Petitioners alleged that the Senate Judiciary Committee of the Delaware General Assembly violated the notice requirements of FOIA by failing to post its revised agenda at least six hours before its March 12, 2025 meeting with the reasons for delay articulated in the agenda.
DECIDED: The Committee’s March 12, 2025 meeting agenda did not violate FOIA, as the General Assembly is exempted from FOIA’s meeting notice requirements.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Village of Arden violated FOIA by not providing all the responsive emails and by improperly redacting materials from the production.
DECIDED: The Village violated FOIA by failing to support its search for responsive records was adequate and by failing to support its redactions of comments that were personal in nature. No violation was found with respect to the redactions for nonresponsive communications.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Brandywine School District violated FOIA by denying access to a request for the hearing officer’s report and the exhibits related to a public employee termination hearing.
DECIDED: Because these records are exempt from FOIA pursuant to the personnel file exemption, the District did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the University of Delaware violated FOIA by failing to provide public records in response to a records request and by committing various procedural violations in processing the request.
DECIDED: As the request does not seek University records relating to the expenditure of public funds, the requested records are not subject to disclosure under FOIA, and the University did not violate FOIA in denying access to the requested records. In addition, the University did not commit the alleged procedural violations.
Read MorePetitioners alleged that the Joint Legislative Oversight and Sunset Committee of the Delaware General Assembly violated FOIA at its February 13, 2025 meeting by discussing topics that were not appropriately noticed on the meeting agenda.
DECIDED: The Committee’s February 13, 2025 meeting agenda did not violate FOIA, as the General Assembly is exempted from FOIA’s meeting notice requirements.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the City of Milford delayed its response and improperly asserted that it would withhold emails to and from a state representative.
DECIDED: As emails to and from a member of the General Assembly are exempt from disclosure under FOIA, the City did not violate FOIA by denying access to the emails requested. In addition, the claim regarding the timing of the City’s response is moot.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Delaware State Police of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security (“DSP”) violated FOIA by denying access to the requested statistics for expungements issued pursuant to Delaware’s Clean Slate bill for certain timeframes.
DECIDED: As the DSP provided statements under oath demonstrating the information was not currently available, the DSP did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the City of Newark violated FOIA by failing to provide access to the body camera footage and the 911 call audio related to a specific incident.
DECIDED: The City did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records under Section 10002(o)(3).
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Delaware Board of Electrical Examiners did not timely post the agenda for the February 5, 2025 meeting.
DECIDED: The Board violated FOIA as alleged.
Read MorePetitioners alleged that the City violated FOIA by: (1) by not publishing their intent to initiate a contract to convert a municipal park to playing fields, (2) by keeping secret the minutes of their contract discussions and not allowing any public review or discussion of this major capital project, and (3) by selling the Folk Memorial Park in secrecy.
DECIDED: The City did not violate FOIA’s open meeting requirements by meeting with the Newark Charter School on the three identified occasions to discuss the Folk Memorial Park proposal. The remaining allegations are not FOIA claims that this Office is authorized to consider.
Read More