Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Dagsboro
Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 06-IB02 (Del.A.G.), 2006 WL 1242011 Office of the Attorney General State of Delaware Opinion No. 06-IB02 January 9, 2006 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Dagsboro *1 Mr. William B. Chandler, III 600 Main Street P.O. Box 87 Dagsboro, DE 19939 Dear Mr. Chandler: Our Office received your […]
Read More05-IB28 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County Council
Complainant alleges that the County Council violated the FOIA open meeting requirements by holding a “special meeting” for 7 of the 13 members of the Council to discuss a pending lawsuit with the County Attorney because a meeting of 7 members of the County Council constitutes a meeting of a ‘public body.’ The ‘Special Meeting Notice’ appears to exclude not only the public but also the remaining County Council members who are not the subject of a recently filed lawsuit.” Held: the Council did not violate the open meeting requirements when 9 members of the Council met in executive session to discuss pending litigation with the County Attorney. FOIA authorizes the Council to meet in private with the County Attorney to discuss litigation strategy because an open meeting would have had an adverse effect on the litigation position of the Council and the individual defendants.
Read More05-IB26: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Middletown
Complainant alleged that the Town violated the FOIA open meeting requirements by not: (1) giving the public adequate notice of matters to be discussed under the agenda headings “Old Business” and “Unfinished Business”; (2) giving the public adequate notice of matters to be discussed in executive session under the agenda heading “Personnel and Legal Matters”; (3) following the proper procedures forgoing into executive session; and by (4) allowing members of the public who are not members of the Town Council to attend executive sessions. The Complainant also alleges that the Town violated the public records requirements of FOIA by denying access to requested minutes of executive sessions. The Town did not violate the public notice requirements of FOIA by: (1) discussing informational-only matters and hearing comments and questions from citizens during the period of public meetings reserved for “New Business” or “Unfinished Business”; (2) using a shorthand agenda heading (“Personnel” or “Legal Issues”) to give notice to the public that the Town Council would meet in executive session and for what purpose; or (3) by voting to go into executive session at the start of the next month’s meeting of the Council, so long as the Town properly noticed the executive session in the agenda for the next month’s meeting and the Council voted again in public to go into executive session. However, the Town did violate FOIA by denying access to the minutes of executive sessions because the Town has failed to show either that: (1) the Town Council met in executive session for a purpose authorized by law; or (2) disclosure at this time would defeat the lawful purpose for an executive session authorized by law.
Read More05-IB24: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Dagsboro
Complainant alleged that the Town violated FOIA by: (1) failing to notice in the agenda for a meeting that after executive session the Town Council would return to public session to vote on several matters of public business; (2) meeting in executive session to discuss matters of public business for purposes not authorized by law; and (3) denying access to the complete minutes of the executive session. Held: the Town violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by: (1) meeting in executive session to discuss 5 matters of public business not authorized by law for private discussion; and (2) failing to notice in the meeting agenda that the Town Council would return to public session after the executive session to discuss and vote on 2 matters of public business. The Town also violated the public records requirements of FOIA by not providing requestor copies of the minutes of the executive session redacted only to exclude 2 personnel matters in which the Town Council discussed the abilities and competency of individual employees.
Read More05-IB19 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against City of Wilmington
Complainant alleges that the City violated the FOIA public records requirements by not providing: (1) “A copy of the Standard operating procedure (SOP) for the police department’s ‘F Squad”’; and (2) “Copies of all email communications generated since Nov. 1, 2004 regarding shootings, homicides, street violence or illegal drug sales sent to, written by, copied to, or forwarded to any of the several individuals. Held: the county did not violate FOIA. There are no written operating procedures, policies, or training guides specific to the F Squad; however, the County has a White Book, the index to which does not reveal any confidential law enforcement techniques or otherwise jeopardize officer safety and effective law enforcement, which may be responsive to the request. The County will make it available to assist the requestor in identifying other information requestor may request pursuant to FOIA. Further, County did not violate FOIA with respect to the email request because the Assistant City Solicitor represented, after verifying with the individuals named in your FOIA request, that they do not have any e-mails responsive to your request.
Read More05-IB20 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against the Capital School District
Complainant alleges that the School District violated the FOIA public records requirements by providing interview questions but declining to provide interviewers’ assessments of the qualifications and abilities of the applicants. Held: the School District did not violate FOIA public records requirements by denying access to the scoring sheets of interview panel members compiled during the applicant selection process for a new driver education instructor because that information is exempt from disclosure to protect individual privacy for the same reasons that the statute expressly authorizes a public body to meet in private to discuss the an individual’s qualifications for public employment.
Read More05-IB16 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against City of Rehoboth Beach
Complainant alleged the City violated the FOIA public records requirements by denying access to copies of post-mortem records that were provided to the City’s police department by the Department of Health and Social Services and/or state medical examiner’s office. Held: the City did not violate FOIA because the Lawson post-mortem reports (with the exception of the death certificate, which may be exempt from disclosure by separate statute) were exempt from disclosure under FOIA as part of an investigative file compiled for law enforcement purposes. Further, FOIA requests should be made to the public body who originated the documents; thus, the City should immediately refer the FOIA request to the originating agency—the office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
Read More05-IB13 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Laurel
Complainant alleged the Town violated the public records by not providing requestor with a copy of the Town’s Employment Agreement with the town manager as well as his current salary and the proposed future salaries voted on at last night’s. Requestor asked Town Manager for the information the day after the meeting and the Town Manager responded the same day temporarily denying the request until the employment contract was reviewed by legal counsel to make sure it was not contrary to state law, the town charter or violated any other personnel regulations. Four weeks after the request, the Council was presented with a draft for review. The Council approved the final employment contract with the Town Manager about 2 weeks after the interim meeting and 3 days later requestor was sent a copy of the final employment contract. Held: the Town violated FOIA’s public records requirements by not providing requestor with a copy of the draft employment contract with the Town Manager after the Council voted at a public meeting 4 weeks after her request to approve the contract subject to review by legal counsel.
Read More05-IB11: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against City of Dover
The Complainant alleged the City violated open meeting requirements by discussing pension plan investment strategy at a meeting of the City Council, but the agenda did not identify for that meeting. Held: the Council properly deferred any further discussion on the merits of the issue until it could be noticed to the public in accordance with FOIA after the matter of pension investment strategies was raised during the council member comment period of a meeting.
Read More05-IB10 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County Council
Complainant alleged the Council violated FOIA’s open meeting requirements by holding a special meeting without required notice (already addressed in 05-IB09) and by holding prior to that meeting a series of individual meetings with Council Members, with the expressed objective of garnering commitment for individual Council member votes, to remove the county auditor. Complainant did not provide the names of the individual Council members that allegedly met, or the date(s) or time(s) or places, or whether they allegedly met in person or electronically. The Council President in a sworn affidavit said he did not attempt to secure a consensus before the public meeting on the issue of the Auditor, and he was not solicited by a series of Council members for a particular vote prior to the public meeting. Held: Complainant failed to point to sufficient information to establish a prima facie showing that a meeting occurred, and no FOIA violation was found.
Read More
