Petitioner alleged that the Village of Arden violated FOIA by failing to post a proper meeting notice for the September 22, 2025 meeting with the time and location. The petitioner also alleged that the mailed notice was improper.
DECIDED: The Village violated FOIA by failing to post a sufficient notice for the meeting initially scheduled for September 22, 2025, but rescheduled for September 29, 2025. The second claim was not an allegation of a FOIA violation and was outside the scope of the determination.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security’s (“DSP”) denial of your request was overly broad.
DECIDED: As the requested logs and call summaries were part of the investigatory files, DSP did not violate FOIA by denying access to these records.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Town of Millsboro violated FOIA by denying her request for complaints, providing website links in response to certain requests, creating unclear meeting minutes, and failing to post the meeting agendas online.
DECIDED: No violation of FOIA was found.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that Sussex County violated FOIA by denying its FOIA request under the pending litigation exemption.
DECIDED: As litigation was pending and the requested records pertained to the pending litigation, it was determined that the records were exempt.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination violated FOIA by declining to accept written public comment in connection with the September 3, 2025 Preliminary Land Use Services meeting.
DECIDED: As public bodies are not required to accept written comments during the public comment period of a meeting, no violation of FOIA was found.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that Town of Greenwood violated FOIA by failing to have its current FOIA coordinator on its website and by holding an executive session for an improper purpose.
DECIDED: The Town did not violate FOIA by failing to have its new FOIA coordinator on its website at the time of the Petition. The remaining claim regarding the propriety of the executive session discussions is not appropriate for consideration.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Delaware State Police, Department of Safety and Homeland Security refused to provide a copy of the police report documenting the petitioner’s verbal complaint.
DECIDED: As this report is exempt as an investigatory file record under Section 10002(o)(3), no violation of FOIA was found.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the City violated FOIA by improperly shifting responsibility to the petitioner by recommending a change to email providers when the petitioner did not receive confirmations of requests. The petition alleges that request 2025-38 was declared closed without a complete response, as the City sent partial vendor totals without providing the full, underlying financial disclosure records requested and that the cost estimate of $9,592.00 for request 2025-60 was excessive and unreasonable.
DECIDED: The City violated FOIA by failing to demonstrate its cost estimate was compliant with FOIA’s fee provisions. However, no violation with respect to the remaining claims was found.
Read More
Petitioner alleged New Castle County violated FOIA in the following ways: (1) the County’s response did not cite specific statutory exemptions for the denial of documents; (2) the response did not provide a log or index of withheld records, (3) the response was formulaic and non-individualized; (4) the response referenced only publicly available websites and avoidi questions related to decision-making and enforcement actions; (5) no clarification was provided regarding the grandfathered use status of the parcel; and (6) the County’s initial denial of your request based on your citizenship violated FOIA. The petition also made non-FOIA claims related to misconduct and other issues.
DECIDED: As the County’s response did not violate FOIA as alleged above and FOIA does not require a public body to provide an index of withheld records or to answer questions, no violation of FOIA was found. The remaining claims were not appropriate for consideration.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Christina School District violated FOIA’s public records provisions by: (1) requiring in-person verification of the petitioner’s identity with two forms of identification in order to receive the responsive personnel records; (2) refusing to transmit responsive records by email or mail; and (3) missing the extended response deadline for the request.
DECIDED: The District did not sufficiently support that two items in the request were exempt and not required to be made available through its FOIA request process. A supplemental response specific to those two items was recommended. The remaining claims were determined to be inappropriate for consideration.
Read MoreDelaware's Governor
State Directory
Elected Officials
General Assembly
Delaware Courts
State Employees
Cities & Towns
Delaware State Code
State Regulations
Business First Steps
Phone Directory
Locations Directory
Public Meetings
Voting & Elections
Transparency
Choose Health DE
Tax Center
Personal Income Tax
Privacy Policy
Weather & Travel
Contact Us
Corporations
Franchise Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Withholding Tax
Guides to Services
Help Center
Mobile Apps
E-mail / Text Alerts
Social Media
