Complainant alleged that Rehoboth Beach Planning Commission (“RBPC”) did not properly notice reconsideration of a partition application when it did not list the possibility of waiver of the municipal code provision to consider the application. Agenda reflected reconsideration of the partition application but did not list possibility of waiver. HELD: Major topic of discussion for the meeting was reconsideration of the partition application which was properly and timely posted in the agenda. Waiver was only the procedural mechanism by RBPC allowed application to proceed. It was not a separate and distinct topic which required a separate listing in agenda. FOIA does not require public body to detail in agenda every possible course of action it might take in discussing an agenda topic.
Read MoreComplainant alleged that City violated FOIA’s open meetings requirements when it adopted ordinance reducing number of members and term limits of Rehoboth Beach Planning Commission (“RBPC”) by not properly including those matters on agenda and discussed matter privately in serial emails with a quorum of City Commissioners. Agenda referred to RBPC as a “committee” and not “commission,” and did not list issue of term limits. HELD: Definition of “committee” and “commission” are not identical and possibility of confusion exists. Issue of term limits was also not properly noticed because it was neither on agenda nor did it arise at time of meeting. City violated FOIA by not clarifying that commissions and boards, as well as committees, would be discussed at meeting and not including term limits as a matter to be discussed. Emails complained of do not constitute closed meeting of a quorum in violation of FOIA. Emails did not stimulate discussion or any action by City Commissioners in advance of public meeting. No remediation necessary because departures from FOIA did not rise to level of egregiousness to warrant the very serious sanction of invalidating votes.
Read MoreComplainant alleges that Town violated FOIA regarding the Middletown Action Network (“MAN”) and amendments to town charter. Among other things, Complainant alleges that (i) the Mayor improperly appointed two additional MAN members’ (ii) Middletown held non-public MAN meetings; and (iii) an amendment of the Middletown charter was formulated without public notice and the amendment was not mentioned in Mayor’s oral remarks at the public meeting. Town acknowledged that MAN was created by ordinance on October 1, 2007 and held two or three meetings after its creation, but prior to the approval of their bylaws, but that Mayor did not appoint two additional members. Therefore, MAN meetings were not subject to FOIA. Town further acknowledged that charter amendment removed a $4 million debt limit and that amendment was properly and timely notice for a public meeting. HELD: Mayor not required to hold public meeting to take executive action even if he chose to add members to MAN. The MAN meetings were held in violation of FOIA. MAN became a public body when ordinance creating it was passed. However, FOIA violations are those of MAN, not the Town. With respect to Mayor’s comments about charter amendment at public meeting, FOIA does not concern itself with content of public meeting unless the meeting fails to conform to proposed agenda. Accordingly, Mayor’s oral remarks are not a FOIA issue.
Read MoreComplainant alleges that School District violated FOIA by awarding a pole building contract without proper agenda notice. Agenda as originally published contained no reference to the pole contract. Amended agenda posted 5 days before the meeting listed the pole building contract and the reason it was added to the agenda. HELD: School district did not violate FOIA’s seven day posting requirement because it added a reason for the late posting.
Read MoreComplainants alleged Town violated FOIA open records and open meeting requirements regarding payment of employee bonuses where they received no document responsive to their request for methodology in calculating and authorizing payments. They further assert that benefits should have been approved at public meeting. Town asserts that it has no written policy governing amount of bonuses and when and if they are given out. It has only a line item in its budget for “Employee Benefits – Other” from which Middletown paid the bonuses. HELD: FOIA does not require a public body to create a document in order to respond to a FOIA request. The Middletown Mayor is a body of one and, therefore, is not subject to FOIA’s open meeting requirement pursuant to 29 Del. C. §10004(h)(6).
Read MoreComplainant alleged that DSU Board violated FOIA open meeting requirements in noticing and conducting a meeting via teleconference. Agenda was timely posted and reflected that meeting would be conducted via teleconference, but did not state the place where meeting would be held. Board by-laws permit board meetings by teleconference. HELD: DSU Board violated FOIA when it noticed meeting by not including the place where meeting would be held. DSU Board did not violate FOIA because by-laws expressly permit board meetings by teleconference.
Read MoreComplainant alleged Levy Court violated FOIA open meeting requirements by holding series of meetings with County planning staff and members of working group without notice to the public. Levy Court admitted that series of meetings were held but asserts they were not subject to FOIA because a quorum was not present. The Levy Court further admitted that meetings were planned in advance to build a consensus on updating County’s comprehensive Plan in a way that the commissioners were not “on stage” and felt the need to talk to crowds. HELD: Levy Court violated FOIA when all seven members met privately in a series of five subquorum meetings without notice to the public. The nature, timing and substance of those communications amounted to meeting of a constructive quorum without notice to the public.
Read MoreComplainant alleged Town violated open meeting requirements of FOI by meeting in executive session to discuss impact fees for development. Town asserted executive session was brief strategy session concerning impact fees. Agenda contained no reference to executive session. HELD: Town violated FOIA by not providing public with advance notice of executive session on agenda. Executive sessions may be called in two limited contexts: pending/potential litigation and collective bargaining, but only when an open meeting would have an adverse impact on bargaining or litigation position of public body. Town violated FOIA by going into executive session for a purpose not authorized by law.
Read MoreComplainant alleged School Board violated open meeting requirement by not allowing her to speak at public meeting concerning nephew’s expulsion by School Board. School Board admitted it invited Complainant to speak but that she was not permitted to speak about nephew’s expulsion because that was not a matter of public concern. HELD: FOIA does not require a public body to allow members of the public to speak during a public meeting. There is nothing in the text of the declaration of policy or in the open meeting provision requiring public comment or guaranteeing the public the right to participate.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the Town Council of Bethel (the “Council”) conducted an “open meeting” in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by deciding to contract with Atlantic Well Drilling and issue the necessary permits without first discussing the matter in a public meeting. Held: the “open meeting” law was not violated because approval was given by less than a forum of the Council; approval may have been ultra vires, but it did not implicate FOIA.
Read More