If I ask a Delaware city for the rules governing how its council moves a bill from committee to a vote, and the city says 'we don't have a separate document for that,' is that a FOIA violation?

Plain-English summary

Shyanne Miller of the Working Families party asked the City of Dover for "a copy of the Dover City Council Rules" and any written processes for moving legislation through committees, including voting thresholds. The City answered that it has no separate, standalone document with these rules. It conducts its legislative proceedings under the City of Dover Charter, the City Code, and Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (11th Edition).

Miller filed a FOIA petition arguing that the response was unclear: did the City have separate rules and was declining to provide them, or did it really not have any? The City Solicitor responded under oath that the City does not have any separate rules in any format other than the publicly available governing authorities (Charter, Code, Robert's Rules).

The AG agreed with the City. The Solicitor's sworn statement made clear that no responsive records exist beyond the publicly available authorities, and that response was sufficiently specific. No FOIA violation.

What this means for you

If you are a Delaware municipal records coordinator or attorney

The opinion holds that a public body does not violate FOIA when it responds that it has no separate document responsive to a request, as long as the response is sufficiently specific. Here the City stated it does not maintain standalone documents and identified the governing authorities (Charter, City Code, and Robert's Rules of Order), and the City Solicitor swore those were the only responsive records. The AG found that combined response specific enough to satisfy the burden under § 10005(c) and Judicial Watch.

If you are a citizen or advocate trying to understand municipal procedure

The opinion holds that FOIA reaches existing records and does not require a public body to produce a procedural manual it has not created. Dover's proceedings run under its Charter, the City Code, and Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (11th Edition); the opinion treats those as the only responsive records and finds no separate "council rules" document exists.

If you are a journalist covering municipal government

The opinion holds that a sworn statement from the City Solicitor that no other responsive document exists, read together with the initial response, was sufficiently specific to defeat the petitioner's claim that the response was unclear. It found no FOIA violation even though the requester suspected the City might have a separate document.

Common questions

Q: What was the City's actual answer?
A: That it conducts its proceedings under the City Charter, the City Code, and Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (11th Edition). The City does not have separate, standalone written processes for committee advancement and voting thresholds.

Q: Why did the AG accept that?
A: Because the City Solicitor swore that the publicly available governing authorities are the only responsive records. Judicial Watch requires sworn statements when burden is contested, and the Solicitor's statement was specific enough to satisfy that requirement.

Q: Could Miller appeal further?
A: She could pursue a court action under § 10005, but the AG's opinion is generally persuasive and the courts apply the same legal standards. Practically, this is the end of the FOIA path for this particular request.

Q: What if I want to know specific voting thresholds the council uses?
A: Look at the City Charter and City Code first. Many thresholds (simple majority, two-thirds, supermajority for charter changes) are spelled out. For default procedural questions (motions, amendments, votes on amendments), Robert's Rules governs.

Q: Does Robert's Rules count as a "public record" under FOIA?
A: It is a published reference book, available commercially. The City uses it as authority, but it is not a record the City created. The City's response correctly identified it as one of the governing authorities, but the obligation is to identify, not to produce a copy of, a published reference work.

Background and statutory framework

The legal framework here is bare-bones. Section 10005(c) puts the burden on the public body. Judicial Watch v. Univ. of Del. (Del. 2021) requires sworn statements when facts are disputed. There are no specific exemptions in play.

What makes this opinion useful is the case it represents: a public body that genuinely does not have the requested records. Many FOIA disputes assume the records exist somewhere and the public body is hiding them. Sometimes the records simply do not exist, and the issue is whether the public body's response makes that clear.

The opinion treats the question as one of clarity. The City's initial response was a little terse ("does not maintain separate written policies, procedures, or documents responsive to your request"), but the supplemental sworn statement removed any ambiguity. Combined, the response told the requester exactly what records exist and where to find them.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- 29 Del. C. § 10003
- 29 Del. C. § 10005

Cases:
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2026/04/08/26-ib14-04-08-2026-foia-opinion-letter-to-shyanne-miller-re-city-of-dover/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2026/04/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-26-IB14.pdf

Original opinion text

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
KATHLEEN JENNINGS
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
ATTORNEY GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 26-IB14
April 8, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Shyanne Miller
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the City of Dover

Dear Ms. Miller:

We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the City of Dover violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat this correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As discussed more fully herein, we determine that the City did not violate FOIA by providing what you felt was an unclear response to your request.

BACKGROUND

On November 25, 2025, you filed a request with the City seeking a copy of the Dover City Council Rules regarding any written processes for how legislation is advanced through committees and the rules for voting thresholds. The request also asked that the City "share written processes for how legislation is reviewed/advanced until it becomes law." In response, the City stated that "it does not maintain separate written policies, procedures, or documents responsive to your request," and the "City does not have standalone documents outlining these processes in the manner requested." The City added for informational purposes that the City conducts its legislative proceedings "in accordance with the City of Dover Charter, the City Code, and Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (11th Edition), as applicable." The City responded that it does not have additional responsive records, beyond these governing authorities.

This Petition followed. In the Petition, you allege that the City's response lacks clarity, questioning whether this constitutes a violation of FOIA. Specifically, you do not understand whether the City has a separate set of rules that speak to the voting thresholds and advancement of legislation or if the City has these rules but is declining to provide them.

On March 18, 2026, the City, through its legal counsel, responded to this Petition ("Response"). The City argues its response to your request does not violate FOIA. The City Solicitor states under oath that the Solicitor personally examined the details of this Petition and confirms that "the documents [you] sought in [your] initial November 25, 2025, FOIA request to the City do not exist in any separate format created and retained by the City and that the publicly available governing authorities [you were] directed to are the only responsive documents."

DISCUSSION

Delaware's FOIA law "was enacted to ensure governmental accountability by providing Delaware's citizens access to open meetings and meeting records of governmental or public bodies, as well as access to the public records of those entities." FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records. The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records. In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden.

In this case, the Petition alleges that the City's response to your request lacks sufficient clarity, potentially in violation of FOIA. The City submitted the City Solicitor's sworn statements that the City does not have responsive records, other than the publicly available code, charter, and Robert's Rules of Order. Having reviewed the City's sworn statements against the initial response, we find that the City's response to your request was sufficiently specific that the City does not have responsive records to produce, and we find no violation of FOIA occurred in this regard.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the City did not violate FOIA by providing an unclear response to your request.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Dorey L. Cole
Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

Approved:
/s/ Patricia A. Davis
Patricia A. Davis
State Solicitor

cc: Daniel A. Griffith, City Solicitor