Date Posted: Wednesday, February 12th, 1997
Complainant requested an opinion as to whether a meeting between DelDot officials and “local elected officials,” scheduled with less than 7-days notice, would constitute a violation of FOIA. Held: No violation of FOIA if the City issues a notice at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting pursuant to the “special meetings” section of FOIA, and the notice indicates why an earlier notice was not possible. In this case, sufficient to state that an earlier notice was not possible because legal opinions had not been obtained from the City Solicitor and the Attorney General prior to the posting of the notice.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, January 14th, 1997
Complainant alleged that the Town of Laurel (i) violated the open records requirements of FOIA by not producing documents responsive to his records request; and (ii) violated the open meetings requirement of FOIA because it did not comply with the town’s subdivision regulations; and (iii) another meeting notice and agenda, posted at the Town’s Planning Commission office, violated FOIA because it did not provide the time and place of the meeting. Held: (i) A signed affidavit from the custodian of records stating that there are no responsive records to the request is sufficient for purposes of FOIA; (ii) The Town’s notice requirements are separate and distinct from FOIA; (iii) the Planning Commission meeting’s posted notice and agenda violated FOIA because it did not provide the time and place of the meeting and was posted with five days, rather than seven day’s notice. No remediation required because this was a technical rather than substantive violation.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, December 11th, 1996
Requestor sought an opinion on whether the names and addresses of Delaware business license holders constitute public records under the Freedom of Information Act. Held: as a general rule, the names and addresses of the holders of business licenses are exempt from disclosure by a common law right of privacy. In certain situations, the balance between a private right of informational privacy may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure, but only if disclosure will contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of government, as opposed to the commercial interest of the requestor. However, it is difficult to conceive of a situation in which the reason for requesting the names and addresses of business license holders would be for any purpose other than the commercial interest of the requestor.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, October 17th, 1996
The Requestor sought a review and modification of AG Opinion 96-IB02 in light of AG Opinion 96-IB26 regarding the Sussex County Council. Held: any questionable circumstance must be resolved in favor of the public’s right to know and have access to the meetings and records of public bodies and, therefore, there is no reason to modify the original order.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, October 10th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that Woodbridge School District Board of Education violated the open meeting requirement of the Freedom of Information Act by discussing non-personnel matters during an executive session called for the purpose of discussing personnel matters. The Board argued that all matters discussed were permissible under FOIA. Held: the Board did not violate FOIA’s open meeting requirements because personnel matters were discussed and other there was no evidence of anything improper being discussed. Also, although engaging in consensus votes is typically impermissible, with respect to teacher transfers where board had no authority over or advisory power with respect to such transfers, there is no FOIA violation.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, September 25th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that Woodbridge School District Board of Education violated the open meeting requirement of the Freedom of Information Act by holding an executive session for the purpose of discussing applications for a scholarship. The Board argued that because review of the applications required discussion of financial eligibility and review of tax return documents and pupil files which are protected under FOIA, the applications could not be reviewed in open meeting. Held: because the review of applications involved review of documents which are protected under the FOIA, there was no violation of the open meeting requirement.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, August 8th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that the Sussex County Planning and Zoning Office failed to provide her with requested records. The Office stated that the records, although required under statute, do not exist. Held: whether the Office violated the statute is not within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Attorney General. The Freedom of Information Act does not require a public body to create a record where the requested record does not exist, nor does FOIA require a public body to compile the requested data from other public records that may exist.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, August 1st, 1996
The Complainant alleged that the Woodbridge School District Board of Education improperly held an executive session during a regular public meeting, in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. The topic of discussion during the executive session was “personnel matters” involving the complainant, a member of the Board, and his interactions with District staff. Complainant alleged that the discussion went beyond personnel matters. Held: the executive session was convened in accordance with FOIA and the Board did not exceed statutory limits on executive sessions.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, July 25th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that a number of Sussex County Council members visited a manufactured housing facility in Pennsylvania, possibly in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. The Complainant alleged that a quorum of County Council members toured the facility. The Council stated that attendance was voluntary and a quorum was not present. Held: the group touring the facility was not a public body because they were not appointed as a committee by the Council, attendance was voluntary and there was no indication that any report or recommendation was made to the Council by the members who attended.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, July 22nd, 1996
One requestor sought clarification as to whether AG Opinion 96-IB19 required the Town of Camden to re-notice and hold another public hearing in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Two other requestors sought reconsideration of that opinion. Held: the Office need not reconsider the facts of the earlier opinion, however will reconsider solely with respect to whether remediation in the form of de novo review was appropriate or necessary. Also, the Camden Town Council, as the elected representatives of the citizens of Camden, was in the best position to weigh the consequences to the local community in deciding whether to re-notice a public hearing on the re-zoning proposal.
Read More
