Written on: January 7th, 2016 in 10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications, 10004(b)(9) Executive Session Personnel Matters, 10004(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; and (6) whether the March 30, 2015 Board meeting was properly noticed. Held: No FOIA violations occurred.
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: March 26th, 2013 in 10001 Declaration of Policy, 10002(a) Agenda, 10004(b)(1) Executive Session Job Qualifications, 10004(b)(4) Executive Session Collective Bargaining/Litigation, 10004(b)(9) Executive Session Personnel Matters, 10004(e)(2) Notice Requirements for Regular Meetings, Amending 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.
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.
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 […]
Requestor sought an opinion on whether the Governor’s Council on Equal Employment Opportunity was permitted to meet privately with invited guests. The Council was established by Executive Order and its members were appointed by the Governor or the Human Relations Commission. It is not statutorily exempted from the Freedom of Information Act and is supported, at least in part, by public funds. Held: the Council on Equal Employment Opportunity is a Public Body as defined by FOIA and must abide by the open meeting requirements therefore, private meetings with invited guests are not permitted. However, the Council is permitted to go into Executive Session as permitted by statute.