Can a Delaware village hold a fully virtual public meeting during the COVID emergency, and is an agenda that just lists 'officer reports' and 'old business' enough to satisfy FOIA?

Plain-English summary

The Village of Ardencroft, a small incorporated municipality in northern Delaware, planned to hold its March 17, 2022 Town Meeting fully virtually. Joe Berg filed a FOIA petition raising three complaints: the meeting should not have been virtual after the Governor lifted the COVID state-of-emergency proclamation on March 1, 2022; the agenda was mailed only two days before the meeting (FOIA requires seven days' notice); and the agendas for the prior year's meetings used such vague headings that residents could not tell what would actually be voted on.

The AG agreed with two of the three complaints. On the virtual format, the Governor had issued both a Termination of State of Emergency and a separate Declaration of Public Health Emergency on the same day. The Public Health Emergency was still in force on March 17, so the virtual meeting without an in-person anchor location was permitted under 29 Del. C. § 10006A(e). On the timeliness of the agenda, the Village did not provide evidence of when the agenda was actually mailed or posted, and the burden of proof under FOIA falls on the public body. Without that proof, the Village failed to demonstrate compliance.

On agenda content, the AG was direct: headings like "Officer's Reports," "Old Business," "New Business (as brought to the Town at the Meeting)," "Good & Welfare," and "Updates on ongoing Town Business" do not satisfy FOIA's requirement that an agenda alert citizens to major items so they can decide whether to attend. The Village had voted on a new trash management contract and a hazard mitigation plan under those vague headings. Telling residents to read the prior month's minutes to figure out what would be discussed is not a substitute for a specific agenda. The AG found a violation but declined to recommend invalidation given how much time had passed since the September 2021 meeting and the practical disruption that would cause.

What this means for you

If you serve on a small village or HOA board

This opinion is very practical. Many small Delaware municipalities (Ardencroft, Arden, Ardentown, and dozens of similar boards) use templated agenda headings inherited from old practice. The AG is telling those bodies that "Old Business" and "New Business" are not legally sufficient when actual decisions get made. Each substantive item that is reasonably foreseeable, a contract award, an ordinance, a budget item, a personnel matter, has to appear by name on the agenda.

Practical steps:

1. Stop using bare templates. Replace generic items with the actual subject when you know it. "Old Business" becomes "Old Business: 1) Trash management contract with [vendor]; 2) Hazard mitigation plan adoption."
2. Keep evidence of mailing and posting dates. The Village lost the timeliness claim because it had no proof. Postmark dates, dated screenshots of website postings, and contemporaneous notes are all adequate.
3. Treat truly unforeseen items separately. Section 10004(e)(3) lets you take up "additional items which arise at the time of the public body's meeting," but that means items that naturally evolve from a noticed item, not surprises you knew about earlier.

If you are a Delaware resident frustrated by vague agendas

You have a clean basis for a FOIA petition under 29 Del. C. § 10005(e). Save the agenda. Save the resulting minutes (which usually reveal what was actually voted on). If there is a mismatch (vague agenda heading, specific significant decision in the minutes), that is the violation. The AG's office accepts petitions by mail or email and reviews FOIA complaints filed within six months of the alleged violation.

You will not always get the action invalidated. The remedy here was just a recommendation that the Village update its practices. But two outcomes still help: the public body is now on notice and any future violation is harder to defend, and the practice change benefits everyone going forward.

If you handle municipal counsel work

The Village's defense was thin. It conceded the practice (vague agendas plus reliance on minutes), it had no documentary record of mailing dates, and it relied on Robert's Rules of Order as if those rules could override a FOIA statutory requirement. Robert's Rules govern how business is conducted at a meeting; FOIA governs what notice the public gets before the meeting. They do not interact.

Two specific holdings worth citing:

• A virtual meeting without an in-person anchor location is allowed during any declared state of emergency under § 10006A(e), not just one specifically about COVID. The Governor's Declaration of Public Health Emergency on March 1, 2022, was still a "state of emergency" within 20 Del. C. § 3102(10) even after the broader emergency proclamation was terminated.
• The "addition" route at § 10004(e)(3) is narrowly limited to items that "naturally evolve from a publicly-noticed item." A heading of "New Business" does not bootstrap unrelated items onto the agenda.

If you are a journalist covering small-municipality government

This opinion is a useful template. Watch for:

• Vague agendas. Compare the headings against the published minutes for the same meeting. The mismatch is the story.
• "Old Business" / "New Business" / "Updates" patterns. These are common in HOA-style governance and rarely defended.
• No-anchor virtual meetings after the broader pandemic emergency was lifted. The legal basis narrows once both the public-health declaration and any other emergency proclamation are terminated; check whether a specific declaration was still in force at the meeting date.

Common questions

Q: Can a Delaware public body still meet virtually with no in-person location?
A: Yes, in two situations. During a declared state of emergency under § 10006A(e). And outside an emergency, under § 10006A(b), a public body may meet virtually with an anchor location where the public can attend in person. A no-anchor virtual meeting outside an emergency is not permitted.

Q: How specific does an agenda have to be?
A: It must include "a general statement of the major issues expected to be discussed," and it has to be specific enough to "alert members of the public with an intense interest in the matter that the subject will be taken up." The AG and Court of Chancery have repeatedly said that bare-bones items like "Old Business," "New Business," or general department reports are not enough when significant items are known in advance.

Q: We only had a few days' notice of a contract award. Can we add it under "New Business"?
A: Probably not, unless it is genuinely an item that arose at the meeting itself or naturally flows from another agenda item. Under 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(3) and Op. 19-IB48, additional items added at the meeting must be "naturally evolved." A pre-known major contract should be on the agenda by name, or the meeting should be rescheduled or supplemented with a special-meeting notice.

Q: We mailed the agenda. The petitioner says it was late. Who has to prove what?
A: The public body has the burden of proof under § 10005(c). If you cannot show, with documentary evidence or a sworn affidavit from someone with personal knowledge, when the agenda was sent and posted, you will lose the timeliness claim. Calendars, postmarked envelopes, dated website snapshots, or a sworn statement from the clerk who handled the mailing are all options.

Q: The AG found a violation but did not invalidate the action. What happens?
A: Section 10005(a) says voidability is for the Court of Chancery, not the AG. Here, the AG declined to recommend invalidation because the Village had been operating under the September 2021 contracts for many months and unwinding them would harm innocent parties. Practically, the public body is on notice; future violations are easier to challenge in court; and the public body is expected to fix its practices going forward.

Q: Can residents bring a FOIA petition about meetings that happened more than six months ago?
A: Generally no. The AG's office applies a six-month rule "for fairness and practicality reasons" (Op. 17-IB31, 12-IIB11, 16-IB14). Exceptions are rare. Document violations promptly.

Background and statutory framework

Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007, declares it the state's policy that "public business be performed in an open and public manner so that our citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy." Three concrete pieces of that policy mattered here.

Notice and timing. Section 10004(e)(2) requires seven days' advance notice of regular meetings, including the date, time, place (or virtual format), and the agenda "if it has been determined." If the agenda is not posted seven days in advance, it must be posted at least six hours in advance, with the reasons for delay briefly set forth. The body must "conspicuously post" the agenda at its principal office (or, for virtual no-anchor meetings under § 10006A, on the relevant electronic posting). Section 10005(c) puts the burden of proving compliance on the public body, and Judicial Watch v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1011 (Del. 2021), holds that factual representations to meet that burden need to be sworn.

Agenda content. Section 10002(a) defines an agenda as a document including "a general statement of the major issues expected to be discussed at a public meeting." Court of Chancery decisions and prior AG opinions have layered on a specificity requirement: an agenda has to "alert members of the public with an intense interest in the matter" (Lechliter v. DNREC, 2017 WL 2687690, at 2 (Del. Ch. June 22, 2017), citing Ianni, 1986 WL 9610, at 4). Old AG opinions like 97-IB20 (1997) and 05-IB26 (2005) had warned that broadly stated headings violate "neither the spirit nor the letter" of FOIA when a specific subject is known and is being deliberately hidden behind a general label.

Virtual meetings. Section 10006A is the main change Delaware made to its open meetings law during the pandemic. It distinguishes routine virtual meetings (§ 10006A(b)) from virtual meetings during emergencies (§ 10006A(e)). The latter does not require an anchor location. The threshold question is whether a "state of emergency" exists, defined in 20 Del. C. § 3102(10) as "an emergency proclaimed pursuant to an emergency order by the Governor." On March 1, 2022, the Governor terminated the broader COVID-19 State of Emergency proclamation but issued a separate Declaration of Public Health Emergency. The AG read the Declaration of Public Health Emergency as a continuing emergency proclamation for § 10006A(e) purposes, so the Village's no-anchor virtual format on March 17 remained lawful.

Remediation. Section 10005(a) reserves invalidation of a public body's action to the Court of Chancery. The AG can recommend remedies but cannot invalidate. Where action has been taken in good faith and unwinding it would harm third parties, the AG typically recommends prospective fixes (here, just "revise its practices") rather than reopening past decisions.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- 29 Del. C. § 10001 (FOIA purpose)
- 29 Del. C. § 10002 (Definitions, including "agenda")
- 29 Del. C. § 10004 (Open meetings, notice, agenda)
- 29 Del. C. § 10005 (Enforcement and AG petitions)
- 29 Del. C. § 10006A (Virtual meetings)
- 20 Del. C. § 3102 (Definitions, "state of emergency")

Cases:
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021) (Delaware Supreme Court; sworn-affidavit requirement)
- Lechliter v. Del. Dep't Nat. Res. and Env'tl Control, 2017 WL 2687690 (Del. Ch. June 22, 2017)
- Ianni v. Dep't of Elections of New Castle Cnty., 1986 WL 9610 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 1986)

Prior AG opinions:
- Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB38 (Aug. 11, 2017) (delay-in-posting practice violates FOIA)
- Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 17-IB31 (July 24, 2017) (six-month rule for petitions)
- Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 05-IB26 (Aug. 29, 2005) (general agenda headings insufficient)
- Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 97-IB20 (Oct. 20, 1997) (specificity requirement)
- Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 19-IB48 (Sept. 9, 2019) (additional-items rule narrowly limited)
- Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 21-IB21 (Sept. 27, 2021) (general label "School Year Plan" insufficient for mask-mandate vote)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2022/04/14/22-ib10-04-14-2022-foia-opinion-letter-to-joe-berg-re-foia-complaint-concerning-the-village-of-ardencroft/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2022/04/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-22-IB10.pdf

Original opinion text

PRINT VERSION: Attorney General Opinion No. 22-IB10

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Attorney General Opinion No. 22-IB10

April 14, 2022

VIA EMAIL

Joe Berg

[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Village of Ardencroft

Dear Mr. Berg:

We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Village of Ardencroft violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007 ("FOIA"). We treat your correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 regarding whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As discussed more fully herein, we conclude that the Village violated FOIA by failing to demonstrate it gave timely notice of its March 17, 2022 meeting agenda and failing to adequately describe the major items expected to be discussed on its agendas. We find that the Village did not violate FOIA by meeting without an anchor location at its March 17, 2022 virtual meeting.

BACKGROUND

The Village of Ardencroft is an incorporated municipality established by the State of Delaware and governed by the Charter of Ardencroft. [1] The Village planned to hold a virtual public Town Meeting on March 17, 2022. [2] This Petition was filed prior to the meeting and asserts that the agenda was received in the mail two days before the meeting but should have been received two weeks in advance. The Petition asserts that despite multiple new issues being presented at various board meetings, the agenda over the past year has not been updated. For example, you note that at the September 16, 2021 meeting, the Village voted to hire a new trash management company and voted to adopt a hazard mitigation plan without prior notice to the public. Both the September 2021 and March 17, 2022 agendas were included with the Petition, citing various general topics, such as officer reports, updates on ongoing Town Business, and committee reports. You further allege that the meeting was noticed as virtual, but you believe it should have been held in person due to the Governor's issuance of the Termination of State of Emergency for the State of Delaware Due to Public Health Threat on March 1, 2022. You contend that the March 17th meeting should be rescheduled.

Counsel to the Village provided a response on March 24, 2022 ("Response"). The Village states that there are three issues to consider: 1) the virtual format of the meeting; 2) the delivery and content of the meeting agenda; and 3) the request to postpone the March 17th meeting. The Village asserts that it is permitted by 29 Del. C. § 10006A(b) to hold its meetings in a virtual format outside of a public health emergency. With respect to the delivery and content of the agenda, the Village contends that FOIA does not require the agenda to be sent two weeks in advance, and the Charter and By-laws have no such requirement. The Village sets the dates of the meetings months in advance and when the agendas are determined, they are mailed to each resident, along with a copy of the prior meeting's minutes. For new items, the Village states that it follows Robert's Rules of Order which allow for the introduction of new business. The Village asserts that the Charter and By-laws have no requirements for the content of an agenda; the discussion items that are tabled for the next meeting are noted in the minutes, and the minutes, which are included in the mailing to the residents, are approved at the start of the meeting. The Village asserts that the specific items you cited would have been contained in the minutes as on-going topics for discussion. Regarding the request to reschedule, the Village notes that this request is moot, as the meeting has already been held, and even if it wanted to reschedule, the Village did not receive your request in time to give the twenty-four hours' notice required for a rescheduled meeting. The Village states that the dates for the future meetings are posted many locations, including the Village's website and a monthly publication serving Arden, Ardencroft, and Ardentown, and are listed on the mailed agendas as well.

DISCUSSION

A public body carries the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with FOIA. [3] In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden. [4] This Petition presents three allegations for consideration: 1) the fully virtual format of the March 17, 2022 meeting was improper under FOIA; 2) the March 17, 2022 meeting agenda was not timely posted as required by FOIA; and 3) the agendas for the past year's meetings provide insufficient detail of the items discussed, as required by FOIA. [5] We address each claim in turn below.

Virtual Format of the March 17, 2022 Meeting

The Petition claims that the March 17, 2022 meeting was required to be held in person and further alleges that the fully virtual format was improper. "During a state of emergency, a public body may hold a virtual meeting at which members participate through the use of an electronic means of communication without an anchor location" if certain requirements are met, including the requirements contained in both subsections (c) and (e). [6] In other words, during a state of emergency, a public body does not have to provide a physical location where the public can attend in person.

On March 1, 2022, the Governor issued a Termination of State of Emergency for the State of Delaware due to a Public Health Threat, along with a Declaration of a Public Health Emergency for the State of Delaware. A "state of emergency" is broadly defined as "an emergency proclaimed pursuant to an emergency order by the Governor." [7] The definition also states that "all emergency orders issued under this chapter shall indicate the nature of the emergency or disaster, the area or areas threatened, and the conditions which have brought it about and may limit the order to a geographic area or specific resources." [8] It is evident from the title that the Declaration of a Public Health Emergency for the State of Delaware continues to proclaim a public health emergency. It is an order issued "pursuant to Title 20, Chapter 31, Subchapter V of the Delaware Code, to control and prevent the spread of COVID-19 within the State of Delaware." As this order continues to declare an emergency related to COVID-19, we determine that a state of emergency for purposes of Section 10006A was in effect at the time of the March 17, 2022 meeting. As such, we find that the Village was permitted under FOIA to hold its meeting fully virtual.

Timeliness of the March 17, 2022 Meeting Agenda

The Petition asserts that the agenda for the March 17, 2022 meeting was not provided on a timely basis. FOIA requires that public bodies give at least seven days' notice of any meetings and shall include "the date, time, and place of a meeting, including whether the meeting will be conducted under § 10006A of this title" and the agenda, if it "has been determined." [9] If the agenda is not posted at least seven days in advance with the public notice of the meeting, the agenda must be posted at least six hours in advance of the meeting, and the reasons for the delay in posting must be briefly set forth in the agenda. Public bodies must conspicuously post the agenda at the principal office of the public body or if no such office exists, the place where the meetings are generally held, unless the meeting is virtual without an anchor location in accordance with Section 10006A. [10] As the March 17, 2022 meeting took place during a state of emergency, the Village was not required to post at those physical locations. Absent a specific requirement for the manner of publishing notice, we consider the facts presented to determine if the Village's manner of publishing notice reasonably meets FOIA's requirement of notifying the public of the March 17, 2022 meeting and its agenda seven days in advance.

The Village sets its meeting dates many months in advance and thus, claims it cannot set the agenda at the time the meetings are set. The Village's attorney states that the dates of the public meetings are published various places, including a local publication and on its website. The Village did not provide copies of such notices, nor specify when the agendas were mailed, except to say they are mailed after the agenda is determined. [11] As the Village has not submitted competent evidence of when the agendas are mailed, published to its website, or otherwise publicly noticed, we determine that the Village has not demonstrated that the agenda for the March 17, 2022 meeting was timely provided to the public in accordance with FOIA.

Content of the Meeting Agendas

The Petition finally asserts that the agendas for the past year do not adequately describe the items for discussion. We consider the propriety of the Village's agendas for meetings occurring in the last six months before the Petition. [12] FOIA requires that an agenda must "include but is not limited to a general statement of the major issues expected to be discussed at a public meeting, as well as a statement of intent to hold an executive session and the specific ground or grounds therefor under § 10004(b) of this title." [13] The agenda should "'alert members of the public with an intense interest in' the matter that the subject will be taken up by the [public body]." [14] "In other words, members of the public interested in an issue should be able to review a notice and determine that an issue important to them will be under consideration." [15] This Office has determined that "[w]hile the statute requires only a 'general statement' of the subject to be addressed by the public body, when an agency knows that an important specific aspect of a general subject is to be dealt with, it satisfies neither the spirit nor the letter of the Freedom of Information Act to state the subject in such broad generalities as to fail to draw the public's attention to the fact that specific important subject will be treated." [16] In this instance, the provided agendas merely state general topics: "Officer's Reports," "Standing Committee Reports," "Special Committee Reports," "Old Business," "New Business (as brought to the Town at the Meeting)," "Good & Welfare," "Updates on ongoing Town Business" and "Committee Reports." [17] This Office has previously determined that general headings such as these are not sufficient to give notice of items that the public body intends to discuss at the meeting. [18] In this case, the Village states that it describes the old business items for discussion in the minutes and includes the minutes with its agenda mailing; we find that this practice does not comply with the requirements of FOIA.

The Village also argues that it is permitted to raise new items of business at the meeting without notice, pursuant to Robert's Rules of Order. Section 10004(e)(3) states that an agenda may include additional items which arise at the time of the public body's meeting. However, these additional items are limited to those items that naturally evolve from a publicly-noticed item that is already on the agenda. [19] Despite the general categories noted on the agenda, the minutes from the September 2021 meeting indicate that the Village is discussing and taking action on specific contracts and other major items that could have been better described on the agenda. FOIA requires that the agenda provide notice of the major items intended for discussion and that those items should be added to the agenda with sufficient specificity to alert members of the public with an intense interest in the matters for discussion. [20] Thus, we find that the Village's practice over at least the last six months of failing to specifically describe major items of old and new business on its agendas that are intended for discussion or action violates FOIA.

Remediation

Having found that the Village violated FOIA by failing to provide a timely agenda for the March meeting and failing to provide sufficiently specific agendas for at least the past six months, we must determine whether to recommend any remediation. While any action taken at a meeting in violation of FOIA may be subject to invalidation by the Court of Chancery, it is unclear whether a court would invalidate any of the items that were discussed and approved at these meetings. [21] The factual record does not clearly establish all the items of public business discussed in that time. The examples provided are the trash management company contract and hazard mitigation plan approved at the September 2021 meeting. As these items have been approved and presumably implemented for many months, a court would likely consider the legal and public health issues involved with invalidating such items. Accordingly, on this record, we decline to recommend any specific remedial action. Instead, we recommend that the Village revise its practices related to these violations to comply with FOIA in the future.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we determine that the Village violated FOIA by failing to demonstrate that it gave timely notice of its March 2022 meeting agenda. We also find that the Village's practice of not describing the major items expected to be discussed at the meeting on its agendas violates FOIA. However, conducting the March 17, 2022 meeting in a virtual format without permitting in-person attendance did not constitute a violation.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Dorey L. Cole

Dorey L. Cole

Deputy Attorney General

Approved:

/s/ Aaron R. Goldstein

Aaron R. Goldstein

State Solicitor

cc: Edward B. Rosenthal, Attorney for the Village

[1] Response, p. 1.

[2] According to the Charter, "[t]he government of the Village and the exercise of all powers conferred by this Act, except as otherwise provided herein, shall be vested in the Town Meeting of the Village of Ardencroft, . . . .'" The Town Meeting consists of all the persons over the age of eighteen who have resided in the Village for a period of 30 consecutive days. For purposes of this Opinion, we refer to the governing body as the "Village."

[3] 29 Del. C. § 10005(c).

[4] Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del ., 267 A.3d 996, 1011 (Del. 2021) (holding that "any person seeking to establish facts based on personal knowledge must do so under oath, regardless of that person's title or profession").

[5] This Office's authority is limited to determining claims involving FOIA. 29 Del. C. § 10005(e) ("Any citizen may petition the Attorney General to determine whether a violation of this chapter has occurred or is about to occur."). Thus, all claims regarding the Village Charter or By-laws are not considered herein.

[6] 29 Del. C. § 10006A(e).

[7] 20 Del. C. § 3102(10).

[8] Id.

[9] 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(2).

[10] 29 Del. C. §§ 10004(e), 10006A(e).

[11] This Office considered a similar practice of delaying agendas in Attorney General Opinion No. 17-IB38. In that case, the City of Wilmington set its meeting dates at the beginning of the year, and by noon on the day before the meeting, the agendas were posted. This Office determined that this practice of routinely delaying the posting of the agenda violated FOIA. The purpose of posting the agenda is to alert citizens so that those interested in an agenda item will know to attend the meeting, and requiring a reason for the delay for an agenda posted after seven days implied that a delay in posting the agenda is intended to be the exception to the rule. Del. Op. Att'y Gen . 17-IB38, 2017 WL 3628771, at 5 (Aug. 11, 2017) (citing Ianni v. Dep't of Elections of New Castle Cnty., 1986 WL 9610, at 4 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 1986)). This Office held that "we do not interpret FOIA to permit a public body to avoid posting an agenda at least seven days in advance of a meeting by noticing the meeting itself so far in advance that the agenda for each specific meeting cannot ever be available." Id.

[12] DEL. DEP'T. JUST., RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR FOIA PETITIONS AND DETERMINATIONS, at 3 (2019), https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites

/50/2019/09/DDOJ-Rules-of-Procedure-for-FOIA-Petitions-and-Determinations.9.26.19.pdf ; see also Del. Op. Att'y Gen . 17-IB31, 2017 WL 3426271, at 1 (July 24, 2017) (stating "this Office does not generally consider petitions alleging FOIA violations occurring more than six months prior to our receipt of the petition" and "this is a general rule that we adhere to 'for fairness and practicality reasons'"); Del. Op. Att'y Gen . 16-IB14, 2016 WL 3462345, at 2 (June 9, 2016); Del. Op. Att'y Gen . 12-IIB11, 2012 WL 5894039, at *5 (Nov. 7, 2012) ("We believe your petition is untimely and you have provided us with no reason to deviate from our long-standing policy and practice in this case."); Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 05-IB26, 2005 WL 3991284, n. 3 (Aug. 29, 2005).

[13] 29 Del. C. § 10002(a).

[14] Lechliter v. Del. Dep't Nat. Res. and Env'tl Control , 2017 WL 2687690, at 2 (Del. Ch. Jun. 22, 2017) (citing Ianni, 1986 WL 9610, at 4).

[15] Id.

[16] Del. Op. Att'y Gen . 97-IB20, 1997 WL 800814 (Oct. 20, 1997) (citing Ianni , 1986 WL 9610, at *5) .

[17] Petition.

[18] Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 05-IB26, 2005 WL 3991284, at *6 (Aug. 29, 2005) ("If a matter of public business had been the subject of discussion at a previous public meeting and is to be discussed again, there is no reason why the public body cannot be more specific in the agenda. Otherwise, a public body could re-visit any issue discussed at any previous meeting.")

[19] See, e.g., Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 19-IB48, 2019 WL 5208244, at *3 (Sep. 9, 2019).

[20] See, e.g., Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 21-IB21, 2021 WL 4786751, at *2-3 (Sept. 27, 2021) (finding that "2021-2022 School Year Plan (D)" was insufficient notice of votes on two mask mandates).

[21] 29 Del. C. § 10005(a).