Complainant alleges that the School District violated the FOIA public records requirements by providing interview questions but declining to provide interviewers’ assessments of the qualifications and abilities of the applicants. Held: the School District did not violate FOIA public records requirements by denying access to the scoring sheets of interview panel members compiled during the applicant selection process for a new driver education instructor because that information is exempt from disclosure to protect individual privacy for the same reasons that the statute expressly authorizes a public body to meet in private to discuss the an individual’s qualifications for public employment.
Read MoreComplainant alleges the County Council Committee violated FOIA open meeting requirements by: (1) meeting in executive session without giving the required advance notice to the public; (2) failing to follow the proper procedures for going into executive session; and (3) discussing matters in executive session which FOIA requires to be discussed in public. Held: the Committee did not violate the open meeting requirements of FOIA when it properly voted to go into executive session to discuss litigation strategy as authorized by FOIA for private discussion (a legitimate purpose). However, the Committee did violate FOIA by not giving notice seven days in advance to the public that the litigation report by the County Attorney to the Committee would be heard in executive session.
Read MoreComplainant alleged the City violated the FOIA public records requirements by denying access to copies of post-mortem records that were provided to the City’s police department by the Department of Health and Social Services and/or state medical examiner’s office. Held: the City did not violate FOIA because the Lawson post-mortem reports (with the exception of the death certificate, which may be exempt from disclosure by separate statute) were exempt from disclosure under FOIA as part of an investigative file compiled for law enforcement purposes. Further, FOIA requests should be made to the public body who originated the documents; thus, the City should immediately refer the FOIA request to the originating agency—the office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
Read MoreComplainant alleged the City violated FOIA open meeting requirements by: (1) holding a meeting of the Planning Commission 1hour earlier than the time noticed to the public to discuss a proposed subdivision; and (2) amending a meeting agenda the day before the meeting to include the same subdivision for final action by the Council. Held: Council violated FOIA, because the clerical error in the time announcement deprived the public of their right to monitor and observe the discussion of a matter of public business. Council further violated FOI by amending the meeting agenda without given sufficient reason why seven days’ notice could not be given. (Despite the intervening change in Council members, the subdivision matter did not “come up suddenly” after the original posting of the agenda, nor was there any evidence in the record that consideration of the proposed subdivision by the Council was such a pressing matter that it could not be deferred until a later date.)
Read MoreComplainant alleges the City Council violated FOIA open meeting requirements by twice meeting in executive session on the same day to discuss “hiring contract personnel.” Held: Council violated FOIA’s open meeting requirements when it met in executive session to discuss which of two outside firms to retain to provide professional lobbying services since a vendor or independent contractor does not share the same privacy concerns as an individual public employee or prospective employee.
Read MoreComplainant alleged the Town violated the public records by not providing requestor with a copy of the Town’s Employment Agreement with the town manager as well as his current salary and the proposed future salaries voted on at last night’s. Requestor asked Town Manager for the information the day after the meeting and the Town Manager responded the same day temporarily denying the request until the employment contract was reviewed by legal counsel to make sure it was not contrary to state law, the town charter or violated any other personnel regulations. Four weeks after the request, the Council was presented with a draft for review. The Council approved the final employment contract with the Town Manager about 2 weeks after the interim meeting and 3 days later requestor was sent a copy of the final employment contract. Held: the Town violated FOIA’s public records requirements by not providing requestor with a copy of the draft employment contract with the Town Manager after the Council voted at a public meeting 4 weeks after her request to approve the contract subject to review by legal counsel.
Read MoreComplainant alleged the Personnel Committee of the County Council violated the FOIA open meeting requirements of FOIA by meeting in executive session to discuss the qualifications of the two finalists for the position of counsel to the County Council while identifying the candidates by name but discussing the candidates at the open meeting only by reference to Candidate A and B. Held: The Committee did not violate FOIA but rather struck a reasonable balance between the privacy rights of the applicants, and the public’s right-to-know when it identified job candidates as A and B in the agenda and the public session. (When the job offer is extended and accepted, the name of the job applicant necessarily will become public, and the public will know, from the minutes, which members of the public body voted to hire that applicant.)
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the City violated open meeting requirements by discussing pension plan investment strategy at a meeting of the City Council, but the agenda did not identify for that meeting. Held: the Council properly deferred any further discussion on the merits of the issue until it could be noticed to the public in accordance with FOIA after the matter of pension investment strategies was raised during the council member comment period of a meeting.
Read MoreComplainant alleged the Council violated FOIA’s open meeting requirements by holding a special meeting without required notice (already addressed in 05-IB09) and by holding prior to that meeting a series of individual meetings with Council Members, with the expressed objective of garnering commitment for individual Council member votes, to remove the county auditor. Complainant did not provide the names of the individual Council members that allegedly met, or the date(s) or time(s) or places, or whether they allegedly met in person or electronically. The Council President in a sworn affidavit said he did not attempt to secure a consensus before the public meeting on the issue of the Auditor, and he was not solicited by a series of Council members for a particular vote prior to the public meeting. Held: Complainant failed to point to sufficient information to establish a prima facie showing that a meeting occurred, and no FOIA violation was found.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the Council violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by holding a special meeting without required notice to the public. Council had properly noticed a regular meeting of the Council’s Executive Committee. More than 24 hours before that meeting, Council posted a notice and agenda for a special meeting. The agenda noted that it was not posted 7 days in advance of the scheduled meeting as a result of recent developments since the recent Audit Committee meeting. The agenda listed for discussion: “1. Call to order 2. Discussion of Confidential Personnel Matter 3. Other.” At noon, more than 6 hours in advance of that meeting, Council posted a revised agenda for the special meeting, that revised the second line item to read: “Discussion of Confidential Personnel Matter (County Auditor)”. According to the Council, this change was made “to clarify that the confidential personnel matter to be discussed involved the County Auditor.” Held: the special meeting did not violate FOIA because there was a valid reason for the meeting, and the agenda as originally posted was sufficient notice.
Read MoreDelaware's Governor
State Directory
Elected Officials
General Assembly
Delaware Courts
State Employees
Cities & Towns
Delaware State Code
State Regulations
Business First Steps
Phone Directory
Locations Directory
Public Meetings
Voting & Elections
Transparency
Choose Health DE
Tax Center
Personal Income Tax
Privacy Policy
Weather & Travel
Contact Us
Corporations
Franchise Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Withholding Tax
Guides to Services
Help Center
Mobile Apps
E-mail / Text Alerts
Social Media
Built by the Government Information Center
©MMXXVI Delaware.gov
