Criminal Justice Council Public Hearing Set For 6:30PM Tonight In Wilmington

Come out to the CJC public hearing tonight at the Cornerstone Fellowship Baptist Church in Wilmington! Social Justice issues are all of our responsibility. This is where your voice will be heard.

My friend Syl Woolford regularly attends Criminal Justice Council meetings. He noted recently that the Council has removed public comment from the agenda so I immediately contacted CJC Chairman Matt Denn to ask why. Here's his answer ~

Subject: RE: CJC public comment removed?

Nancy -- thanks for your e-mail.  As you may know, the CJC did not have a public comment portion of its agenda before I became chair.  It is something that I added.  We stopped having it on the agenda about six months ago, the reason was that the majority of people who were making public comments were addressing specific, personal grievances that they had with either law enforcement or the correctional system, rather than the types of issues that CJC addresses as a group. 

We continue to accept public comments in writing, which are distributed to all Council members.  In addition, if any person or group has an issue that they wish to raise with the Council, they are welcome to contact me or the Executive Director Drew Fennell and we can consider putting them on the Council's agenda.  I have found Syl's input very helpful in the past, and if there is something he would like to present to the CJC I am happy to to put him on the agenda.

The CJC continues to hold public hearings in all three counties and in the City of Wilmington once a year, and I have made a particular effort to move those meetings out of government buildings and into the affected communities.  Our next public hearing is on October 3rd at 6:30 p.m. at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Wilmington.  These are open-ended hearings where people can address whatever issues they wish to the Councilmembers in attendance.  Turnout for these hearings has been up and down in past years, so whatever help you can provide in letting people know about these meetings would be very helpful.

 Syl replied ~ 

Matt

    Thank you for responding to Nancy's e-mail so promptly.

    Nancy is a warrior to the un-empowered people of the State of Delaware and her

comments always require those in power to acknowledge.

    As I mentioned to Nancy, I had spoken to Jay Lynch, Health and Human

Services, and Brendan O'Neill, Public Defender. after the meeting on Sept 16, 2013 and

ask them, "What happened in there!"

    Jay always accused me of being sacrcatic, I am really trying to be truthful.

    What I meant by the question is since the last CJC meeting:

                George Zimmerman was set free after killing Trayvon Martin.

                Attorney General Eric Holder said, "There are too many young men in

                        jail, especially those of color, and we should correct this problem."

                The CJC announced that, "the recitivism rate in Delaware is 75% after

                        three years, which translates into we now have a :"Criminal Class"

                       of people in our society!"

    If I were Chariman of the CJC or the Executive Director of the CJC, I would

say. "This will not continue under my watch!"

    But "NOBODY SAID ANYTHING!"

    During my brief conversation with Jay Lynch and Brendan O'Neill, Brendan

said, "What do you want us to do?'

     Believe it or not, I fixed the crime problem about two years ago with a grant

of $3,500.

     The solution is technology!

      CJC has invested $250,000 to predict crime. The same technology which predicts

crime can prevent crime.

       It has been proven that:

                Increasing child cares services in a community reduces crime

                Improving bus services in a community reduces crime.

                Improving tutoring services in a community reduces crime.

                Improving mental health services reduces crime.

                Providing family counseling services reduces crime.

                Providing K-12 tutoring services reduces crime

                Providing jobs, jobs, jobs reduces crime.

   Many of these services are already provide by Cathy McKay and

Connections CSP. The problem is developing a highly sophisticated

delivery system that can target those in need of the services and

deliver them in an efficient manner. (and also measure the results)

    Attached is a Powerpoint presentation which I don't think I have every

shown any of you. That is my fault, but it lays out how the system would

operate.

       

Syl

With this follow up reply from Matt Denn ~

Syl – thanks for your e-mail, I will try to look at your Power Point presentation.  Just a couple of follow-ups in response to your questions: 

1.        The recidivism numbers that were discussed at the CJC meeting were not new, they were part of a report that was released over the summer and was the subject of an article in the News Journal.  That does not mean that the numbers are good news – obviously, they are bad news – but they were not a surprise to most of the CJC members.

2.       I would respectfully disagree that no one said anything about the numbers.  I don’t know if you were able to stay for the entire meeting, but I asked the Council to make recidivism the focus of our planning for the coming year, which includes the prioritization of the Council’s discretionary federal grant money.   Given what the CJC does, asking it to focus its time and financial resources on a problem is asking it to do pretty much everything it can do.  We will see if the other Council members ultimately agree with me – I am one of over 20 members, and I don’t get to vote absent a tie – but I think I made my views pretty clear.

3.       If you have a program that you think should be supported, I would encourage you to work one of the non-profit organizations currently receiving CJC funds and submit a proposal to have the program funded when federal Byrne Grants become available.  Drew can provide you with a list of organizations that have experience with CJC grants, and with the grant deadlines (which I do not think have been set yet).

Thanks for your continued interest in this issue, it is one where I would very much like to see real progress. 

Read more at the CJC website: http://cjc.delaware.gov/ 
Cornerstone Fellowship Baptist website: http://www.cornerstonefbc.org/
20 West Lea Boulevard
Wilmington, DE 19802
(302) 762-9601
Info@Cornerstonefbc.org

~*~

Read More

Food Bank Of Delaware's Blue Jean Ball Set For 7PM Saturday!

Matt Talley sent this along ~

The Food Bank of Delaware’s Oktoberfest Blue Jean Ball is Saturday night.  Please consider joining us for an evening of German food and festivities prepared by our students at The Culinary School and Iron Hill Brewery’s team of chefs! In addition to the German small plate menu, the evening will also feature Iron Hill’s own brews, fine wines, entertainment from Club Phred and a silent auction. Tickets are just $65 and event proceeds benefit our hunger-relief programs.  The silent auction items usually end up being a really great value for some interesting packages and items.  The Ball will be held on Saturday, October 5 from 7 p.m. – 11 p.m. at the Food Bank’s Newark warehouse, so buy your ticket in advance and come and enjoy yourself to support a worthwhile cause. Check it out by visiting www.fbdbluejeanball.org.

~*~

Read More

Charter Law Meetings' FOIA Decision Plus DelCOG Meeting Set For Noon Monday In Wilmington

John Flaherty sent this along ~

13-IB05 10/01/13 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Flaherty and Ms. Buckley re: FOIA Complaint Concerning Charter School Reform Working Group

This entry was posted October 1, 2013 at 2:14 pm

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Attorney General Opinion No. 13-IB05

October 1, 2013

VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL

Mr. John D. Flaherty, President
Delaware Coalition for Open Government
712 W. 26th Street
Wilmington, DE  19802
jdf0000@aol.com

Ms. Eve E. Buckley
Christina School District parent

Re: FOIA COMPLAINT CONCERNING CHARTER SCHOOL REFORM WORKING GROUP

Dear Mr. Flaherty and Ms. Buckley:

By petition dated June 10, 2013, you asked this Office to determine whether a 24-member working group convened by the Governor to make recommendations for changes to Delaware’s charter school policies and procedures (the “Working Group”) is a “public body” within the meaning of Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10006 (“FOIA”), and, if so, whether the Working Group violated FOIA by failing to provide you with access to the minutes of the Working Group’s monthly meetings.

For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the Working Group is a public body subject to FOIA. 

The Working Group did not prepare formal minutes of its meetings.  We do not believe that a court would require and therefore do not recommend that the Working Group attempt to reconstruct minutes under the circumstances presented here, including the fact that the Working Group’s recommendations are a matter of public record.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves an underlying debate about Delaware’s 1995 charter school law.  After the tension between charter school proponents and opponents escalated last year, members of the House of Representatives announced the approval of a task force that was to take a holistic and collaborative look at charter school issues.  The task force, which was to include legislators, executive branch officials and other stakeholders, was never established. 

Several months after the task force announcement, the Governor, at the request of multiple legislators and constituent groups, convened the Working Group to discuss and propose recommendations to strengthen charter school policies and practices. 

The Working Group ultimately made such recommendations, and those recommendations were incorporated into and formed the foundation of House Bill 165.  That bill, which made significant changes to Delaware’s charter school law, was approved by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor in June 2013.

Delaware citizens have important rights — rights protected in FOIA’s “open meeting” provisions — to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy. 

Those rights were frustrated with respect to the activities of the Working Group.  The public had little ability to observe the performance of the Working Group members as they formulated the policy framework for what ultimately became House Bill 165. 

It is the position of this Office that FOIA requires more openness during the formulation of public policy on issues of critical importance to the citizens of this State.

II. BACKGROUND

By letters dated July 31 and August 1, 2012, the Governor extended invitations to a number of individuals to participate in the Working Group as representatives of several public bodies, including the General Assembly, the Department of Education and the State Board of Education, and various private stakeholder groups (the “Invitations”).  The Invitations state that the purpose of the Working Group was to work together to propose “several tangible recommendations” to strengthen:

         • the framework for assessing new charter applicants;

         • the support provided to charter schools and associated requirements; and

          • the process for reauthorizing charters.

As contemplated in the Invitations, the Working Group convened monthly meetings beginning in August 2012.  The final meeting took place in January 2013.

On February 28, 2013, the Department of Education held a public meeting to provide members of the public with the opportunity to discuss and review the main content areas covered during the Working Group’s meetings.  At that meeting, Department of Education officials provided attendees with and discussed a handout summarizing the Working Group’s recommendations.

On May 30, 2013, House Bill 165 was introduced in the House of Representatives.  House Bill 165 appears to track closely the Working Group’s recommendations.  On June 11, 2013, the House held a lengthy hearing on the bill.  After nearly two hours of debate, the House approved House Bill 165, and the bill passed to the Senate for deliberation.  On June 25, 2013, the Senate approved House Bill 165.  The Governor signed it into law the next day.

On June 10, 2013, you filed this appeal seeking access to the Working Group’s meeting minutes.  We received a response on July 11, 2013.  The response indicates that the Working Group did not consider itself to be a “public body” within the meaning of section 10002(h), due primarily to the informal nature of the Working Group.

III. DISCUSSION

FOIA, Delaware’s “sunshine law,” mandates transparency and is designed to ensure government accountability through an informed electorate.¹   These “bedrock” principles are memorialized in FOIA’s express declaration of policy, which states:

It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that our citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy; and further, it is vital that citizens have easy access to public records in order that the society remain free and democratic.  Toward these ends, and to further the accountability of government to the citizens of this state, this chapter is adopted, and shall be construed.²

As stated in FOIA’s declaration of policy, and as twice reiterated by the Delaware Supreme Court, FOIA’s open records and open meeting requirements are to be liberally construed to further the General Assembly’s mandate of openness.³

FOIA, with certain exceptions not relevant here, establishes a public right to inspect all “public records” and requires that all meetings of public bodies be open to the public.⁴  

FOIA’s “open meeting” provisions call for advance notice to the public of all public meetings and require public bodies to prepare and make available to the public agendas for and minutes of their public meetings.⁵

FOIA’s open record and open meeting requirements apply only to the records and meetings of a public body. 

The definition of “public body” set forth in section 10002(h) is expansive and covers a wide range of government bodies associated with the executive and legislative branches of State government.  We conclude that the Working Group was a “public body” within the meaning of FOIA.

FOIA generally defines a “public body” as “any regulatory, administrative, advisory, executive, appointive or legislative body of the State.”⁶   The Working Group clearly was “advisory” in nature.⁷   It was asked to and did make recommendations for charter school reform. 

The primary question before us is whether the Working Group constituted an advisory “body of the State” as contemplated in section 10002(h).⁸

Section 10002(h) provides substantial guidance as to the types of entities and bodies encompassed within the phrase “body of the State.”  That concept, as used in FOIA, includes, among other things, any “group . . . appointed by any . . . public official of the State” that was “impliedly or specifically charged” with making recommendations.⁹   The Working Group was a “body of the State” within the meaning of section 10002(h).

The Working Group easily fits within the very broad definition of a “group.”¹⁰  

We also think the Governor “appointed” the Working Group within the meaning of section 10002(h). 

The word “appoint” means “to name officially.”¹¹  

The Governor, acting in his official capacity as the State’s chief executive officer, convened the Working Group. 

He did so by issuing a series of Invitations that identified the various public bodies and other stakeholder groups that were to participate in the Working Group’s activities, the specific goals for the Working Group, the frequency with which the Working Group members would meet and the general timeframe within which meetings would take place. 

Finally, as evidenced by the Invitations, the Working Group itself clearly was “charged” with making recommendations for proposed changes to the State’s charter school law and practices.¹²   The fact that the Governor, via the Invitations, only asked the addressees to participate in the Working Group is not determinative.

We conclude, based on a straight-forward reading and application of section 10002(h), that the Working Group was a public body subject to FOIA. 

The response asserts otherwise, based primarily on the grounds that the Working Group lacked the necessary “formality and structure” to be a public body.  In support, the response directs us to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”) and case law decided under FACA.¹³  

For several reasons, we are not persuaded that FOIA requires the degree of formality and structure suggested in the response.

First, this Office consistently has rejected arguments that FOIA’s applicability hinges on adherence to formalities in the creation of a public body, lest FOIA’s goals of openness and government accountability be subverted.¹⁴  

Second, FACA, by its express terms, does not apply to or govern entities or bodies established to advise or make recommendations to state or local officials or agencies.¹⁵  

Third, we are hesitant to rely on FACA, or case law interpreting and applying same, as FACA contains different statutory language and, unlike FOIA, has been construed narrowly by federal courts to avoid constitutional separation of powers issues.¹⁶  

Finally, even if we were inclined to rely on FACA case law, the sole FACA decision cited in the response, Nader v. Baroody,¹⁷  is readily distinguishable.¹⁸

Nader involved a challenge to the White House’s failure to follow FACA in convening biweekly, three-hour meetings between high-level executive officials and representatives of major business organizations and private interest groups.  A different group met every two weeks. 

The Nader court found the biweekly groups lacking because “there [was] little or no continuity of membership between meetings.”¹⁹   The court also noted that the meetings under scrutiny did not involve “a presidential request for specific recommendations on a particular matter of governmental policy.”²⁰

The facts here are much different. 

Unlike the situation in Nader, the Working Group had continuity of membership.  The Working Group’s public and private constituent groups were fixed at the outset and did not change during the course of the Working Group’s meetings.  The vast majority of the individual representatives who participated in the Working Group’s activities also did not change throughout the course of the meetings.  Further, this case, in contrast to Nader, involves written requests by the Governor for specific recommendations on a particular matter of governmental policy — namely, ways to improve Delaware’s charter school policies and practices.

We conclude that the Working Group had and exceeded whatever degree of formality and structure FOIA may require.  The Working Group was an “advisory . . . body of the State” within the meaning of section 10002(h).

IV. REMEDIATION

Having determined that the Working Group is a “public body” within the meaning of section 10002(h), it follows that the Working Group had an obligation to comply with FOIA’s open records and open meeting provisions, including the requirement that it maintain minutes of all meetings and make such minutes available for public inspection and copying.²¹   It is undisputed that the Working Group did not prepare formal minutes of its meetings or otherwise adhere to FOIA’s open meeting requirements.  The remediation question posed is whether the Working Group should be required to recreate minutes for each meeting based on the collective memory of the Working Group members and any documents evidencing the Working Group’s discussions and other activities.²²

Preliminarily, we note that this Office has no jurisdiction or authority to issue an injunction, a writ of mandamus or any other form of relief available under section 10005(d).  It has been our long-standing practice, however, to suggest that public bodies take certain steps to remediate FOIA violations identified in our written determinations, absent which this Office may seek a court order to compel FOIA compliance and remedial action.

In the course of recommending remedial action, we have, on occasion, asked public bodies to prepare minutes for past meetings.²³   We do not think that such form of remediation is appropriate under the circumstances presented here. 

We doubt that minutes, if prepared, would shed significant light on the Working Group’s activities.  FOIA requires only that minutes include a record of those members present at each meeting and a record, by individual member, of each vote taken and action agreed upon.²⁴  

The record is clear that no votes were taken at the Working Group’s meetings.  As far as we can tell, the only “action” the Working Group agreed upon was to make recommendations for changes to the State’s charter school law and practices, which recommendations are a matter of public record. 

Further, the burdens associated with the preparation of formal minutes would outweigh whatever minimal benefit they may provide.  While FOIA’s minutes requirements are not onerous, the preparation of minutes for the Working Group’s six meetings between August 2012 and January 2013 will take time. 

Unlike past cases where we have recommended that minutes be prepared after the fact, the meetings at issue here were not recorded.²⁵   Given the unique circumstances of this case, we do not believe that remedial efforts are warranted.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Working Group is a “public body” within the meaning of section 10002(h).  We do not believe that a court would compel the Working Group to create minutes based on the record in this case.

Very truly yours,

Jason W. Staib Deputy Attorney General

Approved:

/s/ Allison E. Reardon

Allison E. Reardon,
State Solicitor

cc: Ian R. McConnel, Chief Deputy Attorney General (via e-mail

Andrew H. Lippstone, Esq. (via e-mail)

FOIA Opinion Distribution List (via e-mail)

FOOTNOTES

¹ See Guy v. Judicial Nominating Comm’n, 659 A.2d 777, 780 (Del. 1995).

² 29 Del. C. § 10001; see also Chem. Indus. Council of Del., Inc. v. State Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., 1994 WL 274295, at *7 (Del. Ch. May 19, 1994).

³ See Guy, 659 A.2d at 780; Del. Solid Waste Auth. v. News-Journal Co., 480 A.2d 628, 631 (Del. 1984); see also Layfield v. Hastings, 1995 WL 419966, at *3 (Del. Ch. July 10, 1995) (“Aside from the clear mandate of [FOIA] § 10001, it is a traditional principle of statutory construction that remedial statutes are to be construed liberally in order for the goal of the statute to be attained.”).

⁴ See generally 29 Del. C. §§ 10003, 10004; see also Guy, 659 A.2d at 780.

⁵ See 29 Del. C. §§ 10002(a), 10004(e), 10004(f).

⁶ 29 Del. C. § 10002(h) (emphasis added).

⁷ See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advisory (defining “advisory” as “having or exercising power to advise”); see also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advise (“advise” means “to give (someone) a recommendation about what should be done”).

⁸ 29 Del. C. § 10002(h).

9 Id.

¹⁰ See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/group (defining “group,” in relevant part, as “a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship”).

¹¹ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appoint (citing as an example: “a committee appointed by Congress”).  Though we are not entirely sure what the General Assembly intended by employing the term “appointed,” we are confident that that word does not have the meaning asserted in the response.  The response suggests that the word “appointed,” at least with respect to the Governor, requires the appointment of “officers.”  We disagree.  The object of the verb “appointed” is a “body of the State,” not an individual.  29 Del. C. § 10002(h).

¹² See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charge (the verb “charge” means “to impose a task or responsibility on”).

¹³ FACA governs the federal government’s solicitation of policy advice from “advisory committees” and provides the public with certain FOIA-like rights with respect to the activities of such groups.  See generally 5 U.S.C. App. 2 §§ 1-16.

¹⁴ See, e.g., Op. Att’y Gen. 08-IB08 (May 5, 2008), 2008 WL 2397496, at *2 (dismissing argument that “Middletown Action Network” did not become a “public body” until after its bylaws were adopted); Op. Att’y Gen. 02-IB19 (Aug. 19, 2002), 2002 WL 31867895, at *6 (determining that meetings attended by representatives of individual school boards constituted a joint or hybrid public body notwithstanding that body was not created by any single formal action); Op. Att’y Gen. 02-IB08 (Apr. 4, 2002), 2002 WL 970059, at *3 (“We do not believe that the manner in which an advisory group comes into being is controlling, otherwise the open meeting law could be easily circumvented.”); Op. Att’y Gen. 94-IO07 (Feb. 2, 1994), 1994 WL 55695, at *2 (rejecting argument that “informal meeting” between mayor and 4 members of city council to discuss and recommend potential amendments to city charter was not subject to FOIA).

¹⁵ See 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 4(c) (“Nothing in [FACA]  shall be construed to apply to . . . any State or local committee, council, board, commission, or similar group established to advise or make recommendations to State or local officials or agencies.”).

¹⁶ FACA was designed, in part, to increase openness in the advisory committee system.  According to scholarly authorities, FACA has not been effective in increasing transparency.  See, e.g., William Funk, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — THREE EXAMPLES AS AN OBJECT LESSON, 61 Admin. L. Rev. 171, 185-188 (2009) (“FACA’s quest to increase public participation and transparency in agency policymaking has not been particularly successful.”); Michael J. Mongan, FIXING FACA:  THE CASE FOR EXEMPTING PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 895, 896 (Dec. 2005) (“[FACA] is broken and badly needs fixing.”).  Contributing factors include decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts strictly construing FACA’s terms to avoid constitutional separation of powers issues.  See Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 466 (1989) (rejecting literal meaning of the word “utilized” because construing FACA to apply to the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary would “present formidable constitutional difficulties”); Nader v. Baroody, 396 F. Supp. 1231, 1234 (D.D.C. 1975) (refusing to construe FACA as covering informal bi-weekly White House meetings with various special interest groups in order to avoid “serious questions under our tripartite form of government as to the congressional power to restrict the effective discharge of the President’s business”).

¹⁷ 396 F. Supp. 1231

¹⁸ This Office looked to FACA for guidance in applying FOIA on only one prior occasion.  That case, Op. Att’y Gen. 02-IB08 (Apr. 4, 2002), 2002 WL 970059, involved allegations that county officials violated FOIA by discussing and developing a redistricting ordinance outside of public view.  County council had directed the county attorney to prepare a draft redistricting ordinance.  The county attorney, in turn, secured necessary information from the chairman of the county board of elections and obtained advice from a private consultant.  Looking to FACA case law for a “helpful analytical framework,” we determined that FOIA did not apply to the county attorney’s meetings with those individuals because the meeting participants did not “render advice or recommendations, as a group.”  Id. at *4 (emphasis original).  Our determination in Op. Att’y Gen. 02-IB08 was based on our finding that the meetings in question were part of “an unstructured arrangement” in which the county attorney sought advice from two individuals who did not significantly interact with each other.  Id. at *5.  The present case is distinguishable from our determination in Op. Att’y Gen. 02-IB08.  The members of the Working Group were asked to and did work together as a group to formulate consensus-based changes to Delaware’s charter school law.

¹⁹ Id. at 1234.

²⁰ Id.

²¹ See 29 Del. C. § 10004(f).

²² We note that petitioners, as part of their initial FOIA request, sought documents evidencing the Working Group’s activities.  Petitioners did not expressly seek those documents as part of this appeal, and the record is not clear as to whether or to what extent they were produced to petitioners.  Given our determination that the Working Groups is a public body, we think that documents evidencing the Working Group’s activities may be “public records” under section 10002(l), subject to applicable exemptions, if any.

²³ See, e.g., Op. Att’y Gen. 97-IB13 (June 2, 1997), 1997 WL 606460, at *5 (requiring city to prepare minutes for meetings of city’s “Personnel Policy Review Committee” during the prior two years where said meetings were tape-recorded and preserved).

²⁴ See 29 Del. C. § 10004(f).

²⁵ See Op. Att’y Gen. 97-IB13 at *5.

Category: 10001 Declaration of Policy, 10002(h) Public Body

Meanwhile, the next DelCOG meeting is set for Monday at noon ~

Delaware Coalition for Open Government
     (DelCOG)
Board of Directors meeting
October 7, 2013 - 12:00 p.m.
Woodlawn Library
9th and Bancroft Parkway
Wilmington, DE 19806

Draft Agenda

12:00 - 12:05      I). Welcome - John Flaherty

12:05 - 12:10          2) Approval of Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2013

12:10 - 12:15     3) Treasurer’s Report - Pearson   

12:15 - 12:20    4)  Chancery Court Update - Finger

12:20  - 12:25        5) DelCOG awards committee   

12:25  - 12:30         6) AG Opinion on Charter school FOIA complaint

 12:30 - 12:35         7) 501(c)(3) update - Pearson

 12:35  - 12:40         8) Election of officers and board positions - Ward

 12:40  - 12:45         9) Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 - S.1424 - Flaherty

 12:45  -  12:50        10) Open Family Court Task Force - Corwin

12:50   -  12:55     11) General Accounting Office Review of Federal Foia

 12:55   -  1:10       12) Delaware Justice Info System Transparency - Gordon Smith

1:10   -    1:15       13)  Improve States Financial Reporting - Garfinkel

  1:15  -  1:20      14) U.S. Supreme Court $123,000 overall contribution limit

1:20  -  1:30       15) Public Comment

~*~

Read More

AG Biden Issues NO CONSEQUENCES Opinion For DDOE And Governor Markell On Charter School Law Revision Meeting FOIA Violation

This half-measure makes me ill....THE DELAWARE WAY IN ACTION.....for shame.

(News Journal) Matthew Albright reports ~ AG: Charter study group broke open-meeting laws

Markell’s office said the group did not write the legislation and did not create a formal work product, arguing that meant it wasn’t a public body. The office also pointed out the Depart­ment of Education held a public meeting to discuss areas the group covered. But the AG’s opinion rejected those argu­ments. “Delaware citizens have important rights – rights protected in [The Freedom of Information Act’s] open meeting pro­visions – to observe the performance of public of­ficials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formu­lating and executing pub­lic policy,” the opinion said. “Those rights were frustrated with respect to the activities of the Work­ing Group.” The opinion points out that the group included high-ranking officials and was selected by the gover­nor. It rejects arguments that the group was “infor­mal,” saying the law’s goals still applied regard­less of how formal the meetings were.

Despite the ruling, the opinion does not call for any “remediation.” The opinion says the AG’s office sometimes asks public bodies that didn’t keep required min­utes to go back and recon­struct them from memo­ry, but says it won’t ask this group to do so. It says the group didn’t take any votes and says the effort to go back isn’t worth the benefit it would provide.

John Flaherty, presi­dent of the Delaware Co­alition for Open Govern­ment, sought the opi­nion. He said he’s glad to see the AG’s office stick­ing up for transparency, noting that rendering opinions on the gover­nor’s office is a “tough situation politically.” “The chief officer of this state should be set­ting the example for all the other bodies. That’s why we were very disap­pointed in the actions the Governor’s staff took in this case,” Flaherty said. “I think the important point here is that this working group has been found guilty in the court of public opinion, and I hope this sets a preced­ent moving forward.”

~*~ 

Read More

Newark Is Funkytown No More

Vance Funk's legacy now will include his petulant departure from office, his fawning as a University shill and his forever advocacy of WAWA - note the UD-WAWA party favor bags distributed at his retirement party at Old College in the photo below.

(Newark Post)  Josh Shannon reports ~ 'Funkytown forever': Taste of Newark serves as final toast to mayor 

Sheryl Kline, chairwoman of UD's Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management, displays a signed poster honoring Mayor Vance A. Funk III.

(Newark Post images)

Meanwhile, Newark gears up for its next mayor ~  Clifton and Chapman won’t run; instead endorse community volunteer Polly Sierer

Special election set for Nov. 26; more possible candidates emerge

~*~

Read More

Help Common Cause Do The Good Work They Do In Delaware!

Common Cause of Delaware sent this along ~ 

Our student loan system is broken, and Sallie Mae, the largest private profiteer off the debt crisis, is lobbying to keep it that way. Until recently, Sallie was part of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the corporate front group that pushes cookie-cutter model bills through state houses across the nation. But in the wake of publicity about Sallie’s lobbying and a demonstration by Common Cause activists at the company’s annual shareholder meeting last May, Sallie Mae has severed ties with ALEC.  

Your generous support makes victories like this possible -- please give today! 

Sallie Mae is the 50th corporation to leave ALEC since Common Cause and other progressive groups began exposing ALEC’s systematic attempts to put private profit ahead of the public interest. And while ALEC is far from finished, neither are we. The IRS is reviewing our whistleblower complaint challenging ALEC’s tax-exempt status and demanding that ALEC play by the rules that other lobby groups have to follow. We’re also hosting screenings of Bill Moyers' documentary "The United States of ALEC" to build grassroots energy across the state.
We're proud, but we can't afford to rest on our laurels. 

As our 2011 " Open Delaware" report noted, a loophole in state law that lets lobbyists keep their compensation secret means over 80% of lobbying expenditures are never disclosed.

P.S. We've just published our Fall 2013 newsletter -- read it here!

~*~

Read More

NCC Sleep Under The Stars Set For October 5th, 19th And 26th - Volunteer Ghosts And Ghouls Needed!

Tim Sheldon sent this along ~ 

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED!Sleep Under the Stars is a countywide event that includes camping, hayrides, bonfires, children's crafts, children's games and activities, food vendors, live entertainment, movies, & other special activities.  Event dates and locations are as follows: 

Saturday, Oct. 5 at Glasgow Park, Bear 

Saturday, Oct 19 at Carousel Park, Pike Creek 

Saturday, Oct 26 at Rockwood Park, Wilmington 

Volunteers are needed from 6:30-9:30 pm, particularly for the haunted camp out event in Rockwood Park.  Volunteers are needed to dress up in scary costumes as a Haunted Trail Ghost or Ghoul.  Additional volunteer opportunities include helping kids enjoy games and crafts, ride along on hayrides, loading camping gear, and facilitate parking.  Training and orientation is provided for each task.  *Must be 18 or older to volunteer as a Ghost or Ghoul.  Must be 16 years or older for all other volunteer opportunities.  
To volunteer call 302-395-5651 or email seggert@nccde.org.

~*~ 

Read More