If a Delaware public body holds a virtual town hall with sign-in requirements and a waiting room, but only a few members attend, did they violate the open-meetings law?

Plain-English summary

Brandy Topolski challenged access to the Redding Consortium for Educational Equity's November 18, 2025 virtual town hall. She said the link required a Zoom account or sign-in and that she was put in a host-controlled waiting room. Her petition also raised concerns about unspecified earlier meetings, records requests, the role of the University of Delaware in handling Consortium records, and scheduling conflicts with other public bodies.

The Consortium submitted a sworn response saying it has 24 voting members and needs 13 for a quorum. At the town hall, one member spoke and six other members attended as silent observers. FOIA defines a meeting as a quorum gathered to discuss or act on public business. Relying on the sworn account, the AG found this event was not a meeting under FOIA and therefore found no violation in its virtual-access arrangements. The opinion did not decide whether the same Zoom settings would be permissible at a FOIA meeting.

The AG declined to consider the unspecified earlier meeting and records claims because they lacked enough detail. It also said scheduling overlap among bodies was not a FOIA petition issue. In its response, the Consortium agreed to direct its FOIA coordinator to respond as if the Consortium, rather than the University, were the relevant public body custodian of Consortium records. The opinion records that commitment without making a separate violation finding on records custody.

What this means for you

If you attended this town hall

The AG's ruling rests on the number of Consortium members who attended and the sworn account of their participation. It does not decide whether a sign-in requirement or host-controlled waiting room would satisfy FOIA when a quorum gathers for public business.

If you petition about other meetings or records

Identify the particular meeting or records request and what happened. The AG declined to consider Topolski's general claims about earlier, unspecified meetings and records requests because they were not specific enough for consideration.

If you handle Consortium records requests

The Consortium committed to having its FOIA coordinator respond as if the Consortium were the relevant public body custodian, instead of treating the records as the University's. The opinion reports this response; it does not adjudicate the status of any particular record.

Background and statutory framework

Under 29 Del. C. § 10002(j), a FOIA meeting is a formal or informal gathering of a public body's quorum to discuss or take action on public business. The opinion cites § 10004 for open meeting requirements and § 10005(c) for the public body's burden to show compliance. It cites § 10005(e) when declining to consider allegations without enough detail.

Footnote 11 cites earlier AG opinions 18-IB41 and 18-IB07. Each concerned a quorum present without discussion, deliberation, or action on public business. This opinion found that fewer than the Consortium's 13-member quorum attended the November town hall.

Common questions

Did the November 18 town hall count as a FOIA meeting?

No. The sworn response said seven members attended, while 13 were required for a quorum. The AG found no quorum discussing or acting on public business.

Did the AG approve Zoom sign-ins and waiting rooms for public meetings?

No. Because this event was not a FOIA meeting, the AG did not decide whether those access arrangements satisfy FOIA at a covered meeting.

Did the AG decide the complaint about overlapping meeting times?

No. It said scheduling overlap among public bodies handling related matters was not addressed through FOIA's petition process.

What happened to the records-custody concern?

The Consortium agreed to have its FOIA coordinator treat it as the relevant public body custodian in responses going forward. The AG did not make a separate records-custody violation finding.

Citations

• Statutes: 29 Del. C. § 10002(j) (meeting definition); § 10004 (open meetings); § 10005(c) (burden of proof); § 10005(e) (petition process).
• Case: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021).
• Prior AG opinions: 18-IB41 and 18-IB07 (footnote 11).

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/12/22/25-ib66-12-22-2025-foia-opinion-letter-to-brandy-topolski-re-redding-consortium-for-educational-equity/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2025/12/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-25-IB66.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
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
FRAUD DIVISION (302) 577-8600
ATTORNEY GENERAL
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
FAX (302) 577-2610

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Attorney General Opinion No. 25-IB66

December 22, 2025

VIA EMAIL

Brandy Topolski
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Redding Consortium for Educational Equity

Dear Ms. Topolski:

We write regarding your correspondence alleging that the Redding Consortium for Educational Equity violated the Delaware Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (“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. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Consortium did not violate FOIA at the November 18, 2025 meeting. The remaining claims are not appropriate for consideration.

BACKGROUND

The Consortium is a “legislatively created body charged with developing a proposal for redistricting the school districts in the City of Wilmington and northern New Castle County . . . to recommend to the State Board of Education.” 1 The Consortium held a public meeting on November 18, 2025. This Petition followed.

In the Petition, you allege that the Consortium violated the open meeting requirements in several ways. You argue that the Consortium created impermissible access barriers to this meeting, because the November 18, 2025 meeting link required you to create or sign in with a personal account to join the meeting, and when you entered the meeting, you were placed in a

1
Response, p. 3. host-controlled waiting room. You contend that the Consortium restricted public access to other previous unspecified meetings, including by using host-controlled waiting rooms, delaying or denying the admittance of attendees, and requiring logins through Zoom or third-party authentication. You also assert that the Consortium has ongoing transparency problems, including non-responsiveness to requests, difficulty obtaining records, confusion over the custody of records due to University’s supportive role to the Consortium, denying or redirecting requests for Consortium records pursuant to the University of Delaware’s FOIA exception, and failing to publish data, assumptions and analyses that are central to decision-making. You argue that the Consortium schedules meetings at the same time as other major educational bodies, making meaningful participation nearly impossible.

On December 1, 2025, the Consortium, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition and enclosed the affidavit of the Assistant Policy Scientist who administered the relevant meeting (“Response”). The Assistant Policy Scientist attests the statements in the Response were correct to the best of the Assistant Policy Scientist’s knowledge. The Consortium is comprised of twenty- four voting members, and thirteen members is a quorum. The Consortium explained that it has hosted multiple meetings to provide the public insight into and to receive feedback on redistricting proposals under consideration. At the November 18, 2025 Town Hall meeting, one Consortium member spoke, and six other members attended as silent observers; after the brief presentation, the floor was opened for comments and questions from the public. The Consortium argues that this meeting, which was attended by less than a quorum of members, was not a public meeting subject to FOIA’s open meeting requirements.

Even if the meeting was subject to FOIA, the Consortium argues that the meeting was compliant with FOIA. The Consortium states that the Zoom settings for this meeting included a “feature that requires individuals who join a Zoom meeting from a web browser to create or sign into an account with Zoom before joining the meeting.” 2 The Consortium also acknowledges that all the attendees and members were admitted to a host-controlled waiting room prior to the meeting. Such practices, the Consortium argues, did not restrict the public’s access, as evidenced by the large number of attendees. The Consortium contends that your broad claims about previous Consortium meetings are too general to allow for a tailored response. With respect to the treatment of the Consortium records as public records specific to the University of Delaware, the Consortium agrees that this practice should be altered and commits to direct the FOIA coordinator to respond as if the Consortium was the relevant public body custodian, rather than the University. Regarding the meeting scheduling, the Consortium notes that it endeavors to schedule according to times most convenient for all members and stakeholders but cannot guarantee that all Consortium members and the public can attend every meeting. The Consortium argues that any overlap in scheduling meetings does not constitute a violation of FOIA.

2
Response, p. 2.

2
 DISCUSSION

Delaware’s FOIA law “was enacted to ensure governmental accountability by providing Delaware’s citizens access to open meetings and meeting records of governmental or public bodies, as well as access to the public records of those entities.” 3 FOIA mandates that public bodies meet specific requirements when holding public meetings, including advance notice, posting notices and agendas, an opportunity for public comment, and maintaining meeting minutes. 4 A meeting of a public body must be open to the public, except in limited circumstances. 5 The public body has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with FOIA. 6 In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden. 7

As an initial matter, the Petition’s general allegations regarding unspecified past meetings and public records requests are not sufficiently specific to allow for consideration. Further, the Petition’s final claim regarding scheduling overlaps between the meetings of public bodies that handle related matters is not addressed through the FOIA statute and is not appropriately considered through the FOIA petition process initiated under Section 10005. 8

The remaining issue is whether the Consortium violated FOIA at the November 18, 2025 meeting in providing virtual access through a host-controlled waiting room with a sign-in or account requirement. A meeting under FOIA is defined as “the formal or informal gathering of a quorum of the members of any public body for the purpose of discussing or taking action on public business.” 9 The Consortium provided sworn statements that less than a quorum attended the meeting and only one member spoke during the meeting. 10 Based on these representations under oath, we find that a quorum of members did not engage in discussions or taking action on public business; thus, we find this was not a “meeting” as defined by FOIA. 11 We determine that the

3
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021).
4
29 Del. C. § 10004.
5
Id.
6
29 Del. C. § 10005(c).
7
Judicial Watch, Inc.,267 A.3d at 1008-1012.
8
29 Del. C. § 10005(e).
9
29 Del. C. § 10002(j).
10
Response, Aff. of Assistant Policy Scientist Haley Qaissaunee dated Dec. 1, 2025.
11
Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 18-IB41, 2018 WL 4385004, at 2 (Aug. 28, 2018) (finding no violation of FOIA when a quorum attended a committee meeting but did not discuss, deliberate, or reach a vote or consensus regarding public business); Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 18-IB07, 2018 WL 1061277, at 2 (Feb. 9, 2018) (determining that a gathering of a quorum of councilmembers at a 3
Consortium did not violate FOIA, as this meeting was not subject to the open meeting requirements.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Consortium did not violate FOIA at the November 18, 2025 meeting. The remaining claims are not appropriate for consideration.

Very truly yours,

__________
Daniel Logan
Chief Deputy Attorney General

cc: Caroline M. McDonough, Deputy Attorney General Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General

press conference did not constitute a “meeting” under FOIA because the Office had “no evidence of a discussion among the attending councilmembers during the press conference.”) (emphasis added).

4