Written on: December 29th, 2015 in 10001 Declaration of Policy, 10002(l) (6) Exemptions - Records Exempted Per Statute or Common Law
Petitioner requested certain records regarding the use of cell site simulators. State Police agreed to provide responsive records except for a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI. Held: the Agreement between the State Police and the FBI is a public record subject to disclosure under Delaware’s FOIA and should be provided within 10 calendar days of the date of this determination.
Written on: December 29th, 2015 in 10002(l) (3) Exemptions - Investigatory Files
Petitioner alleged that the Delaware Division of Forensic Science violated FOIA by not providing a decedent’s manner of death. Held: The Medical Examiner’s investigation and determination are part of DDFS’ investigative files and are not public records for purposes of FOIA.
Written on: December 17th, 2015 in 10001 Declaration of Policy, 10002(a) Agenda, 10004(e)(2) Notice Requirements for Regular Meetings
Petitioner alleged two public records and two open meetings violations by the Department of Education (DOE). Held: As long as a public body searches internal records first, it does not violate FOIA for a public body to request that the Department of Technology and Information perform a second search for email records. But when the body has already found no responsive records in its own search, it should so advise the petitioner. Further held: There is no evidence that the State Board of Education withheld information it would have shared with the public in the petitioner’s absence. Further held: The September 17 and September 23 Academic Framework Working Group meeting notices and agendas did not comply with FOIA because they were posted less than seven days in advance of the meetings.
The petitioner alleged that the Brandywine School Board (the “Board”) violated FOIA by not making a public decision on whether to expunge a student’s record. Held: The Board action regarding a student’s request to expunge a record during executive session at the July 2015 Board Meeting violated FOIA. The Board denied that request by a vote or by consensus achieved while in executive session or in some other non-public forum. The Board is directed to either ratify the aforementioned decision in a public, regular session or formally reconsider the request for expungement and vote upon it in a manner consistent with the conclusions and determinations set forth herein.
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.