revisit that will will will pick up that issue something went wrong allegedly in the provision of health care with mr franco who was a guest of the department inappropriate health care clearly a claim related to that yes the constitutional provision to provide healthcare that claim was settled between wexford and the end at all and the state and the only times now seeks access to that settlement the department of corrections to its credit  the cost of providing health care to inmates is a public record this settlement agreement relates to the alleged failure to provide health care and establishing the cost related to that failure alleged failure and that contract likewise should be a public record both the contract and to indirectly this settlement are funded with public dollars works for claims the agreement in the amount to be paid to resolve these allegations is a trade secret but at the same time works for itself notes a strong public interest in the release of settlement agreement so that the public gets to know if in this case department of corrections either alone or who works for is doing its job and obviously the public isn't a person in the in the standing the financial impact on the public body the taxpayers include rates for future services future insurance policies i can't pretend that the cost of that the increased cost to taxpayers is because of the cost of the settlement agreement is either hypothetical or theoretical watching a football game over the weekend liberty mutual insurance told me that if you pay the premium p they will give you accident forgiveness inch or so if you pay your insurance premium but don't get accident forgiveness ensure that when you get it when you get in an accident your fault or not your premiums going to go up but if you pay your premium plus up front then they can't increase your premium when you're in an accident mr franco was in an accident we paid to settle that claim and our cost of doing business are the taxpayers cost of doing business is going to go up as a result there is a cost to the taxpayers that is involved in this case the argument will be made that this agreement is not directly related to the provision of health care i would argue that it is directly related to the failure to provide the governmental function addition has to comply with the constitutional and statutory responsibilities that the department of corrections this agreement demonstrates that doesn't demonstrate because i'm sure i haven't seen it but my guess in there is in that agreement some places of is a paragraph that says works for denies all liability bottle bluff so it's not an admission but there is a proof there there is payment based on the claim of a case the foundation was doing fundraising for the power the subpoena had ducting to do under subpoena it wasn't an effort on the part of the foundation to go out of his money for the whole it was a solicitation for funds that wasn't at all related to was also an employee of the college took it to another employee of both and then the foundations are still happy we don't have if this is the real man it exists but we don't have it which is precisely the position that c finds itself in this case it exists we tried to get it we don't have the only way to get it at this point is from watching but it but this this settlement agreement like that subpoena deals with deals not with the specific function it was delegated to the foundation or to lecture or it deals with matters related to that disclosed absent any questions the policy i think is is it's a policy question to be determined on what is directly related to the function assigned to lecture and it is is an agreement related  failure to form that function disclosable under seventy two i would argue that it i specific document directly relates to the government service the service being provide example one of the examples of better read when you compare the obligations of a public body a set out in the definition of public record to see as compared to the definition and seven to related to a third party  see talks about a public record you don't pertain to the government business and when you see that as compared to when you're talking about seven to the standard here document that directly relates to the performance of a government function and this court  and there's no question that there will be documents in the course of that litigation that do directly but i think that's one of the best places to start when you look at the actual settlement agreement and callouses client does have a copy of the redacted version i know your honour's have  that document has no description no discussion good but any information regarding the actual condition of this individual of treatment of policies and procedures employed of tests of contain very little other than reflecting the party's ultimate conclusion that they want to settle a claim had it not been for your client's contract to perform certain services for the department of corrections  analysis this court decide cases where they had to look at the the foyer exception where we don't produce personnel files but is this court said they were individual employment contracts in there that didn't qualify to be a part of that personnel file and if we don't do a document by document analysis it really does upset the balance that the legislature drew between a private parties disclosure obligations and the disclosure obligations  to contrast those if you hold up to see can you hold up seven to the legislature made the decision to draw differences in those disclosure obligations i think that's where this case starts and when and actually looking at provision of care but this is a document that simply settles that claim and again i think if you just go back to that document there is no mention whatsoever of any aspect or any discussion and in mr craven's right there is a specific disavowal that the document is anything other than settling the claim and so your honor it's absolutely true that there are many documents if you go to state the prison you go to the medical records department and you go to an individual inmates file there will be notes from a lecture gawked there will be test results ordered by works for dr there will be prescriptions provided by wexford all of those obviously directly relate to the provision of care but there is a distinction that the legislature determined and made between that recording obligations that pertains to analysis for to see for public bodies and this notion of a document having to directly relate and your honor in terms of mr craven talk a little bit about funding your threats litigation mr craven had suggested that section two point two zero was implicated in this case and your honor snow that's the section that specifically says the settlement agreement but buyer on behalf of a public b is subject to four mr craven after you made that assertion and we pointed out that every case that he cites actually involves a public body and that there's not a single public access opinion not a single case not a piece a legislative history suggesting that she point to zero is implicated in this case he's now backed away from that but the important part is he made the same argument there that he's made now about funding they are doing the job well considered and rejected and that argument was this notion that in fact i'm just trying to address the argument that the public because the public has an interest in future cost of the state the argument goes if there's a settlement agree the settlement agreement charge will increase future costs of future contracts and will say look i think that's a good policy argument for the legislature that african siddur the argument but he noted to apportion problems with that argument that has to be made again here in terms of the financial component and the two arguments are your honorable one it's speculative because there's not even certainty that there will be another contract with wexford there's an r f p out right now for a new vendor in second and more importantly your honor this notion that it's how does the department of corrections a state of illinois those bodies that deal with treatment in mental health facilities if we were in federal court and i don't profess to have any notion about four and what restrictions that might eat but the whole state of illinois is in a state of furor over the mental health treatment which is medical being provided in the state prisons and i can't court was saying i'm going to tell you state of illinois you better start providing better mental health care to your in this case i would think that would be a critical thing to be disclose that you settle the case for whatever reason and procedures in place for eye doc that they do in fact review all of the experts provision of care your honor and to be clear i doc never during the course of its provision of care to its inmates has ever asked for this settlement agreement they didn't even know it existed because you sign up to provide a government function doesn't mean that the general public gets to look at every single document is this is the second circuit or excuse me the second district sat in the important court hears there's absolutely oversight over wexford these are the eye doc and in those lawsuits agree absolutely and i'm trying to do is make the pineta what it was to connect the connection on to the legislature has made the connection for us by saying that the document has to directly relate to the provision of care in free as opposed to when you look at to see it just as it has to pertain to the conduct of public business and i don't i think it's important to recognize i would like to address the tribune case he didn't have the subpoena i would like to get to that this discussion of the subpoena in the chicago tribune case i think it's really critical mr craven decided what the tribune case and the charter schools public access opinion if writers look at those two cases in the in the tribune case there was no discussion whatsoever by the powers of the page or its foundation the court specifically said that they never tried to assert and make any arguments whatsoever about whether or not they were directly related in fact there was no discussion of the contents of the subpoena and not really sure where that description came from and that's critical the college of two page there's no analysis of the actual subpoena is opposed to the document here so respectful i don't think that that characterization is helpful instead what is helpful from the college page case is the second district's acknowledgement that the language th must directly relate just comparing the words pertain which is directly related just looking at the stats for it has to mean something there has to be a difference there or else it just renders directly relates her flutes and in this instance this is an example there absolutely many documents yana to your point many documents that directly relate to the issue of division to the provision of care many documents they said if you walked into a medical records room or a doctor's notes all of those different documents th case by case i agree your honor and i would ass your arse to look at the document again look at the settlement and although the court is charging literally construed it this court is also set it has its limitations and in this instance there is a balance that has been struck by the legislature to balance the interests of a private vendor the state of illinois wants to have a vendors one who business with the state of illinois and mr crimmins talk about policy there is all there are also policy considerations i don't think they're necessary because of the text but your question your honor the state of illinois the legit though the legislator who wrote the trade series exemption said the term trade secret was liberally construed because we want to attract vendors who want to do business with the state and that is exactly the case to identify that settlement agreements on or on behalf of or by a public body are in fact covered by oil and if it does not cover private parties there's no case there's been no suggestion that it covers those and i think that's telling when you're yes or as they want to do business right yes wrong because the state only does rely on a number of vendors right services and i think i want to be clear as i can your honor to your good question for this is this is no attempt to escape oversight there is more oversight  then you could possibly imagine with respect i got hoover wexford not to mention watch for over its own doctors and there are many documents absolutely positively directly related is respectfully on our position though in this case is jaja judge o doesn't really say much extra that anybody would be interested  disclose absolutely your honor and i would be clear you know i think that there are absolutely policy arguments here that although i don't suggest rely on them but i would say they are to answer your question vendors across the state care physicians or honor that was by wexford right primary care physicians and mental health providers and if those an increase in lawsuits corrections are already a challenge environment as we all know and they have a heck of a time recruiting those individuals to provide care  those facilities and spend literally millions of dollars and pay hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to get psychiatrists to go to state bill to try to get doctors when there's already a shortage nationally of those doctors and by making private documents about these honor because in this case is your honor knows probably settle for all kinds of different reasons and in this case the dollar value is such that i think that in fact to anyone to invade that there would be the motivation to sue and in that case that to sue not only works for the vendor but also the individual doctors their facility and it would present a challenge of wexford both in terms of the number of lawsuits they face and also the number of lawsuits that the individual face and i think respectfully i think this is a and while there are health care concerns i will usually i think we've now because sighted been instructed that the only thing that we don't know about the settlement agreement is either four or five or six or seven figures funded in this case by wexford or an internal company but funded ultimately an investment there is a public interest in knowing that maybe we could spend that three or four or five or six or seven figures and hire more doctors hire more psychologists hire more psychiatrists don't spend it on someone agreements spend it on the provision of health care which apparently to follow up on on your honor's question how can you how can the how can deal see review and and and consider responses to an r f p when we don't we have a we is when we don't know how much wexford has paid to settle of variety of claims over the life of that cap or what did we you know we we learned in the campaign that we we we  state of illinois wasted the billion dollars paying interest on claims on bills that we didn't pay how much did we waste on settlement agreements with the who works for the department of corrections that could be used for higher and better purposes and lastly my bike colleague is correct that the du page case didn't consider didn't didn't the parties didn't specifically argue whether that subpoena was directly related to the governmental function the second district order that it be released because it was they had no other basis to order release of that document other than section seven and gave it to the universe for the college and new universe the college didn't give it back and the college didn't give it back and the college was ordered to disclose it was a record given to not the college  given to the foundation and it was it was a school