Complainant asserts Smyrna violated FOIA’s open records requirements by not providing copies of records of the Town Ethics Commission concerning a complaint against him. Town provided notes from two meetings but provided no other records. Town asserts, among other things, that Smyrna’s Code of Conduct provides for the confidentiality of the Ethics Committee’s records and that the complaint is exempt from FOIA as a record specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or common law. HELD: Smyrna did not violate FOIA because Town’s Code of Conduct provided FOIA exemption by statute.
Read MoreComplainant asserts that Townsend violated FOIA’s open records requirements by not providing a copy of complaint asserted against her family and because the Mayor had promised her a copy. Townsend asserts that the complaint is exempt from FOIA because it is part of an investigatory file. HELD: Townsend did not violate FOIA by not providing the complaint. Townsend has a public interest in preserving confidentiality of law enforcement files to avoid a chilling effect on those who might bring pertinent information to the attention of law enforcement. Doctrine of estoppel does not apply because even if the Mayor did promise a copy of the letter, Complainant did not rely on that promise to his detriment.
Read MoreComplainant asserts that County violated FOIA by charging an unreasonable amount for copies of text messages and emails which constitute approximately 1,180 pages. County requested a fee of $354 for paper copies and $227.12 for electronic copies on CD. HELD: Charge was reasonable and reasonably calculated.
Read MoreComplainant asserts that County violated FOIA by charging an unreasonable amount for copies of text messages and emails which constitute approximately 1,180 pages. County requested a fee of $354 for paper copies and $227.12 for electronic copies on CD. County also charged another person same amount for same FOIA request. HELD: Charge was reasonable and reasonably calculated. However, County cannot charge for both requests unless it incurs duplicate costs for retrieval.
Read MoreCouncilman Street asked whether the School District Board of Education (the “Board”) violated FOIA by removing a letter a member of the public distributed to the Board members prior to a public meeting and had a State Trooper escort that member of the public out of the building before the meeting started. Prior to the meeting when the Board Secretary began reviewing the letter, Mr. Hynson, a member of the public, approached the secretary and began yelling at him. The Board delayed the meeting for about six minutes in order for them to call the police. A State Trooper arrived and escorted Mr. Hynson from the building. According to witnesses, Mr. Hynson continued to yell the entire time. HELD: FOIA is silent as to whether a member of the public has the right to distribute papers to the members of a public body. FOIA is not concerned with the public’s ability to communicate with a public body, only with the public’s opportunity to observe that body. FOIA does allow a public body to remove a member of the public if they are “willfully and seriously disruptive.” The Board was justified in removing Mr. Hynson.
Read MoreSenator Ennis asked whether the training records for courses taken at the Delaware State Fire School are public records subject to FOIA. HELD: Yes. The State Fire School is a public body subject to FOIA. The records do not constitute personnel or pupil records exempt from FOIA nor do they contain information which, if released, would result in invasion of privacy. However, personal information such as home addresses and social security numbers may be redacted.
Read MoreComplainant alleged Sussex County violated FOIA by charging an unreasonable amount for copying records. Request was for electronic media download of current real property assessment date. County originally requested a flat fee of $12,000 then modified the charge to $3,000. County regulations allow $.30 per page for copies or “actual cost of reproduction” for records not subject to routine photocopying. County asserts that the information requested is made up of approximately 4 million records. HELD: County improperly equated each record with a copy. A record is not the same as a page. Electronic data cannot be charged on an arbitrary per record basis that has no relationship to the actual cost of reproduction.
Read MoreComplainant alleged Camden-Wyoming Sewer and Water Authority (“CWSWA”) violated FOIA open records requirements by not providing a copy of a “Management Comment Letter from CWSWA’s auditors. CWSA asserts that the document is confidential as requested by the auditors. HELD: The letter would only be exempt from FOIA if it contained commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential which it does not. A record that meets definition of public record is not entitled to exemption merely because the creator has designated it “confidential.” CWSA violated FOIA by not providing the letter.
Read MoreComplainant alleged NCC violated FOIA open records requirements by not providing unredacted copy of email from private citizen to NCC Chief of Staff. Email copy was provided but name of private of citizen, an informant, was redacted. Complainant asserts NCC should reveal the identity of the informant to add details to the public debate. HELD: NCC not required to release name of informant. DOJ applies a balancing test weighing public’s interest in disclosure against public body’s interest in protecting sources. NCC’s interest in not discouraging citizens from reporting potentially illegal conduct is greater than the interest to release the identity of the informant.
Read MoreComplainant alleged City violated FOIA open meeting requirements by not publicly noticing meetings relating to selection of engineering firm to reconstruct boardwalk, meeting was not open to public and minutes were not made available. City acknowledged it had meetings with engineering firms who submitted proposals and that meetings were not open to public. City asserted that these meetings were executive sessions to consider confidential/commercial information contained in the proposals. City did hold properly noticed public meetings to vote on final selection of engineering firm but no agenda provided notice or voting on executive session to consider the proposals. HELD: Proposals did contain confidential/commercial information which were properly considered in executive session. However, City violated FOIA by not noticing and voting on executive session. Remediation did not include invalidation of contract with engineering firm, but did require City to enter into consent agreement with Attorney General to require City to provide notice of any and all executive sessions to the DDOJ for one year.
Read MoreDelaware's Governor
State Directory
Elected Officials
General Assembly
Delaware Courts
State Employees
Cities & Towns
Delaware State Code
State Regulations
Business First Steps
Phone Directory
Locations Directory
Public Meetings
Voting & Elections
Transparency
Choose Health DE
Tax Center
Personal Income Tax
Privacy Policy
Weather & Travel
Contact Us
Corporations
Franchise Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Withholding Tax
Guides to Services
Help Center
Mobile Apps
E-mail / Text Alerts
Social Media
