It's hard to have compassion for Wilmington's Mayor Williams.  Especially when you know he doesn't want it. But, we can't ignore the plight of poverty and violence that has ensnared Delaware's largest city. I swell with empathy for the children of Wilmington, the innocents in the game of politics that threatens their safety.

And, so, on this last day of 2015, I think it's only fitting to remind Mayor Williams that the money being offered by A.G. Matt Denn is a gift.  It's not his money to turn down.  It's not his money to place conditions upon. It's not his money whine or cry about.  It was earned by the economic casualties of bad mortgages who lost their homes and haven't seen a penny for their pain.

This money was stolen out from under innocent families across this state who will never benefit from the settlement that brought these funds here. It's there money.  And you spit at them every time you complain about the one restriction that the AG and Dover has placed upon this money.  

In particular, Williams is worried about a sentence in the summary of the committee’s vote that says once it has reviewed a report by a public safety consultant, “the Joint Finance Committee will determine whether it should recommend to the full General Assembly any changes to the City of Wilmington’s unilateral authority to oversee police operations within the City of Wilmington or any such other measures as it deems appropriate.”

Mayor Williams, Wilmington's children (young and old) are dying.  The State is offering you additional funds and foot patrols and an analysis of policing in the city.  Yes, that analysis could spur the legislature to make changes to Wilmington's policing authority, but really, does that matter when your city is dying.

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/money/business/2015/12/29/dupont-cut-1700-jobs-delaware/78014766/

Christina district gets reprieve on Priority Schools

Matthew Albright, The News Journal 11:41 p.m. EDT March 10, 2015

The Christina School District's three Priority Schools in inner-city Wilmington can keep their principals and teachers next year while state leaders grapple with a redistricting plan that would hand over all of the district's schools in the city limits to the Red Clay School District...http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/education/2015/03/10/christina-gets-reprieve-priority-schools/24741421/

Delaware PTA To Host Override House Bill 50 Veto Rally At Legislative Hall On January 12th

SAVE THE DATE!!!!

Delaware PTA

Override House Bill 50 Veto Rally

January 12th, 2016

2:00 PM

Legislative Hall

Dover, DE

from Exceptional Delaware!
 https://exceptionaldelaware.wordpress.com/

Red Font/bolding is for emphasis.

TransparentChristina has shared some posts about a recent CSD FOIA with no comment mechanism.  It's a tactic we often see associated with political bullies, a markellian method to stifle public discourse.
  
So, let's have at it: FOIA is NOT Free. I disagree with TC.  I wasn't present at the meeting and didn't hear the public comment.  However, I can offer a rebuttal on generalities:

FOIA is a fantastic tenet of our democracy. With little exclusion, FOIA creates a lens for the public to look through and evaluate the performance of both elected and appointed officials. It is invaluable. But, it does come with a price tag. 

A recent CSD FOIA ran the district upwards of $3000.00.  Not a lot when compared to the budget of that beast, but significant enough to those who care.  I care. CSD is in a financial crisis.  And while I love FOIA (and I really, really do) I can't justify what my district was forced to expend to satisfy a malicious and mostly frivolous FOIA. (Already noted in a previous post that 1 facet of the FOIA was conceded to by CSD; as for the other two issues, the DOJ found for the board, not the complainant.)

Forced to respond?

Yes, TC contends that "the public body has to DECIDE whether to respond via counsel to the allegation."  That's true on face value. But, only on face value. The body could choose to ignore that notification and request for evidence sent by the Department of Justice.  This will produce two outcomes, neither preferable to the engaged constituent:

1. First, the body runs the risk of creating a public perception that it is above the law, above even the Department of Justice.  This route will tarnish the body's public perception = a public less willing to support it.
2. The body run the risk the FOIA opinion will be founded on whatever evidence the complainant provides - legitimate or fraudulent. I had the pleasure of communicating with the Department of Justice this past week. The department was most helpful in explaining what happens when the subject of FOIA does not respond to the DOJ's inquiry.
   DOJ's explanation:
   
   

    "opinions will be based on the evidence available."

   Refusal of the body to participate = radical neglect that defeats the entire judicial process around FOIA.  It impugns the SPIRIT of FOIA! And leaves it open for manipulation because the only "evidence" provided will be that of the complainant.   

The COST of FOIA:
 
Moreover, regardless of the body's decision to respond or not, the FOIA has already begun to cost tax payers' dollars. How? When the FOIA petition reaches the DOJ, the department is obligated to assign an attorney to investigate the allegations. The hours consumed by the investigation of the petition and research into both the application of the law in the past and present and the evidence presented drain resources (financial and manpower) that could be dedicated to a host of other investigations occurring within the department. While the DOJ may budget funds to a FOIA department, the absences of a current petition does not mean that department personnel are idle.  It is fair to say their talents are used elsewhere within the department. The cost clock is ticking.  

Thus, the Outcome of the body not responding does not mean FOIA is FREE.  There is still a cost born by the tax payers - the cost of DOJ's investigation is supported by tax payer provided funds!

Superfluous FIOA and Malicious Intent:

I've written my fair share of FOIA over the years.  It's a necessary process and a right guaranteed by our democracy.  It holds public bodies accountable for their collective and individual actions.  However, it can also be abused. In the case of the Christina FOIA, there has been a limited dialogue and deep misunderstanding propagated by those who wish to claim winner-ship of the FOIA.

The petition stated 

Based on these 2 concerns in combination, I am asking for clarification of the previous FOIA opinion in order to ensure the CSD BOE acted properly. It is my ardent hope that we did so, but I feel we need to confirm this in light of the Appoquinimink FOIA opinion. https://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/my-foia-complaint-filed-in-response-to-the-8415-csd-boe-meeting/

It appears the petitioner is acting in the best interest of the pubic body. However, in the comment section of this post, the petitioner goes on to make this accusation:

...Board members need to understand their roles and those that withhold information from others simply impede the governance necessary to help children. Worse, others don’t seem to take past experience in governance and apply the positive parts while discarding the negative. I’m not speaking of any single member, but some about all.
It’s a disease, and I think I know how you feel about those that flout the FOIA statute and act to secretly traffic information that board members need to make informed decisions. https://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/my-foia-complaint-filed-in-response-to-the-8415-csd-boe-meeting/

And there you have it: That this petition provided clarification to the petitioner on several fairly recent FOIA opinions issued by the DOJ was secondary to the petitioner's assertation that his fellow board members failed to learn from past experience and more importantly that they "secretly traffic information" to eachother. The DOJ opinion essential deems this malicious accusation to be unfounded.  It did not opine of any secret or otherwise information trafficked between the body's members.

This was a superfluous and malicious filing. Had the body voted to ignore the Department of Justice's communication, the body would have lost its opportunity to provide widely important exculpatory evidence and the finding might have been radically erroneous. 

FOIA IS NOT FREE.  And while it is open for abuse, the thoughtful and correct course is for a body to respond always.  It is only way to reach a unbiased finding based on evidence and law.

And if someone is telling you otherwise, they probably have oceanfront property in Tennessee to sell you too.

Three Letters: OMG

The Delaware Department of Education and the State Board of Education have collectively abdicated their responsibilities regarding the chartering authority as evidenced by the CSAC's Formal Review/Final Report of the Delaware Met:  http://dedoe.schoolwires.net/cms/lib09/DE01922744/Centricity/Domain/368/DelawareMetCSACFinalMeetingReport.pdf

Truly a sad story.  

Will Innovative be held accountable for its role?

It's been a busy week for me and that's delayed my dissection of the latest Department of Justice FOIA on education issues:

Additionally, it has come to my attention (I was unable to attend this meeting due to a work meeting out of state) that the Board held a vote in executive session to prevent a board member from making and audio recording of the meeting (not sure that practice is permitted/not permitted). I believe that all votes must occur in public and not in an executive session. I am seeking to determine if this was a FOIA violation with the expectation that a determination as such would likely not yield a remediation beyond a response indicating the BOE will not hold any votes in executive session.

 And the FOIA Found:

...we find that the CSB violated FOIA when it “recommended that [the] Executive Session meeting not be recorded” while in executive session.  Pursuant to 29 Del. C. §10004(c), “all voting on public business must take place at a public meeting and the results of the vote made public” (emphasis supplied).

Clearly, there is no debate that the CSD board erred. And DOJ considers this error so minute that it has not recommended compensatory measures.

The CSB conceded that it voted on the recording issue during executive session and agreed to refrain from taking any votes in executive session in the future...

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.  http://opinions.attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2015/12/01/15-ib10-1212015-foia-opinion-letter-to-mr-john-young-re-foia-complaints-concerning-the-christina-school-board/

The DOJ finding does, however, raise another question.  Mr. Young stipulated that he was not present at the meeting. How then did Mr. Young come to know that a vote was taken during this executive session? And if a fellow board member felt that a violation occurred, why didn't he/she file the foia?

And the deeper question - Where does executive privilege begin and end? Do individual board members hold an executive authority that allows them discuss the content of executive session outside of the session?

Remember that the content is highly confidential regarding legal or personnel and that executive privilege can only be waived by the subject of the personnel inquiry.  

While the vote in question was not personnel,  Mr. Young's petition does raise an important legal question: Can the body refuse the right of a member to record in executive? Does the concept fall within the legal realm? Was the discussion legal and just the vote a violation? If so, was privilege violated when a discussion occurred outside of executive about this particular content?

The DOJ has found that "the executive session vote did not affect substantial public rights because no law requires executive sessions to be audio recorded." And the CSB was fortunate in that regard.  

But, the question that remains to be answered, and sadly DOJ did not opine on it - Where does privilege begin and end?