Date Posted: Thursday, February 1st, 2007
The Complainant, Senator Karen E. Peterson, asked whether the public record requirements of the Delaware Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), apply to the courts of the State of Delaware. Held: the General Assembly intended to exclude the judiciary from the application of FOIA. The language of FOIA demonstrates a legislative intent to respect the independence of the judiciary as a separate, co-equal branch of government and the judiciary’s right to control access to its records and proceedings by court rule.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, January 25th, 2007
The Complainant, Senator Karen E. Peterson, asked whether the public record requirements of the Delaware Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), apply to the courts of the State of Delaware. Held: the General Assembly intended to exclude the judiciary from the application of FOIA. The language of FOIA demonstrates a legislative intent to respect the independence of the judiciary as a separate, co-equal branch of government and the judiciary’s right to control access to its records and proceedings by court rule.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, December 20th, 2006
Complainant alleged that the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the University of Delaware violated FOIA by meeting to approve the election of a new president without giving notice to the public as required by FOIA. The University responded that FOIA only applies to full board of Trustees meetings. Therefore, the Committee was under no duty under FOIA to open its meetings to the public. HELD: The Committee did not violate the open meeting requirements of FOIA because the Committee is not a “public body” as defined by FOIA. Rather, only the full Board of Trustees is a “public body” for purposes of FOIA.
Read More
Date Posted: Wednesday, December 20th, 2006
Complainant alleged that a committee established by the Sussex County Council, the Source Water Protection Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee, violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by (i) meeting twice without posting an agenda seven days in advance; and (ii) not preparing minutes of those meetings. HELD: The Committee’s failure to post an agenda or prepare minutes violated FOIA. In remediation, Committee ordered to include on the agenda for its next public meeting the minutes of the earlier meetings, and to have sufficient copies available to hand out to the public at its next scheduled meeting.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, November 27th, 2006
Complainant alleged that the Wilmington Housing Authority violated the public records requirements of FOIA when the Authority failed to disclose emails that may have been sent by its Executive Director to any employee of the Authority on specified days or during specified weeks. The Authority responded that the Authority’s email system does not store electronic messages beyond a 90-day period. Therefore, the requested documents could not be provided since the emails requested were older than 90 days. The Authority provided an affidavit from its Chief Of Information Technology for evidence of this fact. HELD: The Authority did not violate FOIA because the emails requested by Complainant do not exist.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, November 27th, 2006
Complainant alleged that the Camden-Wyoming Sewer & Water Authority violated the public record requirements of FOIA when it failed to provide the “total amount of monies expended in the research, filing and pursuit” of litigation failed by the Authority against the Town of Camden. The Authority responded by providing a copy of the stipulated settlement agreement and order. The authority’s attorney also responded by noting that she did not separately bill the authority for time spent on the lawsuit and that no separate record of billing for the matter existed. HELD: The Authority did not violate FOIA because it did not have in its custody an accounting of the costs of legal counsel in the litigation, and FOIA does not require the Authority to prepare such an accounting.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, November 27th, 2006
Complainant alleged that the Camden-Wyoming Sewer & Water Authority violated the public record requirements of FOIA when it failed to provide the “total amount of monies expended in the research, filing and pursuit” of litigation failed by the Authority against the Town of Camden. The Authority responded by providing a copy of the stipulated settlement agreement and order. The authority’s attorney also responded by noting that she did not separately bill the authority for time spent on the lawsuit and that no separate record of billing for the matter existed. HELD: The Authority did not violate FOIA because it did not have in its custody an accounting of the costs of legal counsel in the litigation, and FOIA does not require the Authority to prepare such an accounting.
Read More
Date Posted: Thursday, November 16th, 2006
Complainant alleged that the Sussex County Council violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by meeting in executive session for purposes not authorized by FOIA. HELD: (i) Council violated FOIA when it met in executive session to discuss which of two consulting firms to hire because independent contractors are not prospective employees for purposes of FOIA. Therefore the “job applicant” exemption does not apply. (ii) Council did not violate FOIA when it met in executive session to discuss prospective candidates for the positions of Director of Accounting and Budget Manager. The “job applicant” exemption applied to this discussion. Additionally, the exemption for executive session does not turn on whether the public body or another person had the authority to hire for the positions because the purpose of the exemption is to protect the individual privacy of the prospective public employee. No remediation required for first FOIA violation because the public was substantially involved in the process by which the Council awarded the contract to one of the two consultants.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, October 23rd, 2006
Complainant alleged that the Wilmington Housing Authority violated the public records requirements of FOIA by failing to disclose “all reports, studies and documents” pertaining to an apartment building fire. The Authority declined the request, stating that the records were exempt from disclosure due to the pending or potential litigation exemption. HELD: Potential or pending litigation exemption not applicable because there was no evidence in the record to suggest that complainant or The News Journal was attempting to use FOIA to obtain information as a prelude to a lawsuit against the Authority.
Read More
Date Posted: Monday, September 11th, 2006
Complainant alleged that the Christina School District Board of Education violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA by meeting twice in private at an open meeting to discuss matters of public business without notice to the public. HELD: The facts show that, collectively, five Board members participated in the two meetings with the Superintendent to discuss reductions in force and tax warrants. This amounted to a constructive quorum for purposes of FOIA because the meetings were scheduled only a few hours apart, the subjects discussed were the same, and the School Board acknowledges the meetings went beyond the mere passive receipt of information.
Read More
