If three neighboring Delaware villages hold a joint meeting to vote on a transportation plan at one village's town hall, is that a FOIA violation if the host hall is not in two of the villages?

Official title

23-IB20 07/12/2023 FOIA Opinion Letter to Warren Rosenkranz re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Villages of Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft

Plain-English summary

The three Delaware "Single Tax" Villages (Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft) sit adjacent to each other in northern New Castle County. They share a planning history that goes back to Henry George disciples in the early 20th century. They were considering a proposed transportation plan to enhance safety and mobility between the Villages.

Per the monthly newsletter that serves all three Villages, Ardentown and Ardencroft scheduled "special meetings" at Gild Hall in Arden on June 26, 2023 to vote on the plan. Arden scheduled a meeting at the same hall on the same date, not designated as either special or regular.

Warren Rosenkranz filed a FOIA petition. He argued (1) Ardentown and Ardencroft did not post notices on their websites, (2) the Ardentown charter required mailing notices to residents, which might not arrive in time, and (3) the meeting location (Gild Hall in Arden) was outside the geographic jurisdictions of Ardentown and Ardencroft.

The AG ruled for the Villages on all FOIA counts.

On website posting: 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(5) allows but does not require website posting of meeting notices. Some public bodies post on websites; FOIA does not compel it.

On charter-required mailings: questions about charter compliance are outside the AG's FOIA jurisdiction (§ 10005(e)). If the Ardentown Charter requires mailed notices, that question must be raised through Ardentown's own process or in court.

On meeting location: 29 Del. C. § 10004(g)(1) provides that a public body serving a Delaware political subdivision shall hold all its other meetings (other than regularly scheduled meetings) "within its jurisdiction or the county in which its principal office is located." Section 10004(g)(2) requires only "regularly scheduled" meetings to be held within the body's own jurisdiction. The two villages' meetings were noticed as "special meetings," and Gild Hall is in New Castle County (where all three Villages have their principal offices). The location was lawful. Arden's own meeting (whether designated special or regular) was held in Arden's own jurisdiction at Gild Hall, so it was also lawful.

What this means for you

For Delaware municipalities considering joint or regional meetings. Section 10004(g) is more permissive than people often assume. A regularly scheduled meeting must be held within the public body's own jurisdiction. But a special meeting can be held within the body's jurisdiction OR within the county where its principal office is located. So three adjacent municipalities in the same county can host their special meetings at one shared location without violating FOIA, as long as the host hall is in the same county as each body's principal office.

For Delaware municipalities considering school-board training. § 10004(g)(1) carves out an exception for school-board training: the Secretary of Education can approve out-of-county training as beneficial to school-board development. That exception does not apply to ordinary public-body meetings.

For Delaware citizens who track meeting notices. Don't rely on the website. FOIA does not require it. Public bodies are required to post notices and agendas at the meeting location, in the public body's office, and (if there is a designated bulletin board) at the bulletin board. Many bodies also post on websites and in newsletters; you should subscribe to whatever channels actually distribute the notices for your locality.

For three-village residents and other small-municipality residents in Delaware. Multi-jurisdiction joint planning is increasingly common (transportation, stormwater, public safety). The legal infrastructure under § 10004(g) supports it. If you object to a joint approach on policy grounds, raise the policy with each Village's governance; the FOIA notice and location requirements are not a barrier to joint meetings done correctly.

Common questions

What's a "Single Tax" Village?
Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft are three small communities in northern New Castle County founded on Henry George's economic philosophy: land is taxed but improvements (buildings) are not. They are governed by town meetings (Arden's Town Assembly) or boards (the other two), with rotating leadership. They occupy adjacent geography and share many functions including the monthly newsletter and Gild Hall.

Why does the meeting-location rule distinguish "regular" and "special" meetings?
The drafters of § 10004(g) recognized that public bodies sometimes need to meet outside their jurisdiction for legitimate reasons (emergency response coordination, joint planning with neighbors, fact-finding visits). The "within the county where its principal office is located" allowance gives that flexibility for special meetings while keeping regular ongoing operations rooted at home.

What's "Gild Hall"?
The Gild Hall (sometimes spelled Guild Hall) is a community building in Arden used for town meetings, performances, and community events. It is located in Arden's geographic jurisdiction.

Does the Ardentown Charter notice requirement matter for FOIA purposes?
Not directly. The Ardentown Charter may impose stricter or different notice requirements than FOIA does (mailed notices, longer advance times, etc.). Charter compliance is a question for Ardentown's own governance process or for the Court of Chancery. The AG's FOIA petition jurisdiction does not reach charter-only questions.

Are joint Village meetings actually three separate meetings or one big meeting?
Legally, three separate meetings, even if held at the same time and place. Each Village must vote separately as its own public body. The meeting notice and agenda for each Village must list that Village's planned business. Holding the three meetings sequentially at the same hall on the same day is a logistical convenience, not a fusion of the three bodies into one.

What about the requirement that meetings be open to the public?
This is unaffected. All three Villages' meetings on June 26, 2023 were open. The AG opinion does not address attendance issues, only location and notice.

Background and statutory framework

29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(5) addresses website posting of meeting notices and agendas. The statute permits but does not require such posting. AG opinions consistently confirm this.

29 Del. C. § 10004(g) governs meeting locations:
- (g)(1): A public body serving a political subdivision (city, town, school district) shall hold "all such other meetings" within its jurisdiction or the county in which its principal office is located.
- (g)(2): A "regularly scheduled meeting" (defined as one held on a periodic basis) must be held within the public body's own jurisdiction.

29 Del. C. § 10005(e) limits the AG's FOIA petition jurisdiction.

The geographic-county exception is most important for small adjacent municipalities, regional bodies, and inter-municipal collaborations. Large municipalities rarely need it because their own jurisdictions are spacious.

Citations

• 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(5): website posting permitted, not required
• 29 Del. C. § 10004(g), § 10004(g)(1), § 10004(g)(2): meeting location rules
• 29 Del. C. § 10005, § 10005(e): petition; jurisdiction
• 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007: Delaware FOIA chapter

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2023/07/12/23-ib20-07-12-2023-foia-opinion-letter-to-warren-rosenkranz-re-foia-complaint-concerning-the-villages-of-arden-ardentown-and-ardencroft/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2023/07/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-23-IB20.pdf

Original opinion text

KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400
CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-8500
DIVISION CIVIL RIGHTS & PUBLIC TRUST (302) 577-5400
FAMILY DIVISION (302) 577-8400
FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
FAX (302) 577-2610

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 23-IB20
July 12, 2023

VIA EMAIL
Warren Rosenkranz
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Villages of Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft

Dear Mr. Rosenkranz:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Villages of Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007 ("FOIA"). We treat this 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 determine that the Villages did not violate FOIA by failing to post the June 26, 2023 meeting notices on their websites or by scheduling these meetings to be held in Arden.

BACKGROUND
The Villages of Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft are considering a proposed transportation plan to enhance safety and mobility between the Villages. According to the notices in the Villages' monthly newsletter, the Villages of Ardentown and Ardencroft scheduled special meetings at Gild Hall in Arden on June 26, 2023 to vote on this transportation plan, and the Village of Arden scheduled a meeting on this same date and location that was not designated as a special meeting. You allege that after reviewing these meeting notices in the newsletter, you found that no notices about these upcoming meetings were posted to Ardentown's or Ardencroft's websites. You point to the Ardentown charter's notice provisions for special meetings, which include a requirement that the notices be mailed to residents. You state that according to the Chair of Ardencroft Town Assembly, the three Villages would meet to approve the plan on June 26, 2023. Further, you assert that the transportation plan comment period closes and a steering committee will consider comments on the plan before these scheduled meetings, and "[i]t is at this time unknown whether the formal meeting notices will arrive in time." You ask our Office to determine whether these circumstances are compliant with FOIA. In addition, you allege that the three Villages' notices planning the meeting location outside their respective geographic jurisdictions violates FOIA.

DISCUSSION
FOIA provides that "[a]ny citizen may petition the Attorney General to determine whether a violation of this chapter has occurred or is about to occur." The Petition first claims that Ardentown and Ardencroft failed to post meeting notices on their websites and the formal meeting notices required by the Village charters to be mailed may not timely arrive. FOIA does not require the Villages to post their meeting notices and agendas on their websites. Further, as the Code limits this Office's authority to considering allegations regarding the FOIA statute, we find that this Office lacks the statutory authority to address the claim about the timeliness of any meeting notices required by the Village charters.

Additionally, the Petition claims that the Villages violated FOIA by scheduling meetings outside the respective geographic jurisdictions of the Villages. FOIA requires that "every regularly scheduled meeting of a public body . . . be held within the geographic jurisdiction of that public body." A regularly scheduled meeting is defined specifically as any meeting "held on a periodic basis." The Villages' special meetings may be held "within [their] jurisdiction or the county in which its principal office is located." In this case, the notice provided with this Petition indicated that Ardencroft's and Ardentown's special meetings were scheduled for Gild Hall in Arden, which is located in New Castle County where all of the Villages are located. Arden's meeting is not designated as a special or regularly scheduled meeting in the meeting notice supplied, but Arden's meeting was scheduled to be held within its geographic jurisdiction, so under either designation, the meeting's location would be compliant with FOIA. Accordingly, we find that the three Villages did not violate FOIA by noticing these meetings to be held in Gild Hall in Arden.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the Villages have not violated FOIA by failing to post the June 26, 2023 meeting notices on their websites or by scheduling these meetings to take place in Arden.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Dorey L. Cole
Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

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

cc: Edward B. Rosenthal, Counsel to the Villages of Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft