Date Posted: Monday, October 20th, 2003
The Complainant alleged that the Sussex Technical School District Board of Education (“the School Board”) violated FOIA by meeting in executive session on August 11, 2003 without the required notice to the public. Held: The School Board violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by: (1) failing to follow the proper procedures for going into executive session at the end of the public session of its meeting on August 11, 2003; and (2) meeting in executive session to discuss two matters (the superintendent search and pending litigation) for which they were not authorized by law.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, October 6th, 2003
The Complainant alleged that the Woodbridge School District (“the School District”) violated FOIA by not providing timely notice to the public that the School District would approve a change order to increase the cost of a construction contract. Held: the School District violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by failing to give timely notice to the public that it would discuss a change order to a construction contract.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, October 6th, 2003
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by not providing the names, addresses, and policy numbers of insurance carriers which underwrite public official coverage for the County. The County contended the requested information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA for two reasons: (1) “the [insurance] coverage information in the policy contains confidential information or financial details”; and (2) the information “falls within the pending or potential litigation exception.” Held: County did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA by refusing to provide documents that contain the names and addresses of insurers and the insurance policy numbers because the records containing such information fall within the potential litigation exception under FOIA.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003
The Complainant alleged that the Town of South Bethany (“the Town”) violated FOIA by: (1) holding a meeting on November 8, 2002 for a purpose not authorized by law; and (2) holding a meeting on November 18, 2002 without sufficient advance notice to the public. Held: the Town violated FOIA by: (1) meeting in executive session on November 8, 2002 under an agenda item listed as “personnel” when in fact the Town discussed another matter that FOIA authorizes for discussion in executive session; and (2) by amending the agenda for the November 18, 2002 meeting without explaining the reason for the delay in posting an amended agenda.
Read More
Date Posted: Friday, August 8th, 2003
The Complainants alleged that the Town of Slaughter Beach (“the Town”) violated FOIA by discussing matters of public business at a meeting on July 1, 2003 without the required notice to the public. The Town contends that it satisfied the notice requirements of FOIA by posting the notice and agenda for the July 1, 2003 special meeting three days in advance of the meeting. Held: the Town did not violate FOIA by publishing the notice for a special meeting on July 1, 2003 three days in advance since FOIA permits notice for special meetings to be less than seven days (but not less than 24 hours) when there is good reason.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, July 31st, 2003
The Complainants alleged that the Town of Odessa (“the Town”) violated FOIA by discussing matters of public business at a meeting on June 2, 2003 without the required notice to the public. Held: the Town violated the public notice requirements of FOIA by discussing a substantial matter of public business at the June 2, 2003 meeting without adequate notice to the public. To remediate the violation and invalidation of the June 2 vote, the Town was directed to notice a meeting in strict compliance with FOIA to be held within thirty (30) days to discuss the forfeiture issue in public before taking any official action.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, June 2nd, 2003
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) did not provide access to public records within a reasonable time. Held: the time it took the County to respond was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The request for documents pertaining to a $230,000 transfer from the Executive Contingency Fund to the County Law Department was reasonably specific and those documents are public records under FOIA.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, May 19th, 2003
The Complainant alleged that the City of Newark (“the City”) violated FOIA by meeting via an exchange of e-mails without notice to the public or an opportunity for the public to participate. Held: the City violated FOIA when, in an exchange of e-mails over the course of March 13-14, 2002, the City’s Nominating Committee discussed public business without notice to the public and without an opportunity for the public to observe.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, May 6th, 2003
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by denying you access to documents regarding the Red Lion Village subdivision. The County claims that the documents you requested are not subject to FOIA for two reasons: (1) they pertain to “pending litigation” before the County Planning Board; and (2) they pertain to “potential litigation” because any decision by the Planning Board could be appealed to court. Held: the documents requested from the County are not “public records” for purposes of FOIA because they are within the exemption for pending litigation.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, May 6th, 2003
The Complainant alleged that the Christina School District (“the School District”) violated FOIA by (1) not providing the public seven days’ notice of a meeting on February 26, 2003; and (2) going into executive session at that meeting for a purpose not authorized by law. Held: the School District did not violate FOIA by posting notice of the February 26, 2003 special meeting less than seven days in advance; and (2) the School District did not violate FOIA by going into executive session because it discussed personnel matters authorized by law.
Read More
