Can a Delaware school board have police remove someone who won't stop yelling and disrupting a meeting?

Official title

09-IB02 5/05/09 Street v. Colonial School District

Plain-English summary

A New Castle County councilman complained that Colonial School District's superintendent mishandled a March 2009 board meeting: allegedly seizing a letter another attendee tried to distribute to board members, having a state trooper remove that attendee, and canceling public comment altogether.

The AG found most of this did not raise a FOIA issue at all. FOIA governs the public's right to observe government meetings, not the public's ability to hand documents to board members or to speak during a meeting; there was no FOIA right to distribute papers to a board and, citing its own precedent, no FOIA right to public comment in the first place, so even if the superintendent had canceled the comment period, that alone would not have violated FOIA. Sworn statements from eight witnesses instead showed the attendee, Mr. Hynson, loudly demanded the superintendent hand over a letter and refused to sit down for about six minutes, yelling the entire time, until a state trooper escorted him out. FOIA let a public body remove anyone who was "willfully and seriously disruptive" of a meeting, and the AG found that standard was clearly met here, so the district was justified in having him removed. The record also showed no one actually came forward to speak once the floor was opened for public comment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did Delaware's public meetings law give citizens a right to hand documents to board members during a meeting?

No, according to this opinion. FOIA was concerned only with the public's ability to observe a public body's meetings, not with the public's ability to communicate with or hand materials to that body.

How disruptive did someone have to be before a Delaware public body could have them removed from a meeting?

According to this opinion, the disruption had to be both willful and serious; refusing to sit down and yelling for several minutes, preventing the meeting from starting, met that standard.

If a school board canceled the public comment portion of a meeting, did that violate Delaware's open meetings law?

Not under this opinion, since FOIA did not require a public body to allow public comment in the first place. The AG also found no comment period was actually canceled here in any event.

Background and statutory framework

FOIA required that "all meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public, unless closed pursuant to statute," 29 Del. C. § 10004(a), and separately permitted a public body to remove any person "who is willfully and seriously disruptive of the conduct of such meeting." Id. § 10004(d).

The AG relied on the Delaware Court of Chancery's Reeder v. Del. Dept. of Ins. for the principle that FOIA does not require a public body to allow public participation at its meetings, reasoning that because FOIA is silent on whether the public may distribute papers to a public body and is concerned only with the opportunity to observe rather than to communicate, neither the alleged handling of the letter nor the alleged cancellation of public comment implicated the statute. On removal, the AG found that six minutes of yelling and refusing to sit down while the Board attempted to begin its meeting was both willful and a serious disruption, satisfying § 10004(d)'s standard for removing a member of the public.

Citations

• 29 Del. C. § 10004(a) (meetings of public bodies must be open to the public unless closed pursuant to statute)
• 29 Del. C. § 10004(d) (a public body may remove a person who is willfully and seriously disruptive of the conduct of a meeting)
• Reeder v. Del. Dept. of Ins., 2006 WL 510067 (Del. Ch. 2006) (Delaware state court; FOIA does not require a public body to allow public participation or comment at its meetings)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2009/05/05/611/
• Original PDF: not linked from landing page

Original opinion text

May 5, 2009

Councilman Jea P. Street

New Castle County Council

800 N. French Street, 8th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint

Against Colonial School District

Dear Councilman Street:

On March 11, 2009 you wrote to the Delaware Department of Justice (“DDOJ”)

asking for a determination as to whether the Colonial School District Board of Education

(“Board”) violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) as a result of specific

actions taken by the Board at its March 10, 2009 meeting. The DDOJ forwarded your

letter to the Colonial School District (“District”) and received their timely response, as

well as their prompt response to our further inquiry. This is the DDOJ’s determination of

your complaint pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005(e).

RELEVANT FACTS

You allege that at the March 10, 2009 Board meeting the District Superintendent

removed a letter that Mr. Devon Hynson had distributed to the Board members; that the

Superintendent had a State Trooper escort Mr. Hynson out of the building; and that the

Superintendent did not allow public comment and canceled the public recognition portion

of the meeting.

The District responds as follows: On March 10, a letter was placed for each

Board member on the table in front of each Board member’s seat when the Board

members came into the meeting room. The Superintendent, who is also the Executive

Secretary of the Board, was unaware of either the content or author of the letter. He was

reviewing the letter when Mr. Hynson approached him and began yelling. The District

submitted to the DDOJ eight letters from witnesses who observed Mr. Hynson’s

behavior. Each confirms that Mr. Hynson loudly insisted that the Superintendent submit

his letter to the Board members and that he refused to sit down, although, according to

the District, the Superintendent never removed the letters. The Board President decided

to postpone the start of the meeting, and the Board called the police. The meeting was

delayed about six minutes, until a State Trooper escorted Mr. Hynson from the meeting

room. According to the witnesses, Mr. Hynson was yelling the entire time. At the end of

the meeting, no one came forward to speak in the time allotted for public comment.

RELEVANT STATUTES

29 Del. C. § 10004(a) provides that all meetings of public bodies shall be open to

the public, unless closed pursuant to statute. 29 Del. C. § 10004(d) permits a public body

to remove any person “who is willfully and seriously disruptive of the conduct of such

meeting.”

DISCUSSION

The issue whether the Superintendent refused to allow the Board members to see

papers Mr. Hynson distributed does not implicate FOIA. FOIA is silent as to whether a

member of the public has the right to distribute papers to the members of a public body

when they gather for a public meeting. FOIA is not concerned with the public’s ability to

communicate with a public body, only with the public’s opportunity to observe that body.

For the same reason, FOIA does not require a public body to allow public participation at

its meetings. Reeder v Del. Dept. of Ins., 2006 WL 510067 (Del. Ch. 2006). No

evidence has been submitted that the Superintendent cancelled the public comment

portion of the March 10 meeting, but under Reeder it would not implicate FOIA if he

had.

As to the removal of Mr. Hynson from the meeting place, Mr. Hynson interfered

with the Board’s ability to begin the meeting—which was “disruptive of the conduct of

[the] meeting.” 29 Del. C. § 10004(d). The question, then, is whether Mr. Hynson was

“willfully and seriously disruptive,” as FOIA requires in order for a member of the public

to be removed. For at least six minutes, until a police officer escorted him out, Mr.

Hynson refused to sit down and be quiet, which indicates that Mr. Hynson had no

intention of allowing the meeting to begin. Such behavior was both willful and a serious

disruption of a meeting. Therefore, the District was justified in removing Mr. Hynson.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we determine that the Colonial School District did not

violate the Freedom of Information Act at the March 10, 2009 Board meeting.

Sincerely,

Judy Oken Hodas

Deputy Attorney General

cc: Sarah Murray, Opinion Coordinator

David H. Williams, Esquire