Petitioner alleged that the Delaware State Police (“DSP”) improperly denied her request for a criminal complaint.
DECIDED: The DSP did not violate FOIA, as the investigatory files exemption applies to the criminal complaint.
Petitioner alleged that that the City of Wilmington improperly denied his request for investigatory records related to a fire in Wilmington. The cause of the fire was not determined, and the investigation was marked undetermined/closed. The investigator reserved the ability to modify the investigative conclusion if new evidence was discovered.
DECIDED: The City did not violate FOIA by denying access to these records, as the City verified the records pertain to investigatory files for criminal law enforcement and this exemption applies even after the investigation is closed.
Petitioner alleged that the Department of State violated FOIA by failing to provide certain records responsive to his request for conference materials.
DECIDED: As the Department verified that the specific records requested do not exist, no FOIA violation was found.
Petitioner alleged that Delaware City violated FOIA by improperly responding to FOIA requests for its community center financial records, its FOIA log, and request for a lease agreement, including the following: 1) ) whether the responses from the City to Petitioner’s Community Center requests were timely and responsive in terms of its level of detail; 2) whether the City violated FOIA by failing to maintain its FOIA log and by erroneously marking the Community Center requests on the log as closed; 3) whether the City’s response to Petitioner’s request for an agreement was untimely, incomplete, and improperly designated as complete on the FOIA log; 4) whether the City’s request to fill out a certain form violated FOIA; and 5) whether certain aspects of the City’s FOIA website were improper, including the FOIA Coordinator information, the availability of multiple request forms, and the .pdf form not being a “fillable” document.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found, but the City was reminded to properly maintain its FOIA log, to accept FOIA requests as provided by the FOIA statute, and to timely update its FOIA Coordinator information.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Sussex Technical School District Board of Education did not give adequate notice on its agenda of its intent to appoint a superintendent.
DECIDED: The Board gave sufficient notice for discussing a job candidate’s qualifications in executive session by noting that “Personnel” would be discussed, but violated FOIA by not giving adequate notice of its intent to appoint a superintendent in open session. This Office recommended that the Board hold a new vote on the matter in a future meeting after providing more specific notice to the public.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Chair of the Town Assembly of the Village of Arden improperly denied him records and excluded him from discussions with the attorney related to the Village’s litigation. He argued that he was entitled to the records as a member of the Town Assembly.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. The petitioner’s rights in regard to his membership in the Town Assembly is outside the scope of this Office’s authority to determine. The pending or potential litigation exemption is applicable to his request because the requested records pertain to the Village’s pending litigation.
Read MorePetitioner alleged that the Department of Correction failed to timely respond to his request and improperly denied his request for surveillance video and disciplinary hearing records.
DECIDED: No FOIA violation was found. The allegation of untimeliness was moot, and the requested records were determined to be exempt under sections 10002(l)(6) & (17) of FOIA.
Read MorePetitioner alleged DSHS violated FOIA by not timely responding to his request for records. DSHS advised Petitioner on the date of his request that the request had been sent for legal review and DSHS would respond within 15 business days, but DSHS failed to do so and did not respond to Petitioner’s follow-up correspondence.
DECIDED: The petition was determined to be moot, as DSHS provided the requested records while the petition was pending. However, DSHS’s immediate citation of a need for legal advice and failure to respond until the petition was filed, despite the petitioner’s follow-up, violate the spirit of FOIA. DSHS was cautioned to invoke extensions for additional time to respond to requests only when needed and to timely communicate regarding requests in the future.
Read MorePetitioner alleged DelDOT improperly withheld certain records because DelDOT’s produced records indicated an exchange of text messages on a private cell phone occurred and those text messages were not included with the production. In addition, Petitioner argued that DelDOT failed to provide any records related to the Office of the Governor.
DECIDED: As DelDOT’s counsel indicated no additional responsive records were located, no FOIA violation was found.
Read MorePetitioner alleged DAPE improperly planned to discuss financial data in executive session per its published agenda.
DECIDED: This Office accepted the representation that financial data was not discussed in executive session and its inclusion on the agenda was an error. This error was a technical violation of FOIA for which no remediation was necessary.
Read More