Date Posted: Wednesday, March 8th, 2017
Petitioner alleged that the Town of Middletown violated FOIA by not answering questions regarding the source of certain funds paid out by the Town and by not providing certain records relating to a 2002 real estate transaction. HELD: FOIA does not require a public body to respond to questions. Moreover, the Town performed an adequate search of its own records and there is no evidence to suggest that an existing third party has possession of responsive records over which the Town has control. The Town therefore did not violate FOIA as alleged.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, February 15th, 2017
Petitioner alleged that Delaware Technical & Community College violated FOIA by not basing the estimate of the cost to fulfill his request on the pay rate of the lowest-paid employees capable of performing the work. HELD: There was no FOIA violation. The College provided evidence through a sworn affidavit that the employees whose pay rates were used to develop the estimate are the lowest-paid ones capable of doing the necessary work within their information security protocols.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, February 8th, 2017
Petitioners alleged that the City of Dover’s denial of their request for a copy of a settlement agreement entered into by the City violated FOIA. HELD: The City has constructive possession of or administrative control over the settlement agreement and the confidentiality agreement does not bar disclosure. We conclude that the City violated FOIA by denying the Requests and request its insurer to provide Petitioners with the Release and Settlement Agreement within fifteen business days of this determination.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, February 8th, 2017
Petitioner alleged on five occasions that Red Clay Consolidated School District violated FOIA by failing to respond to his requests records in a time and manner as prescribed by FOIA. HELD: We find that the District violated FOIA repeatedly, as alleged in each of the Petitions, by failing to respond to Petitioner’s requests in the manner and time prescribed by FOIA. The only exception to this finding is with respect to his request for 2016-2017 choice records, which were not available when requested. No specific remediation is recommended because the Petitioner did receive the records after the deadlines had passed. However, the District is encouraged to consult the statute and other materials available on FOIA compliance.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, December 22nd, 2016
In May 2016, Petitioner alleged that the City had not given timely notice of their April 4, 2016 meeting. HELD: The City violated FOIA by providing five days’ public notice instead of the required seven.
In June 2016, the Petitioner alleged that the City’s Electric Committee failed to provide public notice of their May 16, 2016 meeting and the Economic Development Committee failed to post notice of their March 22, 2016 meeting. HELD: These committees are public bodies and these meetings were each attended by a quorum of members. Thus the City violated FOIA by not noticing these meetings. However, the City has agreed that future activities of these bodies will comply with FOIA.
In July 2016, Petitioner alleged that the City held meetings closed to the public between May 17, 2016 and June 14, 2016 in order to finalize and balance the fiscal year 2017 budget. HELD: There is insufficient evidence to support the allegation. No FOIA violation was found.
In November 2016, Petitioner alleged that the Electric Committee failed to publicly post or publish the minutes of its August 3, 2016 meeting and that sometime in the summer of 2016, the Council held meetings closed to the public. HELD: The City Council and the Electric Committee are required only to make minutes available to the public for review, which they were several days later. There is insufficient evidence to support the second allegation. Thus no FOIA violation was found in regard to either allegation.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016
Petitioners alleged that the University of Delaware Board of Trustees (the “Board”) violated the open meetings provisions of FOIA by not adequately describing in the agenda for a May 17, 2016 meeting a bylaws change which the Board expected to discuss. HELD: The Board violated FOIA by failing to include proposed revisions to Article 3 of the University’s bylaws – a major issue expected to be discussed – in its agenda for its May 17, 2016 meeting. Because the Board has indicated an intent to reconsider the issue and ratify the vote at its December 13, 2016 meeting, the Department of Justice requests no further remediation. The Department of Justice nonetheless requests that the Board engage in meaningful public discussion on the matter prior to its December 13, 2016 vote.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, December 13th, 2016
Petitioners alleged that the Christina School District Board of Education (the “Board”) had violated the open meetings provisions of FOIA by discussing items in executive session that are required to be publicly discussed. HELD: The Board violated FOIA by convening an executive session to discuss interview questions and next steps in the search process for the Christina School District Superintendent Position. To remediate this violation, the Department of Justice requests that the Board discuss the matters anew at its December 13, 2016 board meeting.discussed in executive session at the December 13, 2016 board meeting.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, November 17th, 2016
Petitioner alleged that notice of a meeting of the Newark Planning Commission was insufficient based on its placement along a roadway. HELD: No FOIA violation was found. The Commission complied with the FOIA’s requirement of “conspicuous posting” at their primary place of business, which is also where the meeting was held. It also made multiple notices of the meeting available through online and print means.
Read More
Date Posted: Friday, October 28th, 2016
Petitioner alleged that a meeting of the Pathways to Prosperity Committee met without providing public notice. HELD: The Committee acknowledged that it had violated FOIA by failing to provide public notice of its first meeting. As no action was taken at the meeting, minutes were made publicly available, and the Committee expressed that its oversight would not be repeated, this office found no additional remediation was warranted.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, October 24th, 2016
Petitioner requested campaign finance reports from the Office of the State Elections Commissioner (the “SEC”), which directed Petitioner to a website for the information. Petitioner alleged that this constituted a denial of records because he has no access to a computer. The SEC, after learning the Petitioner had no access to a computer, offered Petitioner printed records for a fee. HELD: No FOIA violation is found. A public body is permitted to charge fees in advance for printing or copying records, and the fees the SEC proposes for printed copies of the requested documents appear to be consistent with the statute.
Read More
