Delaware.gov logo

Delaware Department of Justice
Attorney General
Kathy Jennings


Attorney General's Opinions




06-IB20: Re Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Christina School District Board of Education

Date Posted: Monday, September 11th, 2006

Complainant alleged that the Christina School District Board of Education violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by meeting twice in private at an open meeting to discuss matters of public business without notice to the public. HELD: The facts show that, collectively, five Board members participated in the two meetings with the Superintendent to discuss reductions in force and tax warrants. This amounted to a constructive quorum for purposes of FOIA because the meetings were scheduled only a few hours apart, the subjects discussed were the same, and the School Board acknowledges the meetings went beyond the mere passive receipt of information.

Read More


06-IB18: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Smyrna

Date Posted: Tuesday, September 5th, 2006

Complainant alleged that the Town of Smyrna violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by (i) not providing timely notice to the public of a special meeting of the Town; and (ii) not disclosing in the agenda for the meeting that the Council would discuss appointing a Vice Mayor. HELD: (i) the notice of the public meeting violated FOIA by failing to explain why a special meeting was required without providing 7 days notice; and (ii) the agenda violated FOIA b/c it did not indicate that the Town would be discussing the appointment of a Vice Mayor at the special meeting.

Read More


06-IB19 – RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against NNC Council Economic Development Subcommittee

Date Posted: Tuesday, September 5th, 2006

Complainant alleged that the New Castle County Council Economic Development Subcommittee violated the open meeting requirements of the FOIA by denying her the opportunity to speak at a public meeting. HELD: FOIA does not require a public body to permit public comments. The subcommittee never opened up the meeting for public comment, nor did it discriminate as between individual members of the public based on their viewpoint.

Read More


06-IB17 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against State Public Integrity Commission

Date Posted: Monday, August 21st, 2006

Complainant alleged that the State Public Integrity Commission violated FOIA by denying him access to lobbying expense reports and financial disclosure reports of public officials in electronic form. HELD: Under FOIA, a public body cannot respond to a request for information in electronic form by supplying paper records containing the same information. FOIA’s public records definition is broad, and an agency cannot withhold public records from disclosure simply b/c the records were created voluntarily, nor can it argue that disclosure is not required because no statute requires the creation/maintenance of the record. An existing electronic database is a public record separate and distinct from the underlying records used to compile the database. Additionally, records in the custody of private vendors but accessible by the public body are subject to disclosure under FOIA. However, FOIA does not require the creation of a record in a specialized format specified by the requesting party. FOIA does not require the public body to convert hard copies onto a CD either. FOIA only requires the public body to make the hard copy reports available to a requesting party for photocopying or scanning.

Read More


06-IB16: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Smyrna

Date Posted: Monday, August 7th, 2006

Complainant alleged that four members of the Smyrna Town Council violated FOIA by meeting privately to discuss a matter of public business. The four members denied meeting to discuss public business, but submitted affidavits swearing that they each contacted the Town manager separately to raise similar concerns. HELD: A constructive quorum may occur when the members of a public body, sufficient in number to constitute a quorum, engage in an interactive exchange of thoughts and opinions and the members are asked to vote or adopt a particular point of view or reach a consensus on what action to take. In this case, there were several one-on-one discussions between three members of the Council, but those serial discussions did not involve a quorum of the seven member Council so as to trigger the potential application of the open meeting laws.

Read More


06-IB15: RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Brandy wine School District Board of Education

Date Posted: Monday, July 24th, 2006

Complainant alleged that the Brandywine School District Board of Education violated FOIA’s open meeting requirements by (i) not providing sufficient notice to the public about the matters the Board would discuss in executive session; (ii) discussing matters of public business in private not authorized by FOIA; and (iii) not preparing adequate minutes of executive session meetings. The Board contended it only discussed job applicants and personnel matters in executive session and the minutes were prepared using the format it uses for executive session and that the form complied with FOIA. HELD: (i) The Board violated FOIA’s notice requirements by not disclosing in the agenda that the Board would discuss the qualifications of job applicants for the position of superintendent; (ii) the Board violated FOIA’s notice requirements by discussing several procedural matters at the meeting which FOIA did not authorize for executive session; but (iii) the format of the minutes of the executive session—which included the names of Board members in attendance, the motion to vote and go into executive session, the general nature of the matters discussed, and the motion and vote to adjourn the executive session–did not violate FOIA b/c they met the minimum requirements of FOIA. There is no clearly implied statutory requirement to summarize the subjects discussed with any degree of specificity in the minutes of executive sessions.

Read More


06-IB14 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Middletown

Date Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2006

Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 06-IB14 (Del.A.G.), 2006 WL 2355968 Office of the Attorney General State of Delaware Opinion No. 06–IB14 July 12, 2006 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Middletown *1 Mr. Jeff Bruette 116 Sleepy Hollow Drive, Suite C Middletown, DE 19709 Dear Mr. Bruette: Our Office received your complaint dated […]

Read More


06-IB14 – RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Middletown

Date Posted: Wednesday, July 12th, 2006

Complainant alleged that the Town of Middletown violated the public records requirements of FOIA by denying complainant’s request for loan agreements between the Town and Trinity Church and copies of all agreements for loans extended by the Town to any individuals. The Town denied the requests based on 29 Del. C. §10002(g)(1) and (2), arguing that the documents requested are not public records. HELD: Interest free loans made to employees are a form of compensation. Therefore, the disclosure of these loans and information about the employee that received the loan would not constitute an invasion of privacy and is therefore not protected by FOIA. The information is also not “confidential financial information” within the meaning of FOIA because the loan information did not come from a person. The exemption is meant to protected “technical or financial data submitted by an applicant to a Government lending or loan guarantee agency.” In this case, the loan agreements were generated by the Town in the course of its involvement with borrowers and was not exempt from disclosure. Although Town was required to disclose the loan agreements, Town was instructed to redact confidential information such as personal financial statements, tax returns, home addresses and telephone numbers, social security numbers and bank account numbers.

Read More


06-IB13: Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Town of Camden

Date Posted: Friday, June 23rd, 2006

Complainant alleged that the Town of Camden violated FOIA on numerous specific occasions by denying access to public records. HELD: (i) absent evidence of the actual submission of a FOIA request, no violation can be found; (ii) representations by the Town’s counsel that the Town searched for and produced the only responsive records in its possession are sufficient for purpose of FOIA; (iii) producing responsive documents within ten days of the request was reasonable and did not violate FOIA; and (iv) FOIA does not prohibit a public body’s requirement that FOIA requests be made in writing.

Read More


06-IB12 – RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against City of Dover

Date Posted: Monday, June 19th, 2006

Complainant alleged that the City of Dover violated FOIA by meeting in executive session to interview candidates for the position Director of Planning and Inspections. HELD: The City did not violate FOIA by meeting in executive session for this purpose. FOIA authorizes a public body to meet in executive session to discuss an applicant’s qualifications to hold a job. However, the City violated FOIA by voting during that executive session on the candidate selection because FOIA does not permit straw polling, nor does FOIA allow public bodies to reach consensus votes during executive session.

Read More





+