PRINT VERSION: Attorney General Opinion 02-IB25
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by not providing you with copies of any checks payable to Sharon Hughes, former legislative aide to New Castle Councilman J. Christopher Roberts, or her attorney, Richard J. Wier, Jr., Esquire, relating to the legal settlement of a personnel matter between the County and Ms. Hughes. Held: any nondisclosure provision in a settlement agreement between Ms. Hughes and the County cannot override the public records requirements of FOIA and that the County violated FOIA by not providing you with access to documents relating to the settlement of a legal claim between Ms. Hughes and the County.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged that Sussex County Planning and Zoning Commission (“the Commission”) violated FOIA by not providing you with “copies of the revised draft [Comprehensive Plan Update]” in violation of the public record requirements of FOIA. You also allege that the Commission violated the public notice requirements of Title 9 of the Delaware Code in connection with special meetings of the Commission on September 11 and 19, 2002. Held: the Commission made these public records reasonably accessible to citizens as required by FOIA. The Commission noticed each of its meetings on August 29, September 9, and September 11, 2002 at least seven days in advance as required by FOIA.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged that Sussex County Planning and Zoning Commission (“the Commission”) violated FOIA by not providing you with “copies of the revised draft [Comprehensive Plan Update]” in violation of the public record requirements of FOIA. You also allege that the Commission violated the public notice requirements of Title 9 of the Delaware Code in connection with special meetings of the Commission on September 11 and 19, 2002. Held: the Commission made these public records reasonably accessible to citizens as required by FOIA. The Commission noticed each of its meetings on August 29, September 9, and September 11, 2002 at least seven days in advance as required by FOIA.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged that: (1) the New Castle County Executive and the County Council met on July 11, 2002 without adequate notice to the public, and that they discussed matters of public business not specified in the notice; and (2) that the Executive Committee of the County Council met on July 16, 2002 without timely notice to the public, and in that meeting discussed matters beyond those listed in the agenda. Held: the County Executive and the Council did not violate the open meeting requirements of FOIA with respect to the July 11, 2002 joint meeting, and that the Council’s Executive Committee did not violate the open meeting requirements of FOIA with respect to its July 16, 2002 meeting.
Read MoreComplainant alleged that the Town of Fenwick Island (“the Town”) violated FOIA by failing to remediate previous FOIA violations. Held: the Town did not violate the open meeting requirements of FOIA at the June 28, 2002 meeting, and that the Town has satisfied our directives to remediate the FOIA violations that occurred at meetings earlier this year.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged that the Town of Laurel (“the Town”) violated FOIA by not providing access to public records he requested. Specifically, he alleged that by letter dated July 12, 2002 he asked for but did not receive a copy of “an annexation report” and the Town’s “2002 Comprehensive Development Plan.” Held: the Town did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA because it provided Complainant with a copy of the annexation report on August 6, 2002.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged that the joint school boards of New Castle County (“Joint Board”) “consists of representatives of each of the public school boards in New Castle County” and that it is a public body covered by FOIA because it “functions on public funds and does, at least indirectly, influence public policy.” Held: the Joint Board is a “public body” for purposes of FOIA and subject to all of the requirements of the open meeting laws. The school boards were directed to notice these meetings to the public in the future in the same manner as they would a meeting of the individual school board under FOIA and to maintain minutes of the joint meetings.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged that the Capital School District Board of Education (“the Board”) violated FOIA by: (1) not providing access to public records you requested; and (2) meeting to interview applicants for a new superintendent without notice to the public. Held: the School Board did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA but the School Board violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by: (1) meeting in executive sessions on October 2 and 17, 2002 for a purpose not authorized by statute; (2) meeting in executive sessions on March 2 and 6, 2002 for a purpose not authorized by statute; (3) by meeting on March 8, 9, and 10, 2002 without posting public notices and agendas and without maintaining minutes of those meetings; (4) meeting in executive session on April 11, 2002 for a purpose not authorized by statute; and (5) meeting in executive session on April 16, 2002 for a purpose not authorized by statute.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by not providing a letter of engagement between the County and the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. Held: Based on an in camera review of the documents, each of them is exempt from disclosure under FOIA either by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity.
Read More