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 asked the City of Dover for City Council rules and written processes covering how legislation moves through committees and what voting thresholds apply. The City responded that it maintained no separate written policies or standalone documents of the kind requested. It identified the City Charter, City Code and Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (11th Edition) as the authorities it uses for legislative proceedings.

Miller petitioned the AG because she could not tell whether the City had separate rules and declined to provide them or had none. In the petition response, the City Solicitor swore that the requested documents did not exist in a separate format created and retained by the City. The AG read that sworn statement alongside the City's original response and found the response sufficiently specific. It found no FOIA violation on Miller's clarity claim.

What this means for you

If you are looking for Dover council procedures

The City identified its Charter, Code and Robert's Rules as the governing authorities. According to the City Solicitor's sworn statement, it has no separate city-created document covering the requested committee and voting processes. This opinion decides whether the City's answer was clear enough under FOIA; it does not interpret any voting threshold.

If you respond to municipal records requests

State clearly whether a requested standalone document exists. The City's response said it had no separate written policies or documents, and its Solicitor confirmed that under oath. The AG found those statements sufficiently specific when read together.

If you are checking a 'no records' response

This opinion turns on the particular response and sworn statement. The AG found that Dover had adequately clarified what it did and did not retain. It did not decide a broader question about remedies for other requests.

Background and statutory framework

The City's original answer said it had no standalone documents setting out the requested processes and identified three governing authorities for information. Miller said that answer left her uncertain whether separate rules existed. The City Solicitor later stated under oath that the documents she sought did not exist in any separate format created and retained by the City, and that the publicly available authorities were the only responsive documents.

The opinion explains that a public body bears the burden of justifying its denial of access to records and that a sworn affidavit may be required in some circumstances. Applying that framework, the AG found the City's answer sufficiently specific and no violation on the claim before it.

Common questions

Did Dover have a separate City Council rules document?

According to the City's original response and the Solicitor's sworn statement, it did not have a separate city-created document of the kind Miller requested. The AG accepted that account in deciding the clarity claim.

Which authorities did the City identify?

The City said it conducts legislative proceedings under the Dover Charter, City Code and Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (11th Edition), as applicable. The AG did not interpret those authorities or specify the voting thresholds for any legislative step.

Was the City's original answer a FOIA violation because Miller found it unclear?

No. The AG reviewed the initial answer with the Solicitor's sworn clarification and found that the City had been sufficiently specific that it had no further responsive records to produce.

Did the AG decide whether Miller could seek court review?

No. The opinion concludes only that the City did not violate FOIA by providing an unclear response. It does not discuss further remedies.

Citations

• Statutes: 29 Del. C. § 10003(a) (reasonable access and copying); § 10005(c) (burden of proof).
• Case: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (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

CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400
CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-8500
DIVISION CIVIL RIGHTS & PUBLIC TRUST (302) 577-5400
KATHLEEN JENNINGS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION (302) 577-8400 ATTORNEY GENERAL 820 NORTH FRENCH STREET FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
FAX (302) 577-2610

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.” 1 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.” 2 The City added for informational purposes that the City conducts its

1
Petition.
2
Id.
1 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.” 3 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.” 4

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.” 5 FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records. 6 The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records. 7 In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden. 8

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.

3
Id.
4
Response.
5
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021).
6
29 Del. C. § 10003(a).
7
29 Del. C. § 10005(c).
8
Judicial Watch, Inc., 267 A.3d at 1008-1012.

2
 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

3