Date Posted: Wednesday, May 12th, 1999
The Complainant alleged that the Town of Bethany Beach had violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by failing to give notice that it would discuss the hiring of a new police officer at its March 19, 1999 meeting. Held: The notice and agenda for the meeting indicated that the Town Council would go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. FOIA does not require an agency to identify the specific personnel it intends to discuss in executive session, including job applicants. There was therefore no FOIA violation.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, April 28th, 1999
The Complainant alleged that the Town of Bethany Beach had violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by (i) meeting in executive sessions on three occasions for purposes not authorized by law; and (ii) not giving the required notice of a special meeting held on February 19, 1999. The Town admitted that its Council had gone into executive session on the three days indicated and that it had not given the seven days notice of the special meeting typically required by FOIA, but argued that it had appropriate reasons for doing so. Held: With respect to the executive sessions, the Attorney General’s office reviewed the confidential minutes of the executive sessions and determined that they were held for appropriate purposes – to discuss personnel matters as they relate to specific employees. As for the notice of the Special Meeting, the notice itself was timely – because it was posted more than 24 hours before the meeting – but it was otherwise deficient because it did not explain the reasons why the Town was unable to meet the typical 7-day advance notice requirement. The Town was not required to recall the meeting.
Read More
Date Posted: Friday, April 16th, 1999
The Complainant alleged that the City of New Castle had denied her request for a copy of a consultant’s report on the management and operational efficiency of the New Castle City Police Department. The City acknowledged that it denied the request for a copy of the full report, but further responded that it had sent the Complainant a copy of the report’s general findings and withheld the rest on the grounds that the police officer interviews contained therein constituted “personnel files” which were not required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and were otherwise protected from disclosure by a common law right of privacy. Held: the report did not constitute a “personnel record,” but the contents could be withheld under a common law right of privacy. Because the private information could not be meaningfully redacted from the report, the City did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA in refusing the Complainant’s request.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, December 17th, 1998
Complainant alleged that the City of Newark violated FOIA when it denied her the right to copy the minutes of an executive session meeting, but allowed another citizen to copy the minutes. Held: The City violated FOIA but not providing Complainant with a complete copy of the minutes of the executive session in light of the Council’s decision to make the same minutes available to another citizen.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, December 8th, 1998
Complainant alleged that the Town of Laurel violated FOIA by denying him access to copies of notices set out by the Code Enforcement Officer from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 regarding violations of the Housing Code. Town responded that these were exempted from disclosure under the investigative file exemption and the common law right of privacy. HELD: Investigative file exemption applies even after the file has been closed, and the exemption applies to administrative agencies, not just criminal law enforcement agencies. The notices requested were not public records for purposes of FOIA.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, November 10th, 1998
Complainant alleged that the Woodbridge School District violated FOIA by holding a public meeting at a place which could not accommodate the members of the public who wanted to attend, continuing to meet and discuss public business after some members of the public had been directed elsewhere, and meeting privately with the Band Director after the public meeting. Held: (i) FOIA does not require that the meeting of a public body have a seat for every potential citizen and the selection of the meeting site may violate open meeting laws only if it was unreasonable. It is only when a public body has a reason to believe that a large crowd is to be expected that larger accommodations may be required; (ii) no evidence that people were asked to leave the public meeting; and (iii) no evidence that a private meeting occurred with the intent to discuss public business outside the requirements of the open meeting laws.
Read More
Date Posted: Friday, September 25th, 1998
Complainant alleged that the Woodbridge School District violated FOIA by discussing matters in executive session for purposes not authorized by FOIA. Held: No FOIA violation because the School District discussed personnel matters in executive session and, having reviewed the minutes, no indication that anything other than discussions authorized by FOIA were discussed. When Board Members did attempt to discuss matters not authorized by FOIA, one member noted that it was not a topic for executive session and the session needed to end. A public body should be encouraged, rather than punished, for attempting to curtail inappropriate discussions in executive session.
Read More
Date Posted: Friday, September 25th, 1998
Complainant alleged that the Town of Townsend violated FOIA by not publishing adequate notice of its intent to elect a new member for a vacant seat on the Council. HELD: (i) Town violated FOIA when it failed to post a notice at least seven days in advance of the meeting; and (ii) agenda failed to provide adequate notice that the Town would vote on a councilmember, rather than just accept nominations. Because the election of officials is such an important fundamental public right, Town directed to notice a special meeting for the purpose of nominating and/or electing a Councilperson.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, July 28th, 1998
The Secretary of Labor requested an opinion regarding whether FOIA required the disclosure of sworn payroll statements filed by contractors, with the exception of employee social security numbers. The AG previously determined that such documents were public records, relying heavily on I.B.E.W. v. United States Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 852 F.2d 87 (3d Cir. 1998), which permitted the disclosure of employee names and addresses, but not social security numbers, under FOIA. The Third Circuit later modified its earlier decision, finding that the disclosure of employees’ names and addresses is no longer required as a consequence of heighted personal privacy concerns raised by decisions in other Circuits and the SCOTUS. HELD: Based on recent Third Circuit precedent, the DOL should discontinue the practice of releasing the names and addresses of employees listed in sworn payroll reports, and the DOL is not required to release the names and addresses of apprentices registered in the Department’s Apprenticeship and Training Program in order to protect the personal privacy of those apprentices. Attorney General Opinion No. 95-IB03 (Jan. 25, 1995) rescinded.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, July 6th, 1998
Complainant alleged that the Appoquinimink School District violated FOIA by failing to post notice of a meeting at least seven days in advance. School district replied that the meeting was a special meeting requiring only 24 hours advanced notice. The special meeting was necessary because the district needed to take action on a contract settlement between the district and the teacher’s union, and needed to do so prior to a health plan enrollment deadline. HELD: (i) FOIA only requires a public body to provide notice at its principal office or where its meetings are regularly held. A public body is not restricted in other additional locations it chooses to place or post notices of meetings; (ii) School district violated FOIA by not providing a reason in posted notice of why 7 days notice wasn’t possible for “special” meeting; and (iii) School District violated public meeting requirements by conducting its discussion of the new teachers’ contract in executive session because this is not a “personnel” matter within the meaning of FOIA, which only applies to protect the personal privacy of individual employees, and applies only when the discussion reflects on an individual’s competence or ability.
Read More
