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
Date Posted: Monday, April 11th, 2005
Complainant alleged the Council violated FOIA’s open meeting requirements by holding a special meeting without required notice (already addressed in 05-IB09) and by holding prior to that meeting a series of individual meetings with Council Members, with the expressed objective of garnering commitment for individual Council member votes, to remove the county auditor. Complainant did not provide the names of the individual Council members that allegedly met, or the date(s) or time(s) or places, or whether they allegedly met in person or electronically. The Council President in a sworn affidavit said he did not attempt to secure a consensus before the public meeting on the issue of the Auditor, and he was not solicited by a series of Council members for a particular vote prior to the public meeting. Held: Complainant failed to point to sufficient information to establish a prima facie showing that a meeting occurred, and no FOIA violation was found.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, April 11th, 2005
The Complainant alleged the Council violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by holding a special meeting without required notice to the public. Council had properly noticed a regular meeting of the Council’s Executive Committee. More than 24 hours before that meeting, Council posted a notice and agenda for a special meeting. The agenda noted that it was not posted 7 days in advance of the scheduled meeting as a result of recent developments since the recent Audit Committee meeting. The agenda listed for discussion: “1. Call to order 2. Discussion of Confidential Personnel Matter 3. Other.” At noon, more than 6 hours in advance of that meeting, Council posted a revised agenda for the special meeting, that revised the second line item to read: “Discussion of Confidential Personnel Matter (County Auditor)”. According to the Council, this change was made “to clarify that the confidential personnel matter to be discussed involved the County Auditor.” Held: the special meeting did not violate FOIA because there was a valid reason for the meeting, and the agenda as originally posted was sufficient notice.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, April 4th, 2005
The Complainant alleged the School District violated the public records requirements of FOIA by not providing copies of requested documents and treating requestor differently than other citizens. Held: School District provided requestor with access to all 3,700 documents regarding Division I units 3,700 documents from which requestor could have obtained the statistics requested but was not required by FOIA to compile the data from those documents into the requested format. Further, School District followed its written policies on responding to requests for access to records and did not treat requestor differently from other citizens.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, March 9th, 2005
Complainant alleged that the Board of Adjustment violated FOIA by: (1) failing to post the agenda of a public meeting 7 days in advance; (2) failing to prepare minutes of two public meetings (3) charging an unreasonable fee ($4 a page) for a transcript of Board meetings. Held: the Board violated the public notice requirements of FOIA by failing to post an agenda for that meeting seven days in advance and not listing all of the matters of public business to be discussed at that meeting. The case decisions the Board produced as “minutes” did not cover all the topics discussed at the meeting, nor did they identify individual Board members and how they voted and do not constitute minutes under FOIA. FOIA was violated by the $4 a page charge, as once a transcript is in the possession of the Board, the law only allows a reasonable charge for copying ($1 per page and $2 per page charged by courts have been determined reasonable).
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005
The Complainant alleged the Town violated FOIA by holding an emergency meeting with only 24 hours notice, with “City Solicitor” being the only agenda item, at which it discussed and fired the City Solicitor. Held: the Town did violate FOIA because there was no showing of exigent circumstances or compelling need to hold the meeting without the required 7 days notice for a regular meeting. The notice was also deficient because listing “Town Solicitor” in the agenda was not “sufficient to inform the public that the Council would consider and vote on firing the Town’s legal counsel.” The Town did not violate FOIA for failing to invite all of the Council members to the meeting, as FOIA requires notice to the general public, not to individual members of the public body.
Read More
Date Posted: Friday, February 11th, 2005
The Complainant alleged the City Council violated FOIA by holding meetings in locations other than those previously used, without inviting the usual minute take or recording the meetings. Held: the meetings were properly noticed and advertised and minutes were prepared, thus, there was no violation of FOIA.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, February 3rd, 2005
The Complainant alleged a town council member violated FOIA by holding a series of personal meetings with four different members of the council (five members constituted a quorum) without public notice which resulted in a letter produced on Town stationary regarding the result of the conversations. Held: this violated FOIA because the meetings were determined to be more than “the passive receipt of information” and the sum of these communications (the letter signed by the council members) amounted to a meeting of a public body covered by FOIA and as such the lack of public notice constituted a violation of FOIA. An additional compliant was not a violation because the public workshop was rescheduled and proper notice was given prior to it being held.
Read More
