Delaware is under a State of Emergency. Here are answers to frequently asked questions about what this means for you. More Info

Delaware.gov logo
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker

Delaware Department of Justice
Attorney General
Kathy Jennings




 Pages Categorized With: "10004(e)(2) Notice Requirements for Regular Meetings"

16-IB01 1/7/2016 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Daniel Kramer re: FOIA Complaint Concerning Sussex County Council

Petitioner raised several questions: (1) whether the County Administrator presented the new pay grades and job descriptions to Council for approval;(2) why discussion of pay grades and job descriptions was conducted in executive session; (3) why pay grades and job descriptions were not discussed in public at the May 12, 2015 Council meeting when they had been discussed at the March 30, 2015 Board meeting; (4) whether Council could vote on pay grades and job descriptions at the June 16, 2015 meeting when they were not specifically listed in the budget; (5) whether the executive session minutes for the May 5, 2015 and May 12, 2015 Council meeting were public documents under FOIA;[5] and (6) whether the March 30, 2015 Board meeting was properly noticed. Held: No FOIA violations occurred.

Read More



15-IB12 12/17/2015 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Kevin Ohlandt re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Delaware Department of Education

Petitioner alleged two public records and two open meetings violations by the Department of Education (DOE). Held: As long as a public body searches internal records first, it does not violate FOIA for a public body to request that the Department of Technology and Information perform a second search for email records. But when the body has already found no responsive records in its own search, it should so advise the petitioner. Further held: There is no evidence that the State Board of Education withheld information it would have shared with the public in the petitioner’s absence. Further held: The September 17 and September 23 Academic Framework Working Group meeting notices and agendas did not comply with FOIA because they were posted less than seven days in advance of the meetings.

Read More



13-IB01 03/26/13 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Daniel J. Kramer re: FOIA Complaint Against Woodbridge School Board

The Complainant alleged the Board of Education for the Woodbridge School District 9the “Board”) violated the “open meetings” provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Held: the Board’s agenda was insufficient to alert the public that it would accept the resignation of the existing superintendent and hire a replacement superintendent. It therefore violated the “open meetings” requirements of FOIA.

Read More



11-IB08 05/05/11 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Kramer re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Sussex County Council

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Attorney General Opinion No. 11-IB08 May 5, 2011 Mr. Daniel J. Kramer 8041 Scotts Store Road Greenwood, DE 19950 RE:  Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Sussex County Council Dear Mr. Kramer: By letters of March 23, 2011 and March 26, 2011, you have asked […]

Read More



10-IB17 12/15/10 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Cahill re: FOIA Complaint Against Town of Smyrna

Complainant assert that Town violated FOIA by not having public meetings of committee charged with selecting police chief, by not releasing applications for police chief position, and by the Town council having email discussions outside of public meeting relating to Town business. Town concedes that the subcommittee did not hold public meetings. Council concedes that members did exchange emails on Town business, but no vote was ever taken via email. HELD: Town violated FOIA by not having subcommittee hold public meetings concerning applications for selection of police chief. Town remedied the violation by holding public meeting. Town did not violate FOIA by not releasing applications. Those documents are confidential as records relating to job qualifications of applicants for public employment. Council emails did not violate FOIA because no votes were taken by email.

Read More



10-IB02 01/25/10 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. McCoy re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Town of Bethel

Complainant asserts that Town violated FOIA open meetings requirements when it held executive session to discuss subdivision applications. Town’s agenda properly posted and noticed the executive session but did not state the purpose. Town asserted that executive session was for purpose of receiving legal advice. After going into executive session and receiving legal advice, the Council discussed the applications for about an hour and voted on the applications before coming out of executive session. They re-voted at the public continued public meeting. Meeting minutes did not reflect legal advice. HELD: Executive Session was held for the proper purpose of receiving legal advice. However, Council violated FOIA by not listing the purpose of the executive session on the agenda, discussing applications during executive session and not properly reflecting legal advice in minutes.

Read More



08-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 More



03-IB16 08/08/03 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Maher re: FOIA Complaints Against Town of Slaughter Beach

The Complainants alleged that the Town of Slaughter Beach (“the Town”) violated FOIA by discussing matters of public business at a meeting on July 1, 2003 without the required notice to the public. The Town contends that it satisfied the notice requirements of FOIA by posting the notice and agenda for the July 1, 2003 special meeting three days in advance of the meeting. Held: the Town did not violate FOIA by publishing the notice for a special meeting on July 1, 2003 three days in advance since FOIA permits notice for special meetings to be less than seven days (but not less than 24 hours) when there is good reason.

Read More





+