05-IB14: RE: F.O.I.A. Complaint Against City of Newark
Complainant alleges the City Council violated FOIA open meeting requirements by twice meeting in executive session on the same day to discuss “hiring contract personnel.” Held: Council violated FOIA’s open meeting requirements when it met in executive session to discuss which of two outside firms to retain to provide professional lobbying services since a vendor or independent contractor does not share the same privacy concerns as an individual public employee or prospective employee.
Read More05-IB12: RE: F.O.I.A. Complaint Against New Castle County Council
Complainant alleged the Personnel Committee of the County Council violated the FOIA open meeting requirements of FOIA by meeting in executive session to discuss the qualifications of the two finalists for the position of counsel to the County Council while identifying the candidates by name but discussing the candidates at the open meeting only by reference to Candidate A and B. Held: The Committee did not violate FOIA but rather struck a reasonable balance between the privacy rights of the applicants, and the public’s right-to-know when it identified job candidates as A and B in the agenda and the public session. (When the job offer is extended and accepted, the name of the job applicant necessarily will become public, and the public will know, from the minutes, which members of the public body voted to hire that applicant.)
Read More05-IB09: RE: F.O.I.A. Complaint Against New Castle County Council
The Complainant alleged the Council violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by holding a special meeting without required notice to the public. Council had properly noticed a regular meeting of the Council’s Executive Committee. More than 24 hours before that meeting, Council posted a notice and agenda for a special meeting. The agenda noted that it was not posted 7 days in advance of the scheduled meeting as a result of recent developments since the recent Audit Committee meeting. The agenda listed for discussion: “1. Call to order 2. Discussion of Confidential Personnel Matter 3. Other.” At noon, more than 6 hours in advance of that meeting, Council posted a revised agenda for the special meeting, that revised the second line item to read: “Discussion of Confidential Personnel Matter (County Auditor)”. According to the Council, this change was made “to clarify that the confidential personnel matter to be discussed involved the County Auditor.” Held: the special meeting did not violate FOIA because there was a valid reason for the meeting, and the agenda as originally posted was sufficient notice.
Read More05-IB08 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Brandywine School District
The Complainant alleged the School District violated the public records requirements of FOIA by not providing copies of requested documents and treating requestor differently than other citizens. Held: School District provided requestor with access to all 3,700 documents regarding Division I units 3,700 documents from which requestor could have obtained the statistics requested but was not required by FOIA to compile the data from those documents into the requested format. Further, School District followed its written policies on responding to requests for access to records and did not treat requestor differently from other citizens.
Read More05-IB06: RE: F.O.I.A.Complaint Against Rehoboth Beach Board of Adjustment
Complainant alleged that the Board of Adjustment violated FOIA by: (1) failing to post the agenda of a public meeting 7 days in advance; (2) failing to prepare minutes of two public meetings (3) charging an unreasonable fee ($4 a page) for a transcript of Board meetings. Held: the Board violated the public notice requirements of FOIA by failing to post an agenda for that meeting seven days in advance and not listing all of the matters of public business to be discussed at that meeting. The case decisions the Board produced as “minutes” did not cover all the topics discussed at the meeting, nor did they identify individual Board members and how they voted and do not constitute minutes under FOIA. FOIA was violated by the $4 a page charge, as once a transcript is in the possession of the Board, the law only allows a reasonable charge for copying ($1 per page and $2 per page charged by courts have been determined reasonable).
Read More05-IB05: RE: F.O.I.A.Complaint Against Town of Frederica
The Complainant alleged the Town violated FOIA by holding an emergency meeting with only 24 hours notice, with “City Solicitor” being the only agenda item, at which it discussed and fired the City Solicitor. Held: the Town did violate FOIA because there was no showing of exigent circumstances or compelling need to hold the meeting without the required 7 days notice for a regular meeting. The notice was also deficient because listing “Town Solicitor” in the agenda was not “sufficient to inform the public that the Council would consider and vote on firing the Town’s legal counsel.” The Town did not violate FOIA for failing to invite all of the Council members to the meeting, as FOIA requires notice to the general public, not to individual members of the public body.
Read More05-IB04: RE: Freedom of Information Complaint Against City of New Castle
The Complainant alleged the City Council violated FOIA by holding meetings in locations other than those previously used, without inviting the usual minute take or recording the meetings. Held: the meetings were properly noticed and advertised and minutes were prepared, thus, there was no violation of FOIA.
Read More05-IB02: RE: Freedom of Information Complaint Against City of Newark
The Complainant alleged the City Council violated FOIA by going into executive session to discuss the performance and salary of the City Secretary, City Solicitor and Deputy City Solicitor. Held: the City did not violate FOIA concerning the performance and salary of the City Secretary who is a public employee subject to the personnel exception. The discussion of the City Solicitor and Deputy Solicitor did violate FOIA because they were independent contractors not public employees.
Read More05-IB01 – RE: F.O.I.A. Complaint Against Board of Education of the Capital School District
The Complainant alleged the School District violated FOIA by limiting speakers at the public minute to 2 minutes and not allowing them to identify any other individual in their remarks. Held: the 2 minute limit did not violate FOIA because public bodies may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on public participation. However, once comment was allowed, the Board violated FOIA by attempting to limit the content of the speech.
Read More04-IB17: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County Council
October 18, 2004 Civil Division-Kent County (739-7641) Robert I. Hicks, Jr. County Auditor City/County Building 800 N. French Street, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County Council Dear Mr. Hicks: On July 20, 2004, our Office received your complaint under the Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. […]
Read More
