Is a Delaware school district still in violation of FOIA if it eventually turns over records, just later than the requester wanted?

Official title

00-IB19 Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Woodbridge School District

Plain-English summary

Milton Morozowich asked the Woodbridge School District for board meeting minutes, secondary summer school enrollment numbers by subject, and a breakdown of the costs and attendance for two staff conferences, plus access to audio tapes of two board meetings. The District provided the minutes and the conference cost breakdown fairly promptly, but did not get him the summer school enrollment numbers until October 24, roughly three months after his July 28 request. It also offered to let him listen to the meeting tapes during business hours once the custodian returned from vacation.

The AG found the District did not violate FOIA's public records requirements. The opinion noted the enrollment information "was not as timely as it should have been," but concluded that since Morozowich ultimately received everything he asked for, and the tapes remained available to him, there was no violation to remedy.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

If a Delaware public agency is slow to respond to a records request but eventually provides everything, is that still a FOIA violation?

Not according to this opinion. The AG acknowledged that a nearly three-month delay in providing summer school enrollment figures "was not as timely as it should have been," but found no FOIA violation because the requester ultimately received the information along with everything else he had asked for.

Does an agency have to hand over copies of audio recordings of a public meeting, or can it just let someone listen to them?

This opinion did not resolve that question directly. The School District offered to make the meeting tapes available for the requester to listen to during ordinary business hours, and the AG treated that offer as sufficient without separately addressing whether copies had to be provided instead.

Background and statutory framework

The complaint was brought as a FOIA petition against the Woodbridge School District under Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del . C . Chapter 100. The opinion does not cite any specific numbered section of the statute or any case law; it applies FOIA's general public records disclosure requirement to the facts, weighing whether the District's eventual, if delayed, production of records satisfied the law.

Citations

• 29 Del . C . Chapter 100 (Delaware Freedom of Information Act)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2000/11/08/00-ib19-re-freedom-of-information-act-complaint-against-woodbridge-school-district/
• Original PDF: not linked from landing page

Original opinion text

Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 00-IB19 (Del.A.G.), 2000 WL 1920149

Office of the Attorney General

State of Delaware

Opinion No. 00-IB19

November 8, 2000

Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Woodbridge School District

*1 Mr. Milton F. Morozowich

R.D. 2 , Box 166

Bridgeville, DE 19933

Dear Mr. Morozowich:

On September 19, 2000, our Office received your complaint alleging that the Woodbridge School District (the "School District") violated the Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del . C . Chapter 100 ("FOIA"), by not providing you with access to public records.

By letter dated September 29, 2000, our Office asked the School District to respond to your complaint within ten days. At the request of the School District, we granted an extension of time until October 26, 2000. We received the School District's response, together with supporting documents, on October 26, 2000.

By letter dated July 28, 2000, you made a FOIA request to the School District for: (1) the approved regular meeting minutes for June 13, 2000; (2) the number of students currently enrolled in the secondary summer school program by specific subject area: and (3) the total number of board members, administrators, community members and staff who attended the SREB Conference and the Arlington Echo Workshop, with a breakdown of the costs for each event. You also asked to listen to the audio tapes of the April 22 and June 13, 2000 regular board meetings.

By letter dated August 2, 2000, the School District provided you with the June 13, 2000 minutes. The letter stated that the secondary summer school information "is being prepared by Ms. Kay Smith and will be forwarded to you upon receipt by the District Office." The custodian of the tapes was on vacation, and the School District stated that when he returned he would "contact you regarding the listening of the two (2) audio tapes you requested."

By letter dated September 15, 2000, the School District provided you with "the documentation regarding the SREB Conference in Nashville and the Arlington Echo Staff Retreat in Annapolis. You will also find a breakdown by expense category and funding source for the SREB Program."

The School District did not provide you with the secondary summer school information you requested until October 24, 2000. We do not believe that was as timely as it should have been, but the fact remains the you received the information you requested.

As for the two audio tapes, the School District has offered to make them available. You can make arrangements to listen to them during ordinary business hours.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the School District did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA .

Very truly yours,

W. Michael Tupman

Deputy Attorney General

Approved:

Michael J. Rich

State Solicitor

Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 00-IB19 (Del.A.G.), 2000 WL 1920149