Attorney General's Seal
Attorney General's Opinions



  Category: 10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications

Attorney General Matt Denn


          

16-IB01 1/7/2016 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Daniel Kramer re: FOIA Complaint Concerning Sussex County Council

Written on: January 7th, 2016 in 10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications10004(b)(9) Executive Session Personnel Matters10004(e)(2) Notice Requirements for Regular Meetings

Petitioner raised several questions: (1) whether the County Administrator presented the new pay grades and job descriptions to Council for approval;(2) why discussion of pay grades and job descriptions was conducted in executive session; (3) why pay grades and job descriptions were not discussed in public at the May 12, 2015 Council meeting when they had been discussed at the March 30, 2015 Board meeting; (4) whether Council could vote on pay grades and job descriptions at the June 16, 2015 meeting when they were not specifically listed in the budget; (5) whether the executive session minutes for the May 5, 2015 and May 12, 2015 Council meeting were public documents under FOIA;[5] and (6) whether the March 30, 2015 Board meeting was properly noticed. Held: No FOIA violations occurred.


Read More

15-IB10 12/1/2015 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. John Young re: FOIA Complaints Concerning the Christina School Board

Written on: December 1st, 2015 in 10002(a) Agenda10002(l) (1) Exemptions - Personnel10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications10004(b)(9) Executive Session Personnel Matters10004(c) Requirements to Meet in Executive Session

The petitioner alleged that the Christina School District (“CSB”) violated FOIA by discussing the superintendent’s competency and abilities in executive session; by holding a vote in executive session; and by not making public a copy of the superintendent contract more than 6 hours before meeting to vote on it. Held: The CSB did not violate FOIA when it discussed the district superintendent’s competency and abilities in executive session at the August 2015 board meeting. The CSB did violate FOIA when it held a vote in executive session at the August meeting. However, we find that the executive session vote did not affect substantial public rights because no law requires executive sessions to be audio recorded. Therefore, no remediation is required. Finally, we conclude that the CSB did not violate FOIA’s meeting notice requirements when it circulated a copy of the superintendent’s contract less than six hours prior to the September 2015 board meeting.


Read More

13-IB01 03/26/13 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Daniel J. Kramer re: FOIA Complaint Against Woodbridge School Board

Written on: March 26th, 2013 in 10001 Declaration of Policy10002(a) Agenda10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications10004(b)(4) Executive Session Collective Bargaining/Litigation10004(b)(9) Executive Session Personnel Matters10004(e)(2) Notice Requirements for Regular MeetingsAmending Agendas

The Complainant alleged the Board of Education for the Woodbridge School District 9the “Board”) violated the “open meetings” provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Held: the Board’s agenda was insufficient to alert the public that it would accept the resignation of the existing superintendent and hire a replacement superintendent. It therefore violated the “open meetings” requirements of FOIA.


Read More

11-IB10 08/15/11 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. Shirey re: FOIA Complaint Against Larel School Board

Written on: August 15th, 2011 in 10001 Declaration of Policy10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications10004(b)(9) Executive Session Personnel Matters

Laurel School District posted an agenda for an executive session for “discussion of collective bargaining and/or pending or potential litigation and/or Personnel.” They discussed (a) cost of extra pay period in year; (b) qualifications of applicant for Construction Liaison; (c) financial reasons for Construction Liaison versus Building and Grounds Supervisor; (d) personnel recommendation for a vacant position; (e) update on a lawsuit; and (f) need for confidentiality of matters discussed in executive session. Held that public discussion and vote for hiring of construction liaison made mislabeling of agenda as “personnel” instead of “hiring” matter harmless error. However, the District violated FOIA as to (a), (c), (e), and (f) and must remedy such violations by including such items on an agenda for the next public meeting and providing DOJ with a copy once posted.


Read More

11-IB08 05/05/11 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Kramer re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Sussex County Council

Written on: May 5th, 2011 in 10001 Declaration of Policy10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications10004(b)(9) Executive Session Personnel Matters10004(c) Requirements to Meet in Executive Session10004(e)(2) Notice Requirements for Regular Meetings10004(f) Minutes Requirements

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Attorney General Opinion No. 11-IB08 May 5, 2011 Mr. Daniel J. Kramer 8041 Scotts Store Road Greenwood, DE 19950 RE:  Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Sussex County Council Dear Mr. Kramer: By letters of March 23, 2011 and March 26, 2011, you have asked […]


Read More

10-IB02 01/25/10 FOIA Opinion Letter to Ms. McCoy re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Town of Bethel

Written on: January 25th, 2010 in 10001 Declaration of Policy10002(g) Meeting10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications10004(b)(4) Executive Session Collective Bargaining/Litigation10004(c) Requirements to Meet in Executive Session10004(e)(2) Notice Requirements for Regular Meetings

Complainant asserts that Town violated FOIA open meetings requirements when it held executive session to discuss subdivision applications. Town’s agenda properly posted and noticed the executive session but did not state the purpose. Town asserted that executive session was for purpose of receiving legal advice. After going into executive session and receiving legal advice, the Council discussed the applications for about an hour and voted on the applications before coming out of executive session. They re-voted at the public continued public meeting. Meeting minutes did not reflect legal advice. HELD: Executive Session was held for the proper purpose of receiving legal advice. However, Council violated FOIA by not listing the purpose of the executive session on the agenda, discussing applications during executive session and not properly reflecting legal advice in minutes.


Read More



Navigation



Adjust Your Font Size


Make Text Size Smaler Reset Text Size Make Text Size Bigger




+