If a Delaware town's meeting agenda lists a 'Second Reading: Resolution' on a property tax rate, but the council actually does the first reading of an ordinance instead, is that a FOIA violation?

Plain-English summary

The Town of Blades's November 10, 2025 Council agenda listed “Second Reading: Resolution 2025.10.27.0001 Real Estate Property Tax Rate.” A December 2 agenda listed the second reading of Ordinance No. 439 on the same tax rate subject. According to John Reiss's petition, the Mayor said at the November meeting that the Council had changed the listed resolution to Ordinance No. 439. Reiss argued that the agenda failed to notice the ordinance's first reading.

The AG found no FOIA violation. FOIA does not mandate a process for noticing first or second readings of proposed ordinances; that municipal practice was outside this opinion's scope. FOIA does require an agenda to state the major issues the body expects to discuss in plain, comprehensible language. The AG found that the listed real estate property tax rate item alerted a citizen with an intense interest in the change that the Council would address that subject. The agenda did not have to describe every alternative that might occur concerning it.

What this means for you

If you draft a Delaware municipal agenda

Describe the major issue in language the public can understand. Here, the agenda identified the real estate property tax rate, and the AG found that description adequate for the tax rate subject despite the difference between the listed resolution and the alleged first ordinance reading. This opinion addresses FOIA notice for these facts; it leaves municipal reading procedure undecided.

If you follow town tax decisions

The AG treated the November agenda's tax rate description as notice that the Council would address the tax rate. The opinion does not determine whether Ordinance No. 439 was adopted or whether the Town followed its own reading procedure.

If you challenge meeting notice

The question this opinion answered was whether the agenda alerted interested members of the public to the tax rate subject. Reiss's objection to the reading procedure did not establish a FOIA violation on this record.

Background and statutory framework

Delaware FOIA seeks to let citizens observe public officials and monitor policy decisions. The opinion cites 29 Del. C. § 10004 for the open meeting rule and § 10005(c) for the public body's burden to show compliance in an action under that section. It cites § 10005(e) for the Attorney General's authority to determine alleged FOIA violations.

The agenda standard is a “general statement of the major issues” expected for discussion, in “plain and comprehensible language.” The item should alert people with an intense interest that the subject will be taken up. The opinion applied that standard to the specific tax rate item, while saying the agenda need not describe every alternative concerning that subject.

Common questions

Did the November agenda have to say “first reading of Ordinance No. 439”?

The AG found no FOIA violation from that omission. The agenda's real estate property tax rate item adequately identified the subject the Council intended to address.

Did the AG decide whether the Council followed municipal reading rules?

No. The opinion says FOIA does not mandate a process for noticing first and second readings of proposed ordinances and treats that municipal practice as outside its scope.

What did the December 2 agenda say?

It listed the “Second Reading of Ordinance 439: Real Estate Property Tax Rate Change Ordinance Adopting The Change Of Real Estate Property Tax Rate.” The opinion does not report the outcome of that meeting.

Citations

• Statutes: 29 Del. C. § 10001 (FOIA purpose); § 10002(a) (agenda content); § 10004 (open meetings); § 10005(c) (burden of proof); § 10005(e) (Attorney General petition authority).

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/12/16/25-ib63-12-16-2025-foia-opinion-letter-to-john-reiss-re-town-of-blades/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2025/12/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-25-IB63.pdf

Original opinion text

CIVIL DIVISION (302) 577-8400
CRIMINAL DIVISION (302) 577-8500
DIVISION CIVIL RIGHTS & PUBLIC TRUST (302) 577-5400
KATHLEEN JENNINGS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION (302) 577-8400 ATTORNEY GENERAL 820 NORTH FRENCH STREET FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
FAX (302) 577-2610

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Attorney General Opinion No. 25-IB63

December 16, 2025

VIA EMAIL

John Reiss
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Town of Blades

Dear Mr. Reiss:

We write in response to your correspondence dated November 24, 2025, alleging that the Town of Blades 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 Town did not violate FOIA by failing to convey in its agenda that a first reading of Ordinance No. 439 regarding the real estate property tax rate was planned for the Town Council’s November 10, 2025 meeting.

BACKGROUND

The Town Council held a meeting on November 10, 2025 with an agenda item named “Second Reading: Resolution 2025.10.27.0001 Real Estate Property Tax Rate.”1 At the December 2, 2025 Council meeting, the agenda included the item: “Second Reading of Ordinance 439: Real Estate Property Tax Rate Change Ordinance Adopting The Change Of Real Estate Property Tax Rate.”2 The Petition alleges that at the November meeting, the Mayor advised the Council had changed the resolution on the agenda to Ordinance No. 439. You allege that the Town violated

1
Petition.
2
Id.
1
FOIA, because the first reading of Ordinance No. 439 was not posted on the November meeting agenda.

DISCUSSION

FOIA is intended to ensure that public business is done in the open, “so that . . . 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.”3 FOIA requires a meeting of a public body to be open to the public, except in limited circumstances.4 In any action brought under Section 10005, the public body has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with FOIA.5

This Office’s authority is limited to determining alleged violations of the FOIA statute.6 The Petition claims that the Town Council violated FOIA by failing to provide notice that a first reading of Ordinance No. 439 regarding the real estate property tax would occur at the meeting. However, FOIA does not mandate a process for noticing first or second readings of proposed ordinances; this municipal practice falls outside the scope of this Opinion.

Instead, FOIA requires sufficient notice be provided in any meeting agenda for the items intended to be discussed. An agenda for a public meeting must include a “general statement of the major issues” which a public body expects to discuss7 and must be worded in “plain and comprehensible language.”8 “In order that the purpose of the agenda requirement be served, [a meeting item] should, at least, ‘alert members of the public with an intense interest in’ the matter that the subject will be taken up by the [public body].”9 While the public body must provide

3
29 Del. C. § 10001.
4
29 Del. C. § 10004.
5
29 Del. C. § 10005(c).
6
29 Del. C. § 10005(e) (“Any citizen may petition the Attorney General to determine whether a violation of [FOIA] has occurred or is about to occur. “); see, e.g., Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 20-IB28, 2020 WL 7663557, at 2 (Nov. 9, 2020) (“These matters of municipal law, concerning the authority of the Council President or Mayor, are outside the scope of the FOIA statute, and thus, we make no determination regarding these issues.”). 7 29 Del. C. § 10002(a).
8
Chem. Indus. Council of Del. v. State Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., 1994 WL 274295, at 8 (Del. Ch. May 19, 1994).
9
Lechliter v. Del. Dep’t of Natural Res. & Envtl. Control, 2017 WL 2687690, at 2 (Del.
Ch. Jun. 22, 2017) (quoting Ianni v. Dep’t of Elections of New Castle Cnty., 1986 WL 9610, at 4 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 1986)).
2 enough information to alert the public that a subject will be undertaken, the agenda’s description need not provide for “every alternative that may take place with respect to a specific subject under consideration.”10 We determine that this item, “Second Reading: Resolution 2025.10.27.0001 Real Estate Property Tax Rate,” on the November 10, 2025 meeting agenda provided adequate notice to a citizen with an intense interest in the real estate property tax rate change that the Council intended to address this subject at this meeting. Thus, we find no violation of FOIA in this regard.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Town did not violate FOIA by failing to convey in its agenda that a first reading of Ordinance No. 439 regarding a real estate property tax rate was planned for the Town Council’s November 10, 2025 meeting.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Dorey L. Cole
________
Dorey L. Cole
Deputy Attorney General

Approved:

/s/ Patricia A. Davis
________
Patricia A. Davis
State Solicitor

cc: Michael R. Smith, Attorney for the Town of Blades

10
Lechliter v. Becker, 2017 WL 117596, at *2 (Del. Ch. Jan. 12, 2017) (finding that an agenda stating a lease amendment would be presented and considered was sufficient notice that a vote on this lease amendment might occur).
3