17-IB42 8/25/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Mike Kwiecien re: FOIA Complaint concerning Sussex County Planning & Zoning Commission and the Sussex County Council
Petitioner alleged violations of the open meetings provisions of FOIA with regard to meetings held in 2002 and 2016. HELD: As a matter of practice and in keeping with time limitations followed by the courts, this office does not consider petitions regarding actions more than six months in the past and does not believe the circumstances of this petition warrant a departure from this practice. This petition was thus considered untimely.
Read More17-IB41 8/24/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. Mary Lou Fieni re: FOIA Complaint Concerning The Division of Professional Regulation
Petitioner alleged that a request to the Secretary of State for documents sent by a doctor regarding a defense medical examination related to a work related incident/injury was improperly denied. HELD: The records in question are exempt from FOIA as investigatory files. Further, Petitioner is not a resident of the State of Delaware, which is a permissible basis for a Delaware public body to deny a FOIA request.
Read More17-IB40 08/23/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Randall Chase re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Department of Correction
Petitioner alleged that the Department of Correction (“DOC”) violated the public records provisions of FOIA when pursuant to Attorney General Opinion No. 17-IB25, they advised Petitioner that they had no cumulative record of seized contraband since January 1, 2014. He cited a news article that referred to summary information. DOC responded to the Petition with summary documents already created and an explanation that the FOIA Coordinator believed the records to not exist when responding pursuant to the earlier Attorney General opinion. HELD: The DOC violated FOIA by not providing the existing summary documents, but did not violate FOIA by withholding individual reports, which are exempt as investigatory files. As all records were provided, the matter is now closed.
Read More17-IB39 08/16/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Chris Witkowsky re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Office of the State Treasurer
Petitioner alleged that the Office of the State Treasurer violated FOIA by denying his request for public records based on his not being a citizen of Delaware. HELD: There was no FOIA violation. The Petitioner’s request listed a New York address and he did not make any claim to being a Delaware citizen. As this office has previously held, FOIA allows, but does not require, a public body to provide records to other states’ citizens.
Read More17-IB38 08/11/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Councilman Samuel L. Guy re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the City of Wilmington City Council
Petitioner alleged that Wilmington City Council (the “Council”) violated FOIA by failing to publish an agenda for its April 6, 2017 meeting at least seven days in advance. Petitioner further alleged that the agenda was improperly amended. The Council’s practice was to once annually publish notice of hearing dates and thereafter post meeting agendas when they were finalized.
Decided: This Office determined that the Council violated the open meeting requirements when it failed to post a final agenda until the day before the council meeting, and recommended the City change its practice and to publish an agenda at least 7 days before meetings.
17-IB37 08/7/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Kevin Ohlandt re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Office of the Governor
Petitioner alleged that the Office of the Governor (“OGov”)’s Family Services Cabinet Council (the “Council”) is a public body which violated the open meetings provisions of FOIA. HELD: The Governor is a public body of one member and such public bodies are permitted to meet with their staff without triggering FOIA’s open meetings provisions. Because the Council is made up entirely of Cabinet members, it is effectively a staff meeting, which distinguishes it from other advisory bodies that include members outside of OGov and thus must follow the open meetings provisions.
Read More17-IB36 08/3/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. Carol DiGiovanni re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Village of Arden
Petitioner alleged that the Village of Arden failed to respond to her request for records. HELD: The Village responded to the request one day after receipt but responded to an email address that the Petitioner no longer uses and did not use in her request. This is at most a technical violation for which no remediation is warranted. The Petitioner may submit a new petition if she wishes to challenge the content of the response.
Read More17-IB35 07/31/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Randall Chase re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Office of the Governor
Petitioner alleged that the Office of the Governor (OGov) effectively denied his request for the governor’s calendar by providing printouts of the public schedule available on the OGov website. OGov subsequently provided a more detailed calendar with redactions. HELD: Because the more detailed calendar was provided, the issue was determined to be moot.
Read More17-IB34 07/28/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. Dorsey Fiske re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Trustees of the New Castle Commons
Petitioner requested that this office determine whether the Trustees of the New Castle Common is a public body subject to FOIA’s requirements. The Trustees contended that it is not a public body and thus not required to follow FOIA’s requirements. HELD: Based on the application of the two-part test laid out in FOIA- 1) that the Trustees was created by, and later had its authority modified by, the General Assembly and 2) that the Trustees administer funds for public use- the Trustees are determined to be a public body subject to FOIA.
Read More17-IB33 07/26/2017 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Kenneth Kristl re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Petitioner alleged that the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (“DNREC”) violated FOIA by taking so long to provide a response to their client’s request after payment was received. HELD: DNREC did not provide sufficient evidence of having complied with FOIA’s requirements of response to a request that permits certain explanations of why and how much more time is needed to fulfill that request. However, no remediation is recommended because the Petitioner’s client has since received a response.
Read More
