This Office was asked to address the following issues: 1) whether the Town of Bellefonte committed a FOIA violation by not providing records requested; 2) whether the Petitioner’s request for resulting records “it generates” was sufficiently specific under FOIA; and 3) whether the Town’s failure to send its response to the correct address was a violation of FOIA
DECIDED: No FOIA violations were found. The Town demonstrated that it did not have certain records requested and is not required to create them. The Town is permitted to request more specificity for requests that are vague. The addressing error was unintentional and not a violation.
Petitioner alleged that the Delaware State Police did not timely respond to their FOIA request for an unredacted copy of an Initial Crime Report.
DECIDED: DSP was unable to prove that it complied with FOIA’s deadline for responding to the Petitioner’s request. As it provided a response during the petition process, no remediation was recommended but DSP was encouraged to more carefully track requests.
Petitioner alleged the Auditor of Accounts improperly relied on the investigatory files exemption in redacting a log of complaints.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. The functions of the AOA are to ensure public funds are legally used and responsive records are thus “compiled for civil or criminal law-enforcement purposes” and exempt from FOIA.
Petitioner alleged that the Office of the Auditor of Accounts’ response to their FOIA request did not provide information on office closures by the current Auditor and did not enclose the policy related to timekeeping and office closures that AOA’s response said was enclosed.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation found. AOA demonstrated it previously provided the requested policy and attested that it had no other responsive documents.
Petitioner alleged that the Office of Defense Services did not provide copies of five FOIA requests Petitioner filed, included duplicative charges in the estimated fees to fulfill the request, and did not respond to voicemails seeking assistance.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation found. FOIA permits a public body to withhold records until payment is received. ODS provided a sufficient justification of the estimated charges and evidence of responding to the Petitioner’s requests for assistance.
Petitioner alleged that the Delaware Department of Insurance improperly responded to his request by not returning a time-stamped copy of his request and the envelope it was mailed in and by asking the Petitioner for clarification regarding their remaining requests.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. DOI asserted that it already provided a copy of the request and sent a copy in response to the Petition. FOIA requires a requester to provide sufficient information to enable a public body to locate the records with reasonable effort, and this Office determined that the remaining requests did not meet this standard. Thus, DOI did not violate FOIA by seeking clarification.
Petitioner alleged that the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services improperly withheld records responsive to his request related to an infectious disease cluster at a health facility. Petitioner further alleged that only one division of DHSS, the Division of Public Health, responded to his request.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. The records are exempt from FOIA under 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(1), which exempts medical information that would constitute an invasion of privacy, and under 29 Del. C. § 10002(l)(6), which exempts information which is protected by other statutes, including those federal and state statutes which prohibit or restrict the release of health information.
Petitioner alleged that the City of Rehoboth violated open meetings requirements with regard to a City Commissioners’ meeting. This Office addressed the following three issues: 1) whether the executive session was for an improper purpose, in light of your belief that the City planned to vote on a possible sale immediately following the executive session; 2) whether the open session item, described on the agenda as “discussion and consideration of vote on possible sale of City property,” gave sufficient notice to the public whether the executive session was for an improper purpose, in light of your belief that the City planned to vote on a possible sale immediately following the executive session; and 3) whether the agenda required an explanation of why a “Special Meeting” was necessary.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. First, the executive session was found to be held for a proper purpose under 29 Del. C. 10004(b)(2). Second, an open session item following a proper executive session under 29 Del. C. 10004(b)(2) is not required to identify the property specifically. Third, this Office found that the meeting was not a special meeting as defined by FOIA, so no additional explanation was required in the agenda.
Petitioner alleged that the Delaware Department of Agriculture (“DDA”) violated FOIA by not providing reasons for redacting certain information in the requested records in the response to DDA’s records request.
DECIDED: DDA failed to include the reasons for redacting portions of the provided records in its response as required by FOIA. Because DDA had since provided those reasons, no additional measures were recommended, but DDA was respectfully cautioned to state its reasons for any redactions in future responses.
Petitioner alleged that DNREC improperly denied his clients’ records request pursuant to the pending or potential litigation exemption.
DECIDED: Because DNREC alleges the potential litigation would be between the two private parties and not against the public body from which records are sought or a closely affiliated person or entity, it was determined that denial of the records pursuant to the pending or potential litigation exemption violates FOIA.