Does a public body violate FOIA if more people show up to a meeting than it expected and the room can't hold everyone?

Official title

98-IB12: FOIA Complaint: Woodbridge School District

Plain-English summary

A resident raised three FOIA complaints about a September 17, 1998 Woodbridge School District meeting: the meeting room couldn't hold everyone who showed up, some members of the public were allegedly directed elsewhere mid-meeting, and board members allegedly held a private conversation with the band director after the public meeting ended. The band director had resigned just two days before the meeting, drawing a much bigger crowd of music boosters than the district expected for what was originally billed as a routine PTA discussion. The AG found no violation on the room-size issue: FOIA doesn't require a public body to guess at the largest possible crowd and reserve an auditorium for every meeting, only to act reasonably based on what it actually expected, and moving the resignation discussion to the cafeteria to accommodate the unexpected crowd was a reasonable response. On the claim that people were shut out of the library discussion, the AG found it didn't matter who could physically fit inside, because the music boosters weren't there for the PTA topic in the first place; they were waiting for the resignation discussion, which was held in the larger room where they could participate. As for the alleged private conversation, some board members were approached by the band director wanting to apologize, but the encounter was cut short as soon as the complainant pointed out it involved a quorum, and the AG found this was at most a technical violation that didn't affect the public's real right to participate in the district's business.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does FOIA require a public body to hold its meetings in a room big enough for any possible crowd?
A: No, according to this opinion. The AG found a public body only has to make a reasonable choice based on the crowd it actually expects at the time it schedules the meeting, not guess at every possible turnout.

Q: If a bigger topic draws a crowd who isn't interested in the originally scheduled agenda item, is that a FOIA problem?
A: Not under this opinion. The AG found no violation because the crowd wasn't there for the smaller room's topic in the first place; they were accommodated in a larger space for the topic that actually drew them.

Q: If board members end up talking with someone informally after a meeting and a quorum happens to be present, is that automatically an illegal secret meeting?
A: Not necessarily. The AG found no evidence this was a deliberate attempt to conduct public business outside the open meeting law, especially since the conversation was cut short as soon as it was flagged as involving a quorum.

Q: What makes an accidental brush with a quorum a "technical" violation rather than a real one?
A: In this opinion, the AG looked at whether the encounter affected any substantial right of the public to be involved in discussing public business; because the conversation was interrupted and ended quickly, it found no such impact even assuming it briefly touched public business.

Background and statutory framework

The complaint concerned a September 17, 1998 meeting where an unexpectedly large crowd of music boosters arrived after a band director's abrupt resignation, prompting the district to split the meeting between the library (for the originally planned PTA discussion) and the cafeteria (for the resignation discussion). Applying the reasonableness standard for meeting-site selection quoted from State v. Village Board of Greendale, that a reviewing body need not look for an optimal outcome but only ask whether the public body struck a reasonable balance given what it knew at the time, the AG found the district's room choices reasonable both in scheduling and in adapting once the larger crowd arrived. Because there was no evidence the music boosters were denied meaningful participation in the topic that actually drew them, the AG found no violation regarding room access. On the post-meeting encounter with the resigning band director, the AG found no evidence of a deliberate attempt to conduct public business in private, and treated the brief, self-interrupted exchange as at most a technical violation with no effect on the public's substantive right to participate.

Citations and references

Cases:

• State v. Village Board of Greendale, 494 N.W.2d 408, 420 (Wis. 1993), on the reasonableness standard for a public body's meeting-site choices

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/1998/11/10/98-ib12-foia-complaint-woodbridge-school-district/

Original opinion text

November 10, 1998

Civil Division – Kent County (739-7641)

Mr. Milton F. Morozowich

R.D. 2, Box 166

Bridgeville, DE 19933

RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint

Against Woodbridge School District

Dear Mr. Morozowich:

This is our written determination in response to your letter of

September 23, 1998 alleging that the Woodbridge School District

(the “School District”) violated the Freedom of Information Act,

29 Del. C. Sections 10001-10005 (“FOIA”).

You claim that the School District violated the open meeting

requirements of FOIA by: (1) holding a public meeting on

September 17, 1998 at a place which could not accommodate the

members of the public who wanted to attend; (2) continuing to

meet and discuss public business after some members of the public

had been directed elsewhere; and (3) by meeting privately with

the Band Director after the public meeting.

By letter dated September 30, 1998 we asked the School District

for its response to your complaint. The School District asked for

an extension of time until October 26, 1998, which we granted.

By letter dated October 21, 1998, the School District responded,

enclosing a copy of the notice and agenda for the September 17,

1998 meeting and the minutes. According to the School District,

at the time it posted the notice of the September 17, 1998

meeting, the School District did not expect a large crowd for the

group discussion with the PTA. A larger group of people showed up

after the September 15, 1998 resignation of the Band Director (Ty

Sponsler) wanting to know whether the School District would

accept his resignation. As stated in the School District’s

letter: “When it became apparent to the Board that night that a

large number of the members of the public who were in attendance

were there to discuss the band director’s resignation, the Board

believed it made adequate accommodations by indicating to those

parents that when the Board finished the discussion with the PTA

it would move to the cafeteria which would accommodate the large

number of music booster parents in attendance.”

The School District contends that it did not tell anybody to

leave the library. The music boosters were informed “that the

band discussion would be held in the cafeteria in order to

accommodate the large number of music boosters in attendance.This

is confirmed in the minutes.

As for the alleged “private” meeting afterwards, the School

District claims that two board members were approached by Mr.

Sponsler, who wanted to apologize to them about the circumstances

of the meeting. After a third board member approached, “Mr.

Morozowich walked up and informed the three that ‘you can’t talk

with him, this is a quorum.'”

By letter dated October 29, 1998, you responded to the School

Board’s letter. You dispute that the music boosters were able to

enter the library, but rather had to stand outside. You also

dispute that the meeting in the cafeteria started at 8:10 p.m.,

as the School Board contends. You claim that it started at 8:30

p.m. The remainder of your October 29, 1998 letter is a

reiteration of your original complaint.

1. Adequate Meeting Facilities

FOIA does not require that the meeting place of a public body

have a seat for every potential citizen. The selection of the

meeting site may violate the open meeting law only if it was

unreasonable. In making that determination, our Office “‘need not

look for optimal outcomes, but must seek to determine whether the

local governmental unit achieved a reasonable balance under the

circumstances presented at the time the decision was made.'”

Att’y Gen. Op. 96-IB23 (June 20, 1995) (quoting State v. Village

Board of Greendale, Wis. Supr., 494 N.W.2d 408, 420 (1993)).

At the time the September 17, 1998 meeting was scheduled, it was

reasonable for the School District to expect a smaller group of

people for the PTA group discussion. The School District had no

reason to expect the larger crowd of music boosters who showed up

concerned about Mr. Sponsler’s resignation two days before. It

was also reasonable for the School District to bifurcate the

meeting and address the resignation issue in a larger forum (the

cafeteria) to accommodate the music boosters. We find that the

site selections by the School District were reasonable, and did

not violate FOIA. The School District is not required to schedule

its meetings in a room (like the auditorium, as you would have

liked) to accommodate any possible number of persons who might

attend. It is only when a public body has reason to believe that

a large crowd is to be expected that larger accommodations may be

required under the open meeting law.

2. The Library Meeting

There is conflicting evidence whether any members of the public

were denied access to the library so as to be unable to hear and

participate in the PTA group discussion. According to the School

District, a number of music boosters did attend that meeting,

though the majority were not interested and went to the cafeteria

to await discussion of the resignation issue. You claim that the

music boosters were forced to stand outside the library, until

they were directed to go to the cafeteria.

The minutes tend to support the School District since there is

reference to an apology to the PTA “for the size of the group,”

suggesting the presence of the music boosters. For purposes of

FOIA, however, we do not have to resolve this factual dispute.

There is no evidence that the music boosters were interested in

the PTA issues being discussed in the library. They were there to

talk about the Band Director’s resignation, which was discussed

in the cafeteria, as you agree in your letter of October 29,

1998: “At approximately 8:30 P.M., the Board President called

upon the “Music Boosters” spokesperson for comment, followed by

individual comment from the Bank Director, individual parents,

students, and community members in attendance.” Whether the

meeting in the cafeteria started at 8:10 p.m. (according to the

School District) or 8:30 p.m. (according to you) is irrelevant.

We find no violation of the open meeting law with respect to the

PTA group discussion in the library.

3. The “Private Meeting” Afterwards

There is no evidence that the alleged “private” meeting by

several members of the board was a deliberate attempt to discuss

public business outside the requirements of the open meeting

laws. Even if Mr. Sponsler’s attempts to apologize to individual

members of the board were deemed a matter of “public business,”

it is not disputed that this “private session” (as you call it)

was “adjourned” after it was, as you describe it, “interrupted”

by you. At most, this may have been a technical violation of the

open meeting law which did not affect any substantial right of

the citizenry to be involved in the discussion of public

business.

Conclusion

Based on your complaint, the School District’s response, and the

documents provided to us, we determine that the School District

did not commit any violation of FOIA in connection with the

September 17, 1998 meeting.

Very truly yours,

W. Michael Tupman

Deputy Attorney General

Approved:

Michael J. Rich

State Solicitor

cc: The Honorable M. Jane Brady

Attorney General

Keith R. Brady, Esquire

Chief Deputy Attorney General

James D. Griffin, Esquire

Chrystyna L. Savitz

Opinion Coordinator