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
Date Posted: Monday, May 9th, 2005
Complainant alleged the Town violated the public records by not providing requestor with a copy of the Town’s Employment Agreement with the town manager as well as his current salary and the proposed future salaries voted on at last night’s. Requestor asked Town Manager for the information the day after the meeting and the Town Manager responded the same day temporarily denying the request until the employment contract was reviewed by legal counsel to make sure it was not contrary to state law, the town charter or violated any other personnel regulations. Four weeks after the request, the Council was presented with a draft for review. The Council approved the final employment contract with the Town Manager about 2 weeks after the interim meeting and 3 days later requestor was sent a copy of the final employment contract. Held: the Town violated FOIA’s public records requirements by not providing requestor with a copy of the draft employment contract with the Town Manager after the Council voted at a public meeting 4 weeks after her request to approve the contract subject to review by legal counsel.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, May 9th, 2005
Complainant alleged the Personnel Committee of the County Council violated the FOIA open meeting requirements of FOIA by meeting in executive session to discuss the qualifications of the two finalists for the position of counsel to the County Council while identifying the candidates by name but discussing the candidates at the open meeting only by reference to Candidate A and B. Held: The Committee did not violate FOIA but rather struck a reasonable balance between the privacy rights of the applicants, and the public’s right-to-know when it identified job candidates as A and B in the agenda and the public session. (When the job offer is extended and accepted, the name of the job applicant necessarily will become public, and the public will know, from the minutes, which members of the public body voted to hire that applicant.)
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, April 11th, 2005
The Complainant alleged the City violated open meeting requirements by discussing pension plan investment strategy at a meeting of the City Council, but the agenda did not identify for that meeting. Held: the Council properly deferred any further discussion on the merits of the issue until it could be noticed to the public in accordance with FOIA after the matter of pension investment strategies was raised during the council member comment period of a meeting.
Read More
