Complainant alleged that the Colonial School District violated FOIA’s public records provisions when it failed to provide her records in the format she requested. HELD: (i) Public body not required to create records that do not exist or in the format requested by the Requesting Party and public body is not in violation of FOIA if they agree to provide access to those records for copying and inspection; and (ii) state laws readily available to the public are not deemed “public records” under FOIA.
Read MoreComplainant alleged that the Appoquinimink School District violated the open records requirements of FOIA by not allowing reasonable access to public records. HELD: Computer generated records are “public records” for purposes of FOIA and are not exempt for disclosure. Any hard-copy documents which form the basis of the reports are also disclosable public records. Even though producing public records may be burdensome, it is not a valid reason, under FOIA, for not producing all the public records requested.
Read MoreComplainant alleged that the Town of Laurel denied his request to inspect and copy public records HELD: The Town did not violate the public records provisions of FOIA because the Town made available to complainant for inspection and copying most of the public records requested, and the documents it did not disclose are specifically exempted under FOIA because they related to pending litigation and the attorney client privilege (letters to counsel relating to a bankruptcy proceeding, letters to attorneys related to outstanding amounts due for water, sewer, trash, and real estate taxes, and a letter from counsel to a client relating to bankruptcy proceedings and sale of properties for tax delinquencies), and the common law right of privacy (parking tickets).
Read MoreComplainant alleged that the Woodbridge School District Board of Education violated FOIA in connection with the hiring of Personnel for the 1996-1997 school year because the Superintendent attempted to obtain a consensus vote for the new hires rather than have a discussion an election at a Board meeting open to the public. HELD: The Assistant Superintendent’s phone calls to individual Board members amounted to a consensus vote on the recommendations and therefore constituted a violation of FOIA. No remedial action required since the subject matter of the consensus vote was properly noticed for the next meeting and was properly voted on at that time.
Read MoreComplainant 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 MoreComplainant 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 MoreRequestor 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 MoreThe 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 MoreThe 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 MoreThe 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 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
