Written on: December 1st, 2015 in 10002(a) Agenda, 10002(l) (1) Exemptions - Personnel, 10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications, 10004(b)(9) Executive Session Personnel Matters, 10004(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.
Written on: August 19th, 2015 in 10001 Declaration of Policy, 10004(c) Requirements to Meet in Executive Session, 10004(f) Minutes Requirements
The petitioners made 8 allegations of Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) violations by the Town of Dewey Beach (“the Town”) including holding discussion of a potential property purchase by email, holding a special meeting inconsistent with regular meeting day and time, posting insufficient or inaccurate agendas for two meetings, failing to meet the 15 business day deadline to provide requested records, and by failing to keep minutes of executive sessions. Held: The emails regarding property purchase did not constitute a “serial meeting” because there was not a quorum of commissioners participating. Meeting notices, agendas, and use of executive sessions complied with FOIA. A properly noticed meeting does not violate FOIA by being held at a different day and time than usual. The Town missed the 15 day deadline to provide requested records and failed to create minutes of the meeting of January 2, 2015 in a timely manner.
Written on: May 5th, 2011 in 10001 Declaration of Policy, 10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications, 10004(b)(9) Executive Session Personnel Matters, 10004(c) Requirements to Meet in Executive Session, 10004(e)(2) Notice Requirements for Regular Meetings, 10004(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 […]
Written on: December 15th, 2010 in 10002(g) Meeting, 10004(c) Requirements to Meet in Executive Session, 10004(e)(2) Notice Requirements for Regular Meetings, 10004(f) Minutes Requirements
Complainant assert that Town violated FOIA by not having public meetings of committee charged with selecting police chief, by not releasing applications for police chief position, and by the Town council having email discussions outside of public meeting relating to Town business. Town concedes that the subcommittee did not hold public meetings. Council concedes that members did exchange emails on Town business, but no vote was ever taken via email. HELD: Town violated FOIA by not having subcommittee hold public meetings concerning applications for selection of police chief. Town remedied the violation by holding public meeting. Town did not violate FOIA by not releasing applications. Those documents are confidential as records relating to job qualifications of applicants for public employment. Council emails did not violate FOIA because no votes were taken by email.
Written on: September 8th, 2010 in 10001 Declaration of Policy, 10004(b)(4) Executive Session Collective Bargaining/Litigation, 10004(c) Requirements to Meet in Executive Session, 10004(f) Minutes Requirements
Complainant asserts Town violated FOIA open meeting requirements with respect to certain executive sessions regarding draft minutes, lack of video recording, lack of reason for executive session on agenda’s. HELD: FOIA does not require draft minutes or video recording. Town concedes that official minutes did not include reason for executive session and concedes that two agenda’s did not include reason for executive session. Town took remedial action by conducting properly noticed meetings and amending minutes.
Written on: January 25th, 2010 in 10001 Declaration of Policy, 10002(g) Meeting, 10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications, 10004(b)(4) Executive Session Collective Bargaining/Litigation, 10004(c) Requirements to Meet in Executive Session, 10004(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.