Written on: October 30th, 2003 in 10001 Declaration of Policy
The Complainant alleged that the Town of Frederica (“the Town”) violated FOIA by not allowing inspection and copying of public records. Held: FOIA does not require a public body to prepare an accounting “pulling together information from various sources …to create a new public record that did not already exist.” The Complainant did, however, identify the underlying documents with sufficient specificity and the Town was directed to provide them.
Written on: October 20th, 2003 in 10001 Declaration of Policy
The Complainant alleged that the Sussex Technical School District Board of Education (“the School Board”) violated FOIA by meeting in executive session on August 11, 2003 without the required notice to the public. Held: The School Board violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by: (1) failing to follow the proper procedures for going into executive session at the end of the public session of its meeting on August 11, 2003; and (2) meeting in executive session to discuss two matters (the superintendent search and pending litigation) for which they were not authorized by law.
Written on: October 6th, 2003 in 10002(a) Agenda
The Complainant alleged that the Woodbridge School District (“the School District”) violated FOIA by not providing timely notice to the public that the School District would approve a change order to increase the cost of a construction contract. Held: the School District violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by failing to give timely notice to the public that it would discuss a change order to a construction contract.
Written on: October 6th, 2003 in 10002(l) (2) Exemptions - Trade Secrets, 10002(l) (9) Exemptions - Pending or Potential Litigation
The Complainant alleged that New Castle County (“the County”) violated FOIA by not providing the names, addresses, and policy numbers of insurance carriers which underwrite public official coverage for the County. The County contended the requested information is exempt from disclosure under FOIA for two reasons: (1) “the [insurance] coverage information in the policy contains confidential information or financial details”; and (2) the information “falls within the pending or potential litigation exception.” Held: County did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA by refusing to provide documents that contain the names and addresses of insurers and the insurance policy numbers because the records containing such information fall within the potential litigation exception under FOIA.