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
Date Posted: Tuesday, July 9th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that the Sussex County Planning and Zoning Office, Board of Adjustment violated the Freedom of Information Act when it permitted an individual to install fuel storage tanks without a public meeting. The Complainant alleged that the Director of Planning and Zoning exceeded his authority by waiving a previously set condition. Held: the Office does not have jurisdiction to determine whether the Director exceeded his authority. There is no evidence that any decision was made concerning the fuel storage tanks and evidence points to the contrary, that no waiver was made.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, July 9th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that the Sussex County Planning and Zoning Office, Board of Adjustment violated the Freedom of Information Act when it permitted an individual to install fuel storage tanks without a public meeting. The Complainant alleged that the Director of Planning and Zoning exceeded his authority by waiving a previously set condition. Held: the Office does not have jurisdiction to determine whether the Director exceeded his authority. There is no evidence that any decision was made concerning the fuel storage tanks and evidence points to the contrary, that no waiver was made.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, June 20th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that the Sussex County Planning & Zoning Board violated the Freedom of Information Act by holding meetings in rooms that were too small and by noting that it would “take matters under advisement.” Held: the public bodies did not violate the Act by “taking matters under advisement” and holding meetings in places allegedly too small to allow for participation and observation by the public. The public body should clearly announce the time and place of the deliberation and vote, should advise the public that the session is open, and should announce that if the public elects not to attend the vote, that they can call the office in the morning during business hours for the decision. The procedure, although not specifically mandated by the Act, certainly complies with the spirit of §10001. When the meeting place may not be large enough to accommodate all the people who may wish to attend, the governmental unit must balance the public right of access against the burdens that providing additional public access would impose on the governmental unit.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, June 18th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that the Millsboro Economic Development Committee and the Town Council of Millsboro held meetings in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Held: the Economic Development Committee and the Town Council provided adequate notice of each meeting, each meeting was open to the public and minutes were taken. The meetings were not in violation of FOIA.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, June 11th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that the Wilmington Housing Authority improperly withheld records relating to plans to establish elderly housing. The Housing Authority provided the records. Held: the complaint is moot.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, June 3rd, 1996
The Complainant alleged that the Camden Town Council violated the Freedom of Information Act by improperly noticing a public meeting and entered into executive session during that meeting without a vote. Held: FOIA was violated when the Council did not properly notice the hearing in that the agenda failed to include certain items–primarily the executive session. The council further failed to properly enter into that executive session in accordance with section 10004(c), and failed to prepare and maintain the minutes of that executive session.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, May 30th, 1996
The Complainant alleged that the Millsboro Town Council improperly conducted a public business following a public meeting without notice. The Town Council held a regularly scheduled meeting, properly noticed, during which they discussed purchasing a piece of property. The decision was put off but an hour after the meeting was adjourned, the Council reconvened and voted on an amount to offer on the property. The public was polled over the phone on whether they would support such an offer. Another meeting was held the next month during which the purchase was publicly discussed and voted on. Held: the reconvening and vote following the adjournment of the public meeting was in violation of the Freedom of Information Act, this violation was cured with the public vote during the next meeting. The telephone poll of residents was not in violation of FOIA as there was no gathering and no action was taken.
Read More
