95-IB34 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint 29 Del. C. § 10005(e)
The Complainant alleged that the school district impermissibly withheld documents regarding the status of a teacher and what was being done to address problems with that teacher. The District replied that they had provided all the public documents they had, had conducted meetings regarding the teacher and had no more information to provide. Held: the District has fulfilled its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and there is no violation.
Read More95-IB22 07/31/95 FOIA Opinion Letter to The Honorable Darrell J. Minott re: FOIA Complaint Concerning Meeting of Governor's Council On Equal Employment Opportunity
Requestor sought an opinion on whether the Governor’s Council on Equal Employment Opportunity was permitted to meet privately with invited guests. The Council was established by Executive Order and its members were appointed by the Governor or the Human Relations Commission. It is not statutorily exempted from the Freedom of Information Act and is supported, at least in part, by public funds. Held: the Council on Equal Employment Opportunity is a Public Body as defined by FOIA and must abide by the open meeting requirements therefore, private meetings with invited guests are not permitted. However, the Council is permitted to go into Executive Session as permitted by statute.
Read More95-IB20: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint 29 Del. C. § 10005(e)
The Complainant alleged that administrative-staff meetings held by the school district should be considered public meetings because school board members were present. The district argued that only two board members were now present at the meetings, not a quorum, and that those members were not appointed to a subcommittee or special ad hoc committee. Held: if the board members make any formal or informal, express or implied recommendations to the full Board based upon any action proposed at the administrative-staff meetings, they would be considered a subcommittee and subject to open meetings requirements. However, based upon current facts, there is no violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
Read More95-IB13: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Milford, Woodbridge, Indian River, Seaford and Laurel School Districts 29 Del. C. § 10005(e)
The Complainant alleged that Seaford, Indian River, Laurel, Woodbridge and Milford School Districts improperly refused to provide the names and salaries of all district teachers. The districts provided the salaries, but not names, of the teachers. Held: there is no statutory exemption that prevents the disclosure of public school districts’ teachers’ names and salaries.
Read More95-IB37: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint 29 Del. C. § 10005(e)
The Complainant alleged that the “breakfast meetings” described in AG Opinion 95-IB04 continued to be held. A discussion of suggestions for betterment of the school system is considered public business. Because a quorum of the Board was present, the breakfast meetings should be considered public meetings within the meaning of the statute. Counsel for the school board noted that the board will not hold breakfast meetings any more but, if they do, a quorum will not be present. Held: if a quorum of a subcommittee is present and makes recommendations to the full board, it is considered a public body under the Freedom of Information Act and must abide by open meeting requirements.
Read More95-IB12: Re: Freedom of Information Act Committee on Massage/Bodywork Practitioners
The Requestor, the Director of the Division of Professional Regulations, sought clarification on which components of applications for licensure should be released under the Freedom of Information Act. Held: Criminal records, including those submitted by the applicants, cannot be released. The rest of a licensure applicant’s application should be provided.
Read More95-IB09 Re: Apprenticeship Documents Under FOIA
The Requestor sought clarification on whether apprentice agreements, which contain personal information such as name and salary of apprentices, should be released under the Freedom of Information Act. Each agreement was stamped that it could not be disclosed without permission. Held: this stamp created an expectation of privacy that would not typically be applied to names and salaries. Therefore, the agreements should not be released pursuant to the exception for “any personnel, medical or pupil file, the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, under this legislation or under any State or federal law as it relates to personal privacy.” 29 Del. C. 10002(l)(1). However, if this stamp is removed from the agreements, the records should be provided under FOIA.
Read More95-IB02 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint 29 Del. C.§ 10005(e) Court on the Judiciary
The Complainant alleged that the Court on the Judiciary improperly refused to allow him to review the record and non-sworn testimony of a case. Held: the deliberations of courts are not public meetings pursuant to 29 Del. C. 10004(h)(4) and the requested records from such deliberations are not public records that can be reviewed.
Read More95-IB04: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint 29 Del. C. §10005(e)
The Complainant alleged that Woodbridge School District was holding meetings in violation of Delaware’s Open Meeting Law. The District would hold breakfast meetings attended by the Board, district administrative staff and invitees and discuss “suggestions for betterment of the school system.” The District argued that public business was not conducted during these meetings and that the meetings did not meet the definition of “public meeting”. Held: A discussion of suggestions for betterment of the school system is considered public business. Because a quorum of the Board was present, the breakfast meetings should be considered public meetings within the meaning of the statute.
Read More95-IB01: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint 29 Del. C. § 10005(e)
The Complainant alleged that the Board of Bar Examiners, an arm of the Delaware Supreme Court, improperly refused to provide him with statistics regarding petitions for admission for the Delaware Bar as well as a copy of each petition for admittance of the Delaware bar. Held: the Board of Bar Examiners is not a “public body” within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act and is, thus, exempt from the requirements of FOIA.
Read More
