08-IB12: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Camden-Wyoming Sewer and Water Authority
Complainant alleged Camden-Wyoming Sewer and Water Authority (“CWSWA”) violated FOIA open records requirements by not providing a copy of a “Management Comment Letter from CWSWA’s auditors. CWSA asserts that the document is confidential as requested by the auditors. HELD: The letter would only be exempt from FOIA if it contained commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential which it does not. A record that meets definition of public record is not entitled to exemption merely because the creator has designated it “confidential.” CWSA violated FOIA by not providing the letter.
Read More08-IB11: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
Complainant alleged NCC violated FOIA open records requirements by not providing unredacted copy of email from private citizen to NCC Chief of Staff. Email copy was provided but name of private of citizen, an informant, was redacted. Complainant asserts NCC should reveal the identity of the informant to add details to the public debate. HELD: NCC not required to release name of informant. DOJ applies a balancing test weighing public’s interest in disclosure against public body’s interest in protecting sources. NCC’s interest in not discouraging citizens from reporting potentially illegal conduct is greater than the interest to release the identity of the informant.
Read More08-IB09: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against City of Rehoboth Beach Planning Commission
Complainant alleged that Rehoboth Beach Planning Commission (“RBPC”) did not properly notice reconsideration of a partition application when it did not list the possibility of waiver of the municipal code provision to consider the application. Agenda reflected reconsideration of the partition application but did not list possibility of waiver. HELD: Major topic of discussion for the meeting was reconsideration of the partition application which was properly and timely posted in the agenda. Waiver was only the procedural mechanism by RBPC allowed application to proceed. It was not a separate and distinct topic which required a separate listing in agenda. FOIA does not require public body to detail in agenda every possible course of action it might take in discussing an agenda topic.
Read More08-IB07: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Middletown
Complainant alleges that Town violated FOIA regarding the Middletown Action Network (“MAN”) and amendments to town charter. Among other things, Complainant alleges that (i) the Mayor improperly appointed two additional MAN members’ (ii) Middletown held non-public MAN meetings; and (iii) an amendment of the Middletown charter was formulated without public notice and the amendment was not mentioned in Mayor’s oral remarks at the public meeting. Town acknowledged that MAN was created by ordinance on October 1, 2007 and held two or three meetings after its creation, but prior to the approval of their bylaws, but that Mayor did not appoint two additional members. Therefore, MAN meetings were not subject to FOIA. Town further acknowledged that charter amendment removed a $4 million debt limit and that amendment was properly and timely notice for a public meeting. HELD: Mayor not required to hold public meeting to take executive action even if he chose to add members to MAN. The MAN meetings were held in violation of FOIA. MAN became a public body when ordinance creating it was passed. However, FOIA violations are those of MAN, not the Town. With respect to Mayor’s comments about charter amendment at public meeting, FOIA does not concern itself with content of public meeting unless the meeting fails to conform to proposed agenda. Accordingly, Mayor’s oral remarks are not a FOIA issue.
Read More08-IB06 03/27/08 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Kramer re: FOIA Complaint Concerning Woodbridge School District
Complainant alleges that School District violated FOIA by awarding a pole building contract without proper agenda notice. Agenda as originally published contained no reference to the pole contract. Amended agenda posted 5 days before the meeting listed the pole building contract and the reason it was added to the agenda. HELD: School district did not violate FOIA’s seven day posting requirement because it added a reason for the late posting.
Read More08-IB05 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Middletown
Complainants alleged Town violated FOIA open records and open meeting requirements regarding payment of employee bonuses where they received no document responsive to their request for methodology in calculating and authorizing payments. They further assert that benefits should have been approved at public meeting. Town asserts that it has no written policy governing amount of bonuses and when and if they are given out. It has only a line item in its budget for “Employee Benefits – Other” from which Middletown paid the bonuses. HELD: FOIA does not require a public body to create a document in order to respond to a FOIA request. The Middletown Mayor is a body of one and, therefore, is not subject to FOIA’s open meeting requirement pursuant to 29 Del. C. §10004(h)(6).
Read More08-IB01 1/28/2008 Holmes v. Colonial
Complainant alleged School Board violated open meeting requirement by not allowing her to speak at public meeting concerning nephew’s expulsion by School Board. School Board admitted it invited Complainant to speak but that she was not permitted to speak about nephew’s expulsion because that was not a matter of public concern. HELD: FOIA does not require a public body to allow members of the public to speak during a public meeting. There is nothing in the text of the declaration of policy or in the open meeting provision requiring public comment or guaranteeing the public the right to participate.
Read More07-IB06 05/10/07 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. Kough re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Town of Bethel
The Complainant alleged the Town Council of Bethel (the “Council”) violated the “open meetings” provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by not providing timely notice of a “special meeting.” Held: the Council complied with FOIA by giving the public at least twenty-four hours’ notice of the “special meeting” because there was a compelling reason to give less than seven days’ notice of the meeting. The Council violated FOIA by not including in the notice for the “special meeting” a brief explanation why the Council could not give seven days’ notice.
Read More07-IB12 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Delaware State University
The Complainant alleged Delaware State University (“DSU”) violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by not providing payroll documents for two DSU employees paid with “restricted funds.” Held: The requested payroll information was not a public record under FOIA because that information related to the expenditure of “restricted funds,” rather than public funds.
Read More06-IB26 – RE: Freedom of Information Complaint Against Source Water protection Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee
Complainant alleged that a committee established by the Sussex County Council, the Source Water Protection Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee, violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by (i) meeting twice without posting an agenda seven days in advance; and (ii) not preparing minutes of those meetings. HELD: The Committee’s failure to post an agenda or prepare minutes violated FOIA. In remediation, Committee ordered to include on the agenda for its next public meeting the minutes of the earlier meetings, and to have sufficient copies available to hand out to the public at its next scheduled meeting.
Read More
