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
When responding to a FOIA request for "all rules governing X" or similar broad queries, two things are essential:
- Be specific in the initial response. Tell the requester whether the City does or does not maintain a separate written document. If it does not, point them to the governing authorities (Charter, Code, Robert's Rules, or whatever applies).
- Be ready to back it up under oath if a petition follows. A clear and specific Solicitor's affidavit, like the one in this case, is what carries the burden of proof. A vague affidavit ("we did not find anything") is at risk under Judicial Watch and the 2022 Superior Court case.
If you are a citizen, advocate, or candidate trying to understand municipal procedure
Many small and mid-size Delaware cities operate under the same model as Dover: a charter, a city code, and Robert's Rules of Order (or Mason's Manual for some bodies) for the actual mechanics of meetings and voting. There may not be a separate "council rules" document. If you want to understand how legislation moves, you typically need to:
- Read the relevant Charter article on the council's procedures.
- Read the relevant City Code chapter on committees and meeting procedures.
- Read Robert's Rules for the default mechanics (motions, voting thresholds, quorum).
If those three together do not answer your question, ask the City Clerk or City Solicitor specifically (not via FOIA) how a particular procedure works. FOIA only produces existing records; it cannot manufacture a procedural manual the City has not actually written.
If you are a journalist covering municipal government
This opinion is a useful template for "the city says it doesn't have it" disputes. The defensible answer is the City Solicitor's sworn statement that no other document exists. The AG accepted that here, even though the requester suspected the City might have something.
If you suspect a municipality does have a separate document and is hiding it, the path is the same: file a petition under § 10005, force a sworn statement, and (if the affidavit looks generic) cite Judicial Watch to demand more specificity. Sometimes the affidavit-drafting process surfaces records that staff initially missed.
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