DE 25-IB53 2025-10-20

When a Delaware public body reschedules a meeting, does the posted notice have to clearly state the new date, time, and place?

Short answer: Yes. The AG found the Village of Arden violated FOIA because its posted notice did not clearly reflect the intended meeting and agenda along with a date, time, and location. The notice seemed to set a September 22, 2025 meeting without a time or location, to address a motion and then reconvene on September 29. The separate complaint about the mailed postcard was outside FOIA's scope, because FOIA does not require mailed notice.

Disclaimer: This is an official Delaware Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Delaware attorney for advice on your specific situation.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked at the bottom of this page, or PDF in the sidebar) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

View original AG opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The Village of Arden is a small municipality whose governing body, the Town Assembly, consists of all residents of the Village. Warren Rosenkranz filed a § 10005 petition alleging that the Town Assembly's posted notice for a September 22, 2025 meeting did not give notice of the time and place, and that the mailed postcard sent to residents was insufficient. He attached a photograph of the posted notice; the September 22 agenda included a call to order, a motion about polling, and an indication the meeting would adjourn and reconvene on September 29.

The Village responded through counsel with an affidavit from the Town Chair. It said the notice was posted on the bulletin board on September 11, 2025 (more than seven days ahead), that it included agendas for both the September 22 and September 29 meetings, and that the September 22 meeting was rescheduled due to a holiday.

The AG split the analysis:

Mailed postcard: outside FOIA's scope. FOIA does not require mailed notice, so the sufficiency of the postcard was not something the AG could review on a § 10005 petition.
Posted notice: violation found. FOIA requires a regular-meeting notice to be posted at least seven days in advance and to include the agenda (if determined) and the date, time, and place of the meeting, including whether it will be held virtually under Section 10006A. The AG concluded the posted notice did not clearly reflect the intended meeting and agenda with a date, time, and location. It seemed to set a September 22 meeting without a time or location, to address a motion with the intent to reconvene on September 29. That was a FOIA violation.

The rescheduling itself was not the problem; the unclear posted notice was.

What this means for you

If you are a Delaware public body that reschedules a meeting

The opinion treats a posted notice as deficient when it does not clearly reflect the intended meeting and agenda along with a date, time, and location. A notice that points to a later reconvened date without clearly stating that meeting's time and place did not satisfy FOIA here.

If you are a resident or petitioner

The AG can review the sufficiency of a posted notice under a § 10005 petition. It cannot review the sufficiency of a mailed notice, because FOIA does not require mailed notice; that claim falls outside what the AG may consider.

Common questions

What did the posted notice have to include?

The opinion states that a regular-meeting notice must be posted at least seven days in advance and include the agenda, if determined, and the date, time, and place of the meeting, including whether the meeting would be conducted under the virtual-meeting provisions in Section 10006A.

Why was the mailed-postcard complaint not decided?

Because FOIA does not require mailed notice. The AG explained that its review under § 10005 is limited to alleged FOIA violations, so the sufficiency of a mailing the Village chose to send was outside the scope of the petition.

Was the problem that the Village rescheduled the meeting?

No. The opinion did not treat rescheduling as the violation. The violation was that the posted notice did not clearly identify the rescheduled meeting with a date, time, and location.

What was the remedy?

The opinion is a determination that the Village violated FOIA by failing to post a sufficient notice. It does not order any further relief in the letter itself.

Background and statutory framework

Delaware's FOIA, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008, governs public meetings of public bodies. As the opinion describes it, notice of a regular public meeting must be posted at least seven days in advance and must include the agenda (if determined) and the date, time, and place of the meeting, including whether the meeting will be conducted under the virtual-meeting provisions of Section 10006A.

29 Del. C. § 10005 provides the petition process for asking the Attorney General to determine whether a FOIA violation has occurred. The opinion notes that this review is limited to FOIA matters, which is why the mailed-notice complaint fell outside its scope.

Source

Original opinion text

KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 25-IB53
October 20, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Warren Rosenkranz
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Village of Arden

Dear Mr. Rosenkranz:

We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the Village of Arden 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 Village violated FOIA by failing to post a sufficient notice for the meeting initially scheduled for September 22, 2025, but rescheduled for September 29, 2025.

BACKGROUND

The Village of Arden is a small municipality with a governing body, known as the Town Assembly, that consists of all residents of the Village. The Petition alleges that the Village's Town Assembly met on September 22, 2025, but that the meeting notice posted on the bulletin board did not give notice of the time and place for the meeting. The Petition also argues that the meeting was not properly noticed on the mailed postcard. The Petition attached a photograph of the posted notice; the agenda for the September 22, 2025 meeting included a "call to order," a motion about polling, and an indication the meeting was to adjourn and reconvene on September 29, 2025. The September 29, 2025 meeting included an agenda of items as well.

On October 3, 2025, the Village, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition ("Response"). The Petition includes the affidavit of the Town Chair of the Village Assembly, who attests to the factual accuracy of the Response to the best of the Chair's knowledge. The Village states that the notice included agendas for both the September 22, 2025 and September 29, 2025 meetings, with the "September 22 Agenda reflecting the need for that meeting to be rescheduled for September 29." The Village states that the September 22, 2025 meeting was rescheduled due to the holiday, and the notice was timely posted on the bulletin board on September 11, 2025.

DISCUSSION

The public body has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with FOIA. In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden. FOIA requires a meeting notice for a regular public meeting to be posted at least seven days in advance of a meeting. This notice is to include the agenda, if it has been determined, and the date, time, and place of the meeting, including whether the meeting would be conducted under the virtual meeting provisions in Section 10006A.

As the mailed notice of the meeting is not required by FOIA, the sufficiency of that mailing is not appropriate for this Office's consideration. This Office is limited to reviewing alleged FOIA violations and issuing determinations. Your claim in the Petition regarding the sufficiency of the mailed notice exceeds the scope of what this Office may consider under a petition initiated pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005.

The Petition contends that the posted meeting notice does not give adequate notice of the time and place of the September 22, 2025 meeting. We agree. Although the Town's September 22, 2025 meeting was cancelled and rescheduled for September 29, 2025, this posted notice does not clearly reflect the intended meeting and agenda, along with a date, time, and location for that meeting. Rather, the notice seemingly indicates a meeting for September 22, 2025, without identifying the time or location, to address a motion with the intent to reconvene on September 29, 2025. We find that this posted notice constitutes a violation of FOIA.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the Village violated FOIA by failing to post a sufficient notice for the meeting initially scheduled for September 22, 2025, but rescheduled for September 29, 2025.

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, Attorney for the Village of Arden