06-IB23 – RE: Freedom of Information Complaint Against Wilmington Housing Authority
Complainant alleged that the Wilmington Housing Authority violated the public records requirements of FOIA when the Authority failed to disclose emails that may have been sent by its Executive Director to any employee of the Authority on specified days or during specified weeks. The Authority responded that the Authority’s email system does not store electronic messages beyond a 90-day period. Therefore, the requested documents could not be provided since the emails requested were older than 90 days. The Authority provided an affidavit from its Chief Of Information Technology for evidence of this fact. HELD: The Authority did not violate FOIA because the emails requested by Complainant do not exist.
Read More06-IB24 – RE: Freedom of Information Complaint Against Camden-Wyoming Sewer & Water Authority
Complainant alleged that the Camden-Wyoming Sewer & Water Authority violated the public record requirements of FOIA when it failed to provide the “total amount of monies expended in the research, filing and pursuit” of litigation failed by the Authority against the Town of Camden. The Authority responded by providing a copy of the stipulated settlement agreement and order. The authority’s attorney also responded by noting that she did not separately bill the authority for time spent on the lawsuit and that no separate record of billing for the matter existed. HELD: The Authority did not violate FOIA because it did not have in its custody an accounting of the costs of legal counsel in the litigation, and FOIA does not require the Authority to prepare such an accounting.
Read More06-IB24 – RE: Freedom of Information Complaint Against Camden-Wyoming Sewer & Water Authority
Complainant alleged that the Camden-Wyoming Sewer & Water Authority violated the public record requirements of FOIA when it failed to provide the “total amount of monies expended in the research, filing and pursuit” of litigation failed by the Authority against the Town of Camden. The Authority responded by providing a copy of the stipulated settlement agreement and order. The authority’s attorney also responded by noting that she did not separately bill the authority for time spent on the lawsuit and that no separate record of billing for the matter existed. HELD: The Authority did not violate FOIA because it did not have in its custody an accounting of the costs of legal counsel in the litigation, and FOIA does not require the Authority to prepare such an accounting.
Read More06-IB22 – RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Sussex County Council
Complainant alleged that the Sussex County Council violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by meeting in executive session for purposes not authorized by FOIA. HELD: (i) Council violated FOIA when it met in executive session to discuss which of two consulting firms to hire because independent contractors are not prospective employees for purposes of FOIA. Therefore the “job applicant” exemption does not apply. (ii) Council did not violate FOIA when it met in executive session to discuss prospective candidates for the positions of Director of Accounting and Budget Manager. The “job applicant” exemption applied to this discussion. Additionally, the exemption for executive session does not turn on whether the public body or another person had the authority to hire for the positions because the purpose of the exemption is to protect the individual privacy of the prospective public employee. No remediation required for first FOIA violation because the public was substantially involved in the process by which the Council awarded the contract to one of the two consultants.
Read More06-IB19 – RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against NNC Council Economic Development Subcommittee
Complainant alleged that the New Castle County Council Economic Development Subcommittee violated the open meeting requirements of the FOIA by denying her the opportunity to speak at a public meeting. HELD: FOIA does not require a public body to permit public comments. The subcommittee never opened up the meeting for public comment, nor did it discriminate as between individual members of the public based on their viewpoint.
Read More06-IB14 – RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Middletown
Complainant alleged that the Town of Middletown violated the public records requirements of FOIA by denying complainant’s request for loan agreements between the Town and Trinity Church and copies of all agreements for loans extended by the Town to any individuals. The Town denied the requests based on 29 Del. C. §10002(g)(1) and (2), arguing that the documents requested are not public records. HELD: Interest free loans made to employees are a form of compensation. Therefore, the disclosure of these loans and information about the employee that received the loan would not constitute an invasion of privacy and is therefore not protected by FOIA. The information is also not “confidential financial information” within the meaning of FOIA because the loan information did not come from a person. The exemption is meant to protected “technical or financial data submitted by an applicant to a Government lending or loan guarantee agency.” In this case, the loan agreements were generated by the Town in the course of its involvement with borrowers and was not exempt from disclosure. Although Town was required to disclose the loan agreements, Town was instructed to redact confidential information such as personal financial statements, tax returns, home addresses and telephone numbers, social security numbers and bank account numbers.
Read More06-IB13: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Camden
Complainant alleged that the Town of Camden violated FOIA on numerous specific occasions by denying access to public records. HELD: (i) absent evidence of the actual submission of a FOIA request, no violation can be found; (ii) representations by the Town’s counsel that the Town searched for and produced the only responsive records in its possession are sufficient for purpose of FOIA; (iii) producing responsive documents within ten days of the request was reasonable and did not violate FOIA; and (iv) FOIA does not prohibit a public body’s requirement that FOIA requests be made in writing.
Read More06-IB12 – RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against City of Dover
Complainant alleged that the City of Dover violated FOIA by meeting in executive session to interview candidates for the position Director of Planning and Inspections. HELD: The City did not violate FOIA by meeting in executive session for this purpose. FOIA authorizes a public body to meet in executive session to discuss an applicant’s qualifications to hold a job. However, the City violated FOIA by voting during that executive session on the candidate selection because FOIA does not permit straw polling, nor does FOIA allow public bodies to reach consensus votes during executive session.
Read More06-IB10 – RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Cape Henlopen School District
Complainant alleged that the Cape Henlopen School district violated FOIA by denying a records request for documents relating to a charitable contribution referenced on a radio broadcast. Counsel for the School District verified that there were no records responsive to complainant’s request. HELD: FOIA does not require a public body to produce public records that do not exist, and it is the office’s practice to accept representations from an attorney for the custodian of public records that such documents do not exist for purposes of FOIA.
Read More06-IB09: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Townsend
Complainant alleged that the Town of Townsend violated FOIA when it (i) posted notices of the Town Council’s meetings at the Town Hall instead of the meeting location; (ii) failed to give the public adequate notice of a dangerous building ordinance adopted by the Town at a workshop; (iii) charging an unreasonable fee for copying public records; and (iv) requiring a person to make a request for public records to state the reason for the request. HELD: (i) The Town complied with FOIA’s public notice requirements by posting notice of the meetings in Town Hall, its principal office. FOIA only requires a posting at the meeting location if the public body does not have a principal office; (ii) including discussion of the dangerous building ordinance on the meeting/workshop agenda was sufficient notice to satisfy FOIA’s notice provisions; (iii) charges for copying public records were reasonable under FOIA; and (iv) FOIA does not give a public body any authority to withhold public records because the request is irresponsible or frivolous, although the pending/potential litigation exemption provides a narrow exception to this general rule. The purpose of a FOIA request for records is irrelevant and a public body cannot ask the reason for the request or condition the processing of the request on a statement of purpose by the requestor.
Read More
