly followed the law but could have made the process easier.

• Countryside
D: Under the law, a government must respond to a request for information in writing within seven business days. This didn’t happen with Countryside. A call was placed to the village Feb. 13 and a representative said the information was on its way. It wasn’t. A couple phone calls later, to the accounts payable department, resulted in a March 3 fax with the correct information. Technically, by not responding with the allotted time, Countryside violated the law. However, the information was complete, and the fee was waived.

• Darien
F: Darien was one of just four governments out of 59 that did not comply with the request. A phone call was placed to the clerk’s office Feb. 20, and the requester was told that the request was received Feb. 8. The requester was transfered to accounting, and was told a document would be faxed at a later date. On Feb. 28, a fax was received indicating Darien does not pay electricity through an ordinance agreement with ComEd. However, ComEd still sends such government a zero-balance bill. Message were left with the accounting department March 3 and March 6. No document was ever sent.

• Downers Grove
D: Under the law, a government must respond to a request for information in writing within seven business days. This didn’t happen with Downers Grove. However, Deputy Village Clerk Linda Brown did send the information by fax Feb. 29, and waived all fees. All things considered, although Downers Grove technically violated the law, Brown did make the process relatively easy.

• Elmhurst
F: Under the law, a government must respond to a request for information in writing within seven business days. This didn’t happen with Elmhurst. A representative of Elmhurst said in a phone call Feb. 20 that a message had been left in a general mailbox indicating the request would be filled after the requester sent in 10 cents. However, under the law, a phone call doesn’t suffice. The 10 cents was mailed, and the information was mailed Feb. 27. The postage required to mail the fee was more than the fee itself, which of course isn’t illegal, but certainly annoying.

• Forest View
D: Forest View followed the law, but the process was a hassle. A Feb. 14 letter from Village Administrator Frank Yurka indicated the information would be sent when a 50 cent fee for the copies and a 41 cent fee for the postage was sent to the village. No other government out of the 59 asked for postage compensation. The 91 cents was mailed back Feb. 20. Office assistant LeeAnn Bernbaum, in a phone call March 6, said the information was mailed out Feb. 26 but had gotten bounced back. A fax was sent March 6 with the correct information.

• Geneva
C: Geneva followed the law, but the process was a real hassle. The city won’t fulfill the request unless it is submitted on a form the city has on its Web site. The request was faxed in on the official form Feb. 13. That same day, the city informed the requester the information was ready, and asked for 10 cents. When asked if the fee could be mailed, the answer was no. The city refused to e-mail, fax or mail the information. The document had to be picked up at City Hall when the 10 cents was turned over. This was done Feb. 15.

• Glen Ellyn
A: Glen Ellyn was among the first governments to respond, mailing the information well within the seven-day allotment. A letter from Village Clerk Andrea Draths dated Feb. 12 included the formal name of the main municipal building, and a phone number to call in case any additional information was needed. All fees were waived.

• Glendale Heights
C: Glendale Heights followed the law, but the process was slightly inconvenient. The village won’t fulfill the request unless it is submitted on a form the village has on its Web site. The form was filled out and faxed Feb. 11. The next day, the village sent the correct information by fax, and didn’t charge.

• Hanover Park
B: Hanover Park followed the law, sending the information by fax Feb. 12. Although originally 50 cents was charged to send the fax, upon request, the charge was waived. The information sent was complete, and the process was easy.

• Hillside
D: Under the law, a government must respond to a request for information in writing within seven business days. This didn’t happen with Hillside; however, a representative from the clerk’s office did call Feb. 14. Following a couple weeks of phone tag, the deputy clerk said all the office wanted was a fax number. The information was sent by fax March 3, and all fees were waived. While Hillside technically violated the law, the clerk’s office did ensure the correct documents were made available.

• Hinsdale
C: Hinsdale followed the law, but the process was slightly inconvenient. The village requires all information requests to be filled out on a particular form, which was faxed Feb. 13, and returned Feb. 13. The form includes a question about what entity the requester represents, which shouldn’t be on the form. That same day, the correct information was faxed back, with all fees waived. The extra step required is the reason for the average grade.

• Hodgkins
A: Hodgkins called to ask for a fax number, and sent the information by fax Feb. 14. Deputy Clerk Sharon Wells waived the fee as well.

• Huntley
A: Huntley was among the first governments to respond, mailing the information well within the seven-day allotment. A letter from Village Clerk Rita McMahon included the formal name of the main municipal building, and a phone number to call in case any additional information was needed. All fees were waived.

• Indian Head Park
A: Indian Head Park called to ask for a fax number, and sent the information by fax Feb. 12. The fax indicated the request was received by Feb. 11. The fee was waived.

• Itasca
B: A representative of Itasca called well within the seven allotted days to inform the requester the village did not receive an electric bill, due to an ordinance consideration with ComEd. As the purpose of the study was simply to obtain a public utility bill, a request was resubmitted via e-mail Feb. 11 for a water bill. The information arrived via fax Feb. 11, and all fees were waived.

• La Grange
C: Hinsdale followed the law, but the process was not at all convenient. The village requires all information requests to be filled out on a particular form, which was faxed Feb. 12, and returned Feb. 13. On Feb. 15, Village Manager Robert Pilipiszyn sent a letter that “approved” the request. However, no bill was attached. Instead, the letter contained a line that read, “The Village of La Grange is not required to pay for electrical service for the Village Hall under its franchise agreement with ComEd.” That’s fine, but the request was for an electric bill. Many of the 59 governments have a similar agreement with ComEd, but most sent the electric bill showing a zero balance. La Grange did not. After a phone conversation, Pilipiszyn agreed to fax an electric bill for the village’s pumping station, which was received Feb. 21. All fees were waived.

• La Grange Park
D: Under the law, a government must respond to a request for information in writing within seven business days. This didn’t happen with La Grange Park. A call was placed to the village Feb. 20, and returned Feb. 21, requesting a fax number. The fax number was given, and a fax was sent Feb. 22. On the fax’s cover sheet was a note from executive secretary Andy Bagley, apologizing for the delay. Although technically La Grange Park violated the law, reasonable efforts were made to ensure the correct information was made available, and the village clearly knows the law.

• Lemont
A: Lemont mailed the correct information within the time allotted through the law. The information was complete, and the original letter of request was also returned. This is a village that doesn’t waste paper.

• Lisle
C: A representative of Lisle called Feb. 12 to say copies of the documents requested were ready, and would be released upon receiving a 50 cent payment for two pages. The payment was mailed out Feb. 13, and the information was received by fax Feb. 19. Most of the 59 governments did not asked to be compensated for a couple pieces of paper, and of those that did, most agreed to send the information before payment was received. Lisle was cooperative but average.

• Lombard
A: Lombard was one of only a couple governments out of the 59 that submitted the information through e-mail. In doing so, Lombard was one of the quickest to respond, sending the document Feb. 11. No paper was used, and no fees were charged. If all the governments had responded like Lombard, this project would have taken incredibly less time.

• Lyons
A: Lyons was above average in that the information was received by fax, and the documents were made available with no charge. Village Manager Roy Witherow called Feb. 14, asking for the fax number, and the information was faxed Feb. 15.

• Marengo
A: Marengo was above average in that the information was received by fax, and the documents were made available with no charge. Deputy City Clerk Sally Millermon called Feb. 12, asking for the fax number, and the information was faxed Feb. 13.

• McCook
F: McCook was one of just four governments out of 59 that did not comply with the request. A phone call was placed to the clerk’s office Feb. 20, and the requester was told that members of the office were out sick. That is not a valid excuse for violating the open government law. Another message was left Feb. 28. Another message was left March 5. A copy of the request was faxed to the clerk’s office March 6. There was no response. According to the law, a government is required to respond in writing within seven days after receiving a request for information. This was not done, furthermore, the information has still not been received.

• Naperville
D: Under the law, a government must respond to a request for information in writing within seven business days. This didn’t happen with Naperville. A call was placed to the village Feb. 20, and the requester was informed that a city employee was on leave, and the office was short-handed. While this is not a legal excuse, it certainly is an understandable one. The same day, the information was faxed, at no charge. Although technically Naperville violated the law, Nancy Doppeler, with the city clerk’s office, made the process easy, and not charging for the document was a nice gesture that many other government did not extend.

• North Riverside
B: North Riverside mailed out the information, but through no fault of the village’s, the document was sent back. A call was placed Feb. 20 that was not returned. A second call was placed Feb. 28 to Village Administrator Guy Belmonte, who said the information was sent out Feb. 14, which was within the legally allotted time. Belmonte offered to fax the documents, and did so Feb. 28 at no charge.

• Oak Brook
B: Oak Brook adhered to the law, responding within the legally allotted seven-day period. However, unlike most of the 59 governments, Oak Brook would not waive the fee to fax the documents, which was 40 cents. Four dimes were taped to a piece of paper and mailed in Feb. 12. The documents were received by fax the following day.

• Oakbrook Terrace
C: Oakbrook Terrace initially denied the request. City Clerk Elaine De Luca said the city does not get an electric bill for City Hall. This is the case with several of the 59 governments that were surveyed; however, the vast majority of those were willing to provide a bill that showed a zero balance. Because the electric bill was not made available, a request for a phone bill was substituted. A fax with that information was received Feb. 15 at no charge.

• Riverside
C: Riverside initially denied the request. In a letter sent Feb. 8, Village Manager Kathleen Rush said the village does not get an electric bill for Village Hall. This is the case with most of the 59 governments surveyed; however, the vast majority of those were willing to provide a bill that showed a zero balance. Because the electric bill was not made available, a request for a phone bill was substituted. A fax with that information was received Feb. 25 at no charge. It should be noted that Rush’s letter, which was received very promptly, included contact information for another office, and indicated the information requested might be available there. Although the response was average, Rush clearly knows the open government law, and was more helpful than many other village managers and clerks.

• Romeoville
D: Under the law, a government must respond to a request for information in writing within seven business days. This didn’t happen with Romeoville. A representative of Romeoville government called and said the village didn’t pay an electric bill. The requester asked instead for a phone bill, and submitted the request Feb. 28. Administrative Assistant Candi Roberts requested a fee of $2.10 to fax the information. The fax was received March 10.

• Roselle
A: Roselle mailed the correct information within the time allotted through the law, on Feb. 13. The information was complete, and the original letter of request was also returned. This is a village that doesn’t waste paper.

• St. Charles
C: St. Charles has somewhat of a unique situation. The city doesn’t go through ComEd, and therefore doesn’t have the bill the vast majority of the other 58 governments surveyed have. A letter from Records Management Coordinator Sue Torres reads, “Meters that service City accounts are read monthly and usage and billing information is recorded into our utility billing system.” The letter, which was sent Feb. 13, indicated the cost for December 2007 was $5,240. That answered the question, but was not provided on any sort of official document. It was an overall average response.

• Stickney
A: Stickney was above average in that the information was received by fax, and the documents were made available with no charge. Village Clerk Arthur Rawers called Feb. 12, asking for the fax number, and the information was faxed Feb. 12. Rawers clearly knows the law, and made the process simple.

• Streamwood
A: Streamwood mailed the correct information within the time allotted through the law, on Feb. 13. The information was complete, and included a letter from Village Clerk Kittie Kopitke, who clearly knows the law. There was no charge.

• Villa Park
C: Villa Park responded in writing Feb. 12, following the open government law. Village Manager Bob Niemann’s letter indicated the documents were being held at the reception desk for one week, with a 25 cent charge for the single page. None of the other 58 governments surveyed indicated the documents would only be available for one week, but that’s not against the law. However, a phone call by the requester Feb. 20 resulted in the village faxing the document that same day without a charge. The village performed above average.

• Warrenville
D: Technically, Warrenville did not adhere to the law; however, it was a very minor infraction. By law, a government must respond in writing within seven business days. Warrenville called. It’s splitting hairs. The city asked for a fee of 30 cents to fax the two-page document. The payment was mailed in Feb. 15, and the fax was received Feb. 25. Despite the D grade, Warrenville made the process simple and sent the correct information in a timely manner.

• Westchester
A: Westchester mailed the correct information within the time allotted through the law, on Feb. 14. The information was complete, and included a letter from Village Manager Carl Goldsmith. There was no charge.

• West Chicago
C: West Chicago mailed the correct information within the time allotted through the law, on Feb. 11. A letter from Freedom of Information Officer Kimberly Wayne indicated the charge for the documents was $2.25, at 25 cents per page. Three of these pages were unnecessary. Only one municipality of the 59 surveyed charged more.

• Western Springs
A: Western Springs was above average in that the information was received by fax, and the documents were made available with no charge. The information was faxed Feb. 13. Western Springs clearly knows the law, and made the process simple.

• Westmont
A: Westmont was one of only a couple governments out of the 59 that submitted the information through e-mail, received Feb. 12. No paper was used, and no fees were charged. If all the governments had responded like Westmont, this project would have taken incredibly less time.

• Wheaton
A: Wheaton mailed the correct information within the time allotted through the law, on Feb. 13. The information was complete, and included a letter from executive assistant Sharon Barrett-Hagen, who clearly knows the law. There was no charge.

• Willowbrook
A: Willowbrook mailed the correct information within the time allotted through the law, on Feb. 12. The information was complete, and included a letter from Freedom of Information Act Officer Mary Partyka, who clearly knows the law. There was no charge.

• Willow Springs
B: A village representative called asking for a 50 cent fee for the documents. Payment was sent out Feb. 12. Willow Springs mailed out the information, but through no fault of the village, the document was sent back. One quick phone call from the requester resulted in the information being faxed Feb. 25.

• Winfield
C: Winfield by far required the most expensive fee, a total of $9.70, including $4.60 for postage. It was completely unnecessary. The request was for the electric bill for Village Hall. Executive assistant and deputy clerk Cindy Torraco sent the entire bill, including charges for every street light in Winfield. The information was received well within the legally allotted time, and was complete, so Winfield followed the law. But out of the 102 pages mailed, only one was needed. It should have been a 5 cent fee, in addition to postage.

• Wood Dale
C: Wood Dale initially denied the request verbally, as the city does not get an electric bill for City Hall. This is the case with most of the 59 governments that were surveyed; however, the vast majority of those were willing to provide a bill that showed a zero balance. Because the electric bill was not made available, a request for a water bill was substituted. A fax with that information was received Feb. 11 at no charge.

• Woodridge
A: Woodridge mailed the correct information within the time allotted through the law. The information was complete, and came at no charge. Deputy Clerk Melissa Bohse clearly knows the law.