15-IB04 06/29/15 Attorney General Opinion re: the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Attorney General Opinion No. 15-IB04 June 29, 2015 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mitch Crane, Esquire Chairman Delaware Manufactured Housing Relocation Authority 110 Main Street, Suite G Camden, DE 19934 Dear Mr. Crane: In your letter of April 28, 2015 (the “Request”), on behalf of […]
Read More15-IB02 06/17/15 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. Noto re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Kent County Recorder of Deeds
The petitioner alleged that the Kent County Recorder of Deeds violated FOIA by not providing requested documents in a format that could be stored on external media. Held: Because FOIA only requires a public body to provide “reasonable access” to the public records, and two alternatives for reasonable access were offered to the Petitioner (inspection and copying during business hours or a paid subscription service), there was no FOIA violation.
Read More15-IB03 06/12/15 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Kevin J. Ohlandt re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Delaware Department of Education
The petitioner requested a determination of whether the Department of Education (“the Department”) had violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by withholding requested documents until he paid $6,568.86 for their procurement, an amount he believed to be overestimated in order to discourage the request. Held: A FOIA violation occurred because the fees were not reasonable and were reduced by the Department of Justice to a maximum of $1,725.04, but there was no basis to conclude that the original estimate was intended to discourage the petitioner’s request. It was not a FOIA violation for the Department to require payment of some of all of the fees in advance.
Read More15-IB01 06/12/15 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Weller re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Appoquinimink School Board
The petitioner alleged the Appoquinimink School Board (“the Board”) committed multiple violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”); specifically, they were alleged to have voted on a superintendent contract (“the Contract”) while in executive session, not provided sufficient notice that the contract would be discussed in agendas for two dates, and corrected an agenda to reflect the discussion after the meeting had been held. Held: The Board violated FOIA’s open meetings requirements when it (i) discussed the Contract in executive session at the June 2014 Board meeting for purposes not authorized by FOIA; (ii) failed to specifically list the consideration of the Contract in the June 2014 Meeting agendas; and (iii) failed to specifically list the discussion of the Contract in the December 2014 Meeting agenda.
Read More
