Date Posted: Monday, August 29th, 2005
Complainant alleged that the Town violated the FOIA open meeting requirements by not: (1) giving the public adequate notice of matters to be discussed under the agenda headings “Old Business” and “Unfinished Business”; (2) giving the public adequate notice of matters to be discussed in executive session under the agenda heading “Personnel and Legal Matters”; (3) following the proper procedures forgoing into executive session; and by (4) allowing members of the public who are not members of the Town Council to attend executive sessions. The Complainant also alleges that the Town violated the public records requirements of FOIA by denying access to requested minutes of executive sessions. The Town did not violate the public notice requirements of FOIA by: (1) discussing informational-only matters and hearing comments and questions from citizens during the period of public meetings reserved for “New Business” or “Unfinished Business”; (2) using a shorthand agenda heading (“Personnel” or “Legal Issues”) to give notice to the public that the Town Council would meet in executive session and for what purpose; or (3) by voting to go into executive session at the start of the next month’s meeting of the Council, so long as the Town properly noticed the executive session in the agenda for the next month’s meeting and the Council voted again in public to go into executive session. However, the Town did violate FOIA by denying access to the minutes of executive sessions because the Town has failed to show either that: (1) the Town Council met in executive session for a purpose authorized by law; or (2) disclosure at this time would defeat the lawful purpose for an executive session authorized by law.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, August 18th, 2005
Complainant alleged that the Town violated FOIA by: (1) failing to notice in the agenda for a meeting that after executive session the Town Council would return to public session to vote on several matters of public business; (2) meeting in executive session to discuss matters of public business for purposes not authorized by law; and (3) denying access to the complete minutes of the executive session. Held: the Town violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by: (1) meeting in executive session to discuss 5 matters of public business not authorized by law for private discussion; and (2) failing to notice in the meeting agenda that the Town Council would return to public session after the executive session to discuss and vote on 2 matters of public business. The Town also violated the public records requirements of FOIA by not providing requestor copies of the minutes of the executive session redacted only to exclude 2 personnel matters in which the Town Council discussed the abilities and competency of individual employees.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, August 15th, 2005
Complainant alleged that the County Council violated the FOIA open meeting requirements by: (1) adding two items to the agenda during a meeting; and (2) voting in executive session at that same meeting to approve a land acquisition. Held: although the Council met in executive session for a purpose authorized by FOIA—to discuss site acquisitions—the Council did violate FOIA when it added two items (executive session to discuss site acquisitions, and airport perimeter fence) to the agenda for the meeting at the start of the meeting because those matters did not arise at the meeting, and came to the attention of the County Administrator before the meeting. The Council could have amended the agenda to include those two new matters at least six hours in advance of the meeting.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, August 1st, 2005
Complainant alleges that the City violated the FOIA public records requirements by not providing: (1) “A copy of the Standard operating procedure (SOP) for the police department’s ‘F Squad”’; and (2) “Copies of all email communications generated since Nov. 1, 2004 regarding shootings, homicides, street violence or illegal drug sales sent to, written by, copied to, or forwarded to any of the several individuals. Held: the county did not violate FOIA. There are no written operating procedures, policies, or training guides specific to the F Squad; however, the County has a White Book, the index to which does not reveal any confidential law enforcement techniques or otherwise jeopardize officer safety and effective law enforcement, which may be responsive to the request. The County will make it available to assist the requestor in identifying other information requestor may request pursuant to FOIA. Further, County did not violate FOIA with respect to the email request because the Assistant City Solicitor represented, after verifying with the individuals named in your FOIA request, that they do not have any e-mails responsive to your request.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, August 1st, 2005
Complainant alleges that the School District violated FOIA by holding a special meeting without explaining in the agenda why the School District could not give the normal 7 days notice. Held: the School District violated the open meeting requirements by not giving an explanation in the agenda for the special meeting why 7 days’ notice could not be given to the public. However, the School District has already cured that violation, by appropriately re-noticing a meeting.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, July 27th, 2005
Complainant alleges that the School District violated the FOIA public records requirements by providing interview questions but declining to provide interviewers’ assessments of the qualifications and abilities of the applicants. Held: the School District did not violate FOIA public records requirements by denying access to the scoring sheets of interview panel members compiled during the applicant selection process for a new driver education instructor because that information is exempt from disclosure to protect individual privacy for the same reasons that the statute expressly authorizes a public body to meet in private to discuss the an individual’s qualifications for public employment.
Read More
Date Posted: Friday, July 8th, 2005
Complainant alleges the County Council Committee violated FOIA open meeting requirements by: (1) meeting in executive session without giving the required advance notice to the public; (2) failing to follow the proper procedures for going into executive session; and (3) discussing matters in executive session which FOIA requires to be discussed in public. Held: the Committee did not violate the open meeting requirements of FOIA when it properly voted to go into executive session to discuss litigation strategy as authorized by FOIA for private discussion (a legitimate purpose). However, the Committee did violate FOIA by not giving notice seven days in advance to the public that the litigation report by the County Attorney to the Committee would be heard in executive session.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005
Complainant alleged the City violated the FOIA public records requirements by denying access to copies of post-mortem records that were provided to the City’s police department by the Department of Health and Social Services and/or state medical examiner’s office. Held: the City did not violate FOIA because the Lawson post-mortem reports (with the exception of the death certificate, which may be exempt from disclosure by separate statute) were exempt from disclosure under FOIA as part of an investigative file compiled for law enforcement purposes. Further, FOIA requests should be made to the public body who originated the documents; thus, the City should immediately refer the FOIA request to the originating agency—the office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, June 20th, 2005
Complainant alleged the City violated FOIA open meeting requirements by: (1) holding a meeting of the Planning Commission 1hour earlier than the time noticed to the public to discuss a proposed subdivision; and (2) amending a meeting agenda the day before the meeting to include the same subdivision for final action by the Council. Held: Council violated FOIA, because the clerical error in the time announcement deprived the public of their right to monitor and observe the discussion of a matter of public business. Council further violated FOI by amending the meeting agenda without given sufficient reason why seven days’ notice could not be given. (Despite the intervening change in Council members, the subdivision matter did not “come up suddenly” after the original posting of the agenda, nor was there any evidence in the record that consideration of the proposed subdivision by the Council was such a pressing matter that it could not be deferred until a later date.)
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, June 8th, 2005
Complainant alleges the City Council violated FOIA open meeting requirements by twice meeting in executive session on the same day to discuss “hiring contract personnel.” Held: Council violated FOIA’s open meeting requirements when it met in executive session to discuss which of two outside firms to retain to provide professional lobbying services since a vendor or independent contractor does not share the same privacy concerns as an individual public employee or prospective employee.
Read More
