The Complainant alleged the School District violated the public records requirements of FOIA by not providing copies of requested documents and treating requestor differently than other citizens. Held: School District provided requestor with access to all 3,700 documents regarding Division I units 3,700 documents from which requestor could have obtained the statistics requested but was not required by FOIA to compile the data from those documents into the requested format. Further, School District followed its written policies on responding to requests for access to records and did not treat requestor differently from other citizens.
Read MoreComplainant alleged that the Board of Adjustment violated FOIA by: (1) failing to post the agenda of a public meeting 7 days in advance; (2) failing to prepare minutes of two public meetings (3) charging an unreasonable fee ($4 a page) for a transcript of Board meetings. Held: the Board violated the public notice requirements of FOIA by failing to post an agenda for that meeting seven days in advance and not listing all of the matters of public business to be discussed at that meeting. The case decisions the Board produced as “minutes” did not cover all the topics discussed at the meeting, nor did they identify individual Board members and how they voted and do not constitute minutes under FOIA. FOIA was violated by the $4 a page charge, as once a transcript is in the possession of the Board, the law only allows a reasonable charge for copying ($1 per page and $2 per page charged by courts have been determined reasonable).
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the Town violated FOIA by holding an emergency meeting with only 24 hours notice, with “City Solicitor” being the only agenda item, at which it discussed and fired the City Solicitor. Held: the Town did violate FOIA because there was no showing of exigent circumstances or compelling need to hold the meeting without the required 7 days notice for a regular meeting. The notice was also deficient because listing “Town Solicitor” in the agenda was not “sufficient to inform the public that the Council would consider and vote on firing the Town’s legal counsel.” The Town did not violate FOIA for failing to invite all of the Council members to the meeting, as FOIA requires notice to the general public, not to individual members of the public body.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the City Council violated FOIA by holding meetings in locations other than those previously used, without inviting the usual minute take or recording the meetings. Held: the meetings were properly noticed and advertised and minutes were prepared, thus, there was no violation of FOIA.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged a town council member violated FOIA by holding a series of personal meetings with four different members of the council (five members constituted a quorum) without public notice which resulted in a letter produced on Town stationary regarding the result of the conversations. Held: this violated FOIA because the meetings were determined to be more than “the passive receipt of information” and the sum of these communications (the letter signed by the council members) amounted to a meeting of a public body covered by FOIA and as such the lack of public notice constituted a violation of FOIA. An additional compliant was not a violation because the public workshop was rescheduled and proper notice was given prior to it being held.
Read Moretest etst
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the City Council violated FOIA by going into executive session to discuss the performance and salary of the City Secretary, City Solicitor and Deputy City Solicitor. Held: the City did not violate FOIA concerning the performance and salary of the City Secretary who is a public employee subject to the personnel exception. The discussion of the City Solicitor and Deputy Solicitor did violate FOIA because they were independent contractors not public employees.
Read MoreThe Complainant alleged the School District violated FOIA by limiting speakers at the public minute to 2 minutes and not allowing them to identify any other individual in their remarks. Held: the 2 minute limit did not violate FOIA because public bodies may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on public participation. However, once comment was allowed, the Board violated FOIA by attempting to limit the content of the speech.
Read MoreDel. Op. Atty. Gen. 04-IB21 (Del.A.G.), 2004 WL 5249147 Office of the Attorney General State of Delaware Opinion No. 04–IB21 December 20, 2004 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Sussex County Council *1 Mr. Daniel J. Kramer 8041 Scotts Store Road Greenwood, DE 19950 Dear Mr. Kramer: On November 4, 2004, our Office received […]
Read MoreDel. Op. Atty. Gen. 04-IB20 (Del.A.G.), 2004 WL 2951950 Office of the Attorney General State of Delaware Opinion No. 04-IB20 November 16, 2004 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County *1 Ms. Mary Allen The News Journal 950 W. Basin Road P.O. Box 15505 Wilmington, DE 19850 Dear Ms. Allen: Our Office […]
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
