Date Posted: Thursday, March 10th, 2016
The Department of Finance denied Petitioner’s request for the applications of several companies for exemption from corporate income tax. Held: There was no FOIA violation. Such applications are considered a “report or return” required by 30 Del. C. § 368, which prohibits the disclosure of the information contained in such reports or returns. FOIA exempts from disclosure those records that are deemed confidential by other statute(s).
Read More
Date Posted: Friday, March 4th, 2016
Petitioners appealed the redactions of a document that was produced pursuant to Attorney General Opinion 15-IB14 as improper under FOIA. Held: The State Police are directed to review the redactions to determine whether an error was made. The State Police should thereafter promptly provide to Petitioner either (i) a new copy of the documents without the redactions, if it is determined that they were erroneous, or (ii) the basis for the redactions, if it is determined that the redactions were intentional.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, January 14th, 2016
Petitioner requested from the Town “copies of Bethany Beach Police Department’s policies and procedures related to internal affairs investigations, discipline and code of standards or conduct and the completed internal affairs investigations statistical summaries for the years 2011 through 2014.” The Town produced the policies and procedures, but denied the request for the internal affairs investigations statistical summaries, claiming to provide such summaries would be out of compliance with the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBOR) due to the police force’s small size. Held: There is no FOIA violation. Town policy that would otherwise make such records available to the public is subordinate to the state LEOBOR statute, which protects records of internal affairs investigations from disclosure.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, January 7th, 2016
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;[5] and (6) whether the March 30, 2015 Board meeting was properly noticed. Held: No FOIA violations occurred.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015
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.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, December 29th, 2015
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.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, December 17th, 2015
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.
Read More
Date Posted: Friday, December 11th, 2015
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.
Read More
Date Posted: Tuesday, December 1st, 2015
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.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, November 4th, 2015
The Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority (“DEMHRA”) requested advice on (i) whether 25 Del. C. § 7014(a) requires DEMHRA to grant abandoned home benefits to an applying landowner when “the home in question has been abandoned before the landowner announced its intent to engage in a change of use in the park”; and (ii) whether the landowner’s continued payment of DEMHRA assessments between the time of a homeowner’s abandonment and the landowner’s announcement of a change in use has any effect on that landowner’s right to collect benefits. Based on our review of the Act, the factual scenario outlined by DEMHRA’s letter and applicable law, we believe that the provisions of the Act that permit DEMHRA to provide financial assistance to landowners for the removal or disposal of an abandoned manufactured home are limited to situations in which the manufactured home in question was abandoned as a result of a “change in use” plan being filed by the landowner. To make the contrary determination would, in our view, expand the limited scope of the Act into a general assistance program designed to help landlords of manufactured home communities with assistance in removing and/or disposing of abandoned manufactured homes. We believe that if the General Assembly had intended to create such a program – the efficacy or desirability of which we take no position on – it would have done so in clear and explicit language. Absent such a legislative change, it is our advice that DEMHRA lacks the authority to provide financial assistance to the landowner in the factual scenario described by your letter.
Read More
