When a Delaware municipality reschedules a meeting, does the posted notice have to clearly identify the new date, time, and location?

Plain-English summary

The Village of Arden is an unusually structured municipality. Its governing body, the Town Assembly, consists of all residents of the Village, per § 4 of the Arden Charter. So Town Assembly meetings are essentially town meetings of the entire Village.

Warren Rosenkranz filed a § 10005 petition alleging that the Town Assembly's posted notice for a September 22, 2025 meeting was inadequate. Two specific problems:

1. The bulletin-board notice did not clearly state the time and place of the meeting.
2. The mailed postcard sent to residents was insufficient.

The Village responded with an affidavit from the Town Chair attesting that the notice had been posted on September 11, 2025 (more than seven days in advance), and that the notice included agendas for both the September 22 and September 29 meetings. The Village explained that the September 22 meeting needed to be rescheduled because of a holiday, and the notice reflected that.

The AG split the analysis:

1. Mailed-postcard claim: outside FOIA's scope. FOIA does not require mailed notice. It requires posted notice (and electronic posting). So whether the postcard was sufficient is not a FOIA question. The AG's authority under § 10005 is limited to FOIA, so the AG declined to address it.

2. Posted-notice claim: violation found. Under § 10004(e)(2), the seven-day-advance posted notice must include the agenda, the date, the time, and the place of the meeting. The Village's posted notice for September 22 did not clearly identify the rescheduled meeting's date, time, and location. The notice indicated that the September 22 meeting would address a motion and adjourn to reconvene on September 29, but it did not give a clear time or location for the September 29 meeting. The AG found this insufficient.

So the rescheduling itself was not the violation; the inadequate posted notice was.

What this means for you

If you are a Delaware municipal clerk handling a rescheduled meeting

When you reschedule a public meeting, treat it as if you are noticing a new meeting. The posted notice for the rescheduled meeting must contain:

1. The new date.
2. The new time.
3. The new location (or virtual meeting details if applicable).
4. The agenda.

A notice that says "we will adjourn and reconvene on [later date]" without giving the time and place of the reconvened meeting is not enough. The seven-day rule under § 10004(e)(2) applies to the rescheduled meeting too, so post the new notice at least seven days before the reconvened date if possible. If you cannot make seven days, document the emergency justification under the statute.

For routine rescheduling (holidays, weather), the cleanest approach is to (1) cancel the original meeting, (2) post a fresh notice for the new meeting with the full date, time, place, and agenda, and (3) post both as separate documents on the bulletin board and online.

If you are a Village of Arden resident or other small-municipality member

The Town Assembly model (where every resident is a member of the governing body) is unusual but the FOIA rules still apply. Posted notices on the bulletin board must give you the information you need to attend: when and where. If the notice is unclear, that is a FOIA violation, and you can file a § 10005 petition.

If you are filing a FOIA petition about meeting notice

Distinguish your claims:

1. Posted-notice claims are FOIA-cognizable. The standard is whether the notice was posted at least seven days in advance and contained the agenda, date, time, and place.

2. Mailed, emailed, or social-media notice claims are not generally FOIA-cognizable unless the underlying ordinance or charter requires them and incorporates them into the FOIA notice scheme. A mailed postcard that the Village chose to send is a courtesy, and FOIA does not regulate it.

Frame your petition around the FOIA-cognizable claims and document the deficiencies (photo of the bulletin-board notice, time-stamp of the online posting, etc.).

If you are a municipal attorney advising on FOIA notice

Build a notice template for posted notices. Mandatory fields:
1. Public body name.
2. Date of the meeting.
3. Time of the meeting.
4. Location (full street address) or virtual-meeting information.
5. Agenda with general statement of major issues.
6. Date the notice was posted.

Train clerks to use the template even for adjournments and rescheduling. The simpler the practice, the less likely you are to get a § 10005 violation finding for inadequate notice.

If you are a good-government advocate

Posted-notice violations are common and easy to document. Visit the bulletin board, take a photo, compare to the actual meeting that occurred. If the notice did not include date, time, and place, you have a FOIA violation. The AG will issue a finding even when (as here) the meeting was substantively legitimate; the procedural notice rule is independent of the meeting's content.

If you are involved in the broader Arden governance discussion

Arden's all-residents Assembly model creates unusual logistical questions about quorums and meetings. The AG opinion does not address those structural questions. It addresses one narrow procedural failure: a posted notice that did not clearly state the rescheduled meeting's time and place. The Village can fix this prospectively without changing its governance model.

Background and statutory framework

29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(2) sets the standard for posted notice of regular public meetings: at least seven days in advance, with the agenda (if determined), the date, the time, the place of the meeting, and (if applicable) whether the meeting is being conducted virtually under § 10006A.

The seven-day rule applies to "regular" meetings. For special meetings called on shorter notice, the statute permits abbreviated notice with documented justification (typically 24 hours or "as soon as reasonably possible"). Emergency meetings have their own rules.

The notice content rule is independent of the substantive meeting rules. A meeting can be properly conducted, with a quorum, on an appropriate topic, and still violate FOIA if the notice was inadequate. Conversely, a notice can be perfect and the meeting can still violate FOIA on different grounds (improper executive session, lack of public comment, etc.).

29 Del. C. § 10005(c) puts the burden on the public body. Judicial Watch v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021), requires sworn affidavit support in some cases. The Town Chair's affidavit supplied the factual record here, but the legal conclusion (notice insufficient) was independent of the affidavit.

29 Del. C. § 10005(e) limits the AG's authority to FOIA matters. Mailed-notice issues that fall outside the FOIA notice scheme are referred to whatever other framework governs them (Charter requirements, custom, courtesy practice).

Common questions

What does a proper FOIA notice look like?

A posted notice should clearly identify:
- Public body name (e.g., "Town Assembly of the Village of Arden")
- Meeting date (e.g., "Tuesday, September 29, 2025")
- Meeting time (e.g., "7:00 p.m.")
- Meeting location (e.g., "Arden Gild Hall, 2126 The Highway, Arden, DE 19810") or virtual meeting access information
- Agenda with a general statement of the major issues
- Date posted (so the seven-day rule can be verified)

What is the seven-day rule?

Under 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(2), notice of regular public meetings must be posted at least seven days in advance. The clock counts the day of posting and the day of the meeting (or excludes one of them depending on application; check with counsel for precise calculation in close cases). The rule's purpose is to give residents time to plan to attend and arrange their affairs.

Are virtual or hybrid meetings allowed?

Yes, under 29 Del. C. § 10006A. The notice must indicate whether the meeting is virtual or in-person, and provide access information (URL, dial-in number) for virtual meetings. The notice content rules still apply.

What happens if the meeting is rescheduled at the last minute?

The Village's approach (a notice that effectively announced rescheduling at the same time as the original meeting) was found insufficient. Better practice: (1) post a fresh notice for the rescheduled meeting with full date, time, place, and agenda, (2) post a cancellation notice for the original meeting, and (3) post both at least seven days before the rescheduled meeting whenever possible.

If the rescheduling happens too late for seven days advance notice, document the reason and post as soon as practical. The AG and courts have generally accepted shorter notice for legitimate operational reasons (holidays, weather, illness of essential staff) but the notice still has to be clear about the new date, time, and place.

Does FOIA require mailed notice or website posting?

FOIA requires posting the notice. Under § 10004(e)(2), the public body must post notice in at least one prominent place where public notices are normally posted, plus on the agency's website if it maintains one. Mailed notice is not required by FOIA. Some Charters or town ordinances require additional notice, but that is a separate body of law not enforceable through § 10005.

Can residents waive the notice requirement?

No. The notice rule exists for the public, not just for those who happen to attend. Even if all attendees consent to a meeting that did not have proper notice, the FOIA violation is established. The AG can still find a violation even with no resident objections.

What is the remedy for an inadequate notice?

The AG issues a finding of violation. The remedy is forward-looking: do better next time. The AG cannot retroactively invalidate decisions made at a meeting with inadequate notice; that would require Chancery Court action under § 10005(d). Practically, public bodies typically fix the procedural problem after an AG opinion to avoid escalation.

Is the all-residents Town Assembly unique to Arden?

Several Delaware villages and small municipalities use a town-meeting governance model. Arden's specific structure (a "Town Assembly" of all residents per Charter § 4) is described in the Village Charter. The FOIA rules apply uniformly to public bodies regardless of size or governance model.

What about the September 29 meeting itself?

The opinion does not address whether the September 29 meeting itself was properly conducted. The petition was about the notice problem for the September 22 meeting, which (per the notice) was supposed to adjourn and reconvene on September 29. The AG's violation finding is specifically about the inadequate posted notice; the meeting that happened (or did not happen) on September 29 is a separate question.

Citations

• Statutes: 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (FOIA); § 10004(e)(2) (seven-day notice); § 10005 (petition process); § 10005(c) (burden of proof); § 10005(e) (citizen right to petition); § 10006A (virtual meetings); Arden, Del., Charter § 4 (Town Assembly composition).
• Cases: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021).

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/10/20/25-ib53-10-20-2025-foia-opinion-letter-to-warren-rosenkranz-re-village-of-arden/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2025/10/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-25-IB53.pdf

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