02-IB24 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by not providing you with copies of any checks payable to Sharon Hughes, former legislative aide to New Castle Councilman J. Christopher Roberts, or her attorney, Richard J. Wier, Jr., Esquire, relating to the legal settlement of a personnel matter between the County and Ms. Hughes. Held: any nondisclosure provision in a settlement agreement between Ms. Hughes and the County cannot override the public records requirements of FOIA and that the County violated FOIA by not providing you with access to documents relating to the settlement of a legal claim between Ms. Hughes and the County.
Read More02-IB23: FOIA Complaint Against Sussex County Planning & Zoning Commission
The Complainant alleged that Sussex County Planning and Zoning Commission (“the Commission”) violated FOIA by not providing you with “copies of the revised draft [Comprehensive Plan Update]” in violation of the public record requirements of FOIA. You also allege that the Commission violated the public notice requirements of Title 9 of the Delaware Code in connection with special meetings of the Commission on September 11 and 19, 2002. Held: the Commission made these public records reasonably accessible to citizens as required by FOIA. The Commission noticed each of its meetings on August 29, September 9, and September 11, 2002 at least seven days in advance as required by FOIA.
Read More02-IB18 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Laurel
The Complainant alleged that the Town of Laurel (“the Town”) violated FOIA by not providing access to public records he requested. Specifically, he alleged that by letter dated July 12, 2002 he asked for but did not receive a copy of “an annexation report” and the Town’s “2002 Comprehensive Development Plan.” Held: the Town did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA because it provided Complainant with a copy of the annexation report on August 6, 2002.
Read More02-IB19 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Joint School Boards of New Castle County
The Complainant alleged that the joint school boards of New Castle County (“Joint Board”) “consists of representatives of each of the public school boards in New Castle County” and that it is a public body covered by FOIA because it “functions on public funds and does, at least indirectly, influence public policy.” Held: the Joint Board is a “public body” for purposes of FOIA and subject to all of the requirements of the open meeting laws. The school boards were directed to notice these meetings to the public in the future in the same manner as they would a meeting of the individual school board under FOIA and to maintain minutes of the joint meetings.
Read More02-IB17 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Capital School District Board of Education
The Complainant alleged that the Capital School District Board of Education (“the Board”) violated FOIA by: (1) not providing access to public records you requested; and (2) meeting to interview applicants for a new superintendent without notice to the public. Held: the School Board did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA but the School Board violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by: (1) meeting in executive sessions on October 2 and 17, 2002 for a purpose not authorized by statute; (2) meeting in executive sessions on March 2 and 6, 2002 for a purpose not authorized by statute; (3) by meeting on March 8, 9, and 10, 2002 without posting public notices and agendas and without maintaining minutes of those meetings; (4) meeting in executive session on April 11, 2002 for a purpose not authorized by statute; and (5) meeting in executive session on April 16, 2002 for a purpose not authorized by statute.
Read More02-IB16 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by not providing a letter of engagement between the County and the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. Held: Based on an in camera review of the documents, each of them is exempt from disclosure under FOIA either by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity.
Read More02-IB12: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Fenwick Island Town Council
Complainant alleged that the Town of Fenwick Island (“the Town”) violated FOIA by: (1) failing to give the public notice of its intent to go into executive session at a meeting on February 8, 2002; (2) improperly entering into executive session at that meeting to discuss pay raises for police officers; (3) failing to give adequate notice to the public that it would go into executive session at a meeting on February 22, 2002; (4) improperly entering into executive session at that meeting to discuss police department problems; (5) failing to give adequate notice to the public of its intent to go into executive session at a meeting on March 16, 2002; (6) impermissibly entering into executive session at that meeting to discuss personnel and legal problems involving the police department; and (7) not providing you with copies of the minutes of executive sessions. Held: the Council violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA when it went into executive session to discuss matters of public business at its meetings on February 8, February 22, and March 16, 2002. The Council violated the agenda requirements of FOIA by amending the agenda just prior to the meeting on March 16, 2002, and without stating the reason for the delay. Finally, the Council violated the public records requirements of FOIA by denying access to the minutes of executive sessions which were not authorized by law.
Read More01-IB17 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against City of Dover
Complainant alleged that the City of Dover violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) because it failed to provide him with the names and addresses of retired city employees. Held: FOIA does not require the disclosure of personnel file information if that disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. Relying on both Supreme Court and Third Circuit case law, and distinguishing prior attorney general opinions related to the names and salaries of current public employees, the opinion holds that Delaware’s FOIA protects the “names and addresses of retired public employees because disclosure of that information would invade their privacy.” There was no FOIA violation.
Read More01-IB15 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Sussex County
Complainant alleged that Sussex County violated the Freedom of Information Act because meetings between the County Administrator and his department heads and staff held for the purpose of developing an operating budget for the county were not noticed and open to the public. Held: FOIA does not apply to discussions between the County Administrator (a “body of one” under the statute) and his department heads and staff. “It would be unrealistic, indeed intolerable, to require of such professionals that every meeting, every contact, and every discussion with anyone from whom they would seek counsel or consultation to assist in acquiring the necessary information, data or intelligence needed to advise or guide the authority by whom they are employed, be a public meeting.” Nor did holding such meetings constitute a delegation of authority to a committee such that the committee meetings were required to be open. That is especially so considering the fact that the public has a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the proposed budget when it is being considered by the full council.
Read More01-IB13 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Dover Safety Advisory Committee
The Complainant alleged that the Dover Safety Advisory Committee violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by failing to notice in the agenda for a meeting that it would discuss the location of a proposed municipal waste transfer facility and the objections of the Dover Air Force Base to that location. Held: The issue arose sufficiently in advance of the meeting to be included in the notice and initial agenda, and the failure to do so deprived concerned citizens of the opportunity to appear and participate in the decision-making process. Because the committee did not have final authority over the location of the facility – it had merely issued a non-binding recommendation to the Kent County Levy Court that the location be rejected – no remedial measures were required.
Read More
