Complainant 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 MoreThe Complainant alleged the Town Council of Dewey Beach (the “Council”) violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by: (1) not providing the public with adequate notice about the building height of a Ruddertowne development proposal discussed at a series of meetings in May-July 2007; and (2) not providing the public with updated and complete copies of the Town’s draft Comprehensive Plan. Held: the Council provided adequate notice that the development proposal and building height would be discussed at the meetings, and copies of the Comprehensive plan were available for inspection as required by FOIA.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the City of Wilmington (the “City”) violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by not providing the Complainant with requested records pertaining to the South Walnut Street Urban Renewal Plan on the basis of “pending or potential litigation.” Held: the City violated the public record requirements of FOIA because there were insufficient objective indicators that litigation between the Complainant’s clients and the City was reasonably foreseeable.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the Town Council of Cheswold (the “Council”) violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by meeting in executive session during a public meeting to discuss a “Personnel Matter,” after which the Council reconvened in public to vote to fire a member of the Cheswold Planning Commission.” Held: The agenda for the Council meeting satisfied the notice requirements of FOIA by stating the purpose of the executive session listed in the agenda: to discuss a personnel matter. FOIA did not require the Council to name the person in the agenda who was to be the subject of that private discussion.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the Town Council of Bethel (the “Council”) violated the “open meetings” provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by not providing timely notice of a “special meeting.” Held: the Council complied with FOIA by giving the public at least twenty-four hours’ notice of the “special meeting” because there was a compelling reason to give less than seven days’ notice of the meeting. The Council violated FOIA by not including in the notice for the “special meeting” a brief explanation why the Council could not give seven days’ notice.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged Delaware State University (“DSU”) violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by not providing payroll documents for two DSU employees paid with “restricted funds.” Held: The requested payroll information was not a public record under FOIA because that information related to the expenditure of “restricted funds,” rather than public funds.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the Board of Trustees of Delaware State University (“the Board of Trustees”) violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by not providing the Complainant with a copy of the agenda and minutes for a “retreat” held in Phoenix, Arizona. Held: The Board did not hold a “meeting,” as defined by FOIA, at the national conference in Phoenix, to discuss any matter of public business specific to Delaware State University. Since there was no “meeting” for purposes of FOIA, the Board was not required to notice the conference to the public or prepare minutes. The Board did not violate the public record requirements of FOIA by denying the Complainant access to the agenda and minutes because FOIA did not require the Board to post an agenda or prepare minutes.
Read More