Can a school board hold a meeting with only 24 hours' notice if weather delayed its scheduling?

Official title

03-IB09: F.O.I.A Complaint Against Christina School District

Plain-English summary

A resident complained that Christina School District gave less than seven days' notice of a February 26, 2003 meeting and then improperly went into executive session there. The district explained that a week of snow closures, including a roof collapse at one elementary school that had to take priority, had pushed back scheduling with outside consultants who were leaving the state that same evening, so the board posted notice just 24 hours ahead and explained why. The AG found that satisfied FOIA's reduced-notice rule for special meetings, since the law only requires stating a reason, not proving every detail of why the usual week's notice couldn't happen. The AG also reviewed the executive session minutes privately and confirmed the board's discussion, about issues the incoming superintendent would need to address, genuinely involved the names, competencies, and abilities of district employees, which is exactly what FOIA's personnel exception is meant to cover.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. 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

Q: Can a snowstorm justify giving less than seven days' notice of a public meeting?
A: Yes, according to this opinion, when the storm's disruption (school closures, an emergency like a roof collapse, and a scheduling conflict with outside consultants leaving the state) genuinely prevented the normal notice period, and the public body explains that reason in the notice itself.

Q: How detailed does the explanation have to be when a public body gives only 24 hours' notice of a meeting?
A: Not very, based on this opinion. The AG found FOIA requires only a stated reason for the shortened notice, not a detailed factual justification proving every step of why the standard week couldn't be met.

Q: What qualifies as a "personnel matter" that a school board can discuss in executive session?
A: A discussion that actually involves the names, competency, and abilities of individual employees or students, according to this opinion, which the AG confirmed by privately reviewing the session's minutes rather than just accepting the board's own label for the topic.

Background and statutory framework

The complaint concerned whether Christina School District's February 26, 2003 meeting, noticed only 24 hours in advance because of weather-related scheduling conflicts with departing consultants, satisfied FOIA's special-meeting notice rule under 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(3), and whether the board's executive session that day fit the personnel exception in 29 Del. C. § 10004(b)(9). Applying its own prior opinion, Att'y Gen. Op. 96-IB15, the AG found a stated reason, not a detailed factual showing, satisfies the shortened-notice requirement under 29 Del. C. § 10004(a) and § 10004(e)(2), and confirmed through in camera review that the executive session's actual content involved individual employees' names, competencies, and abilities as required by the personnel exception.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• 29 Del. C. § 10004(a), meetings of public bodies must be open to the public except for authorized executive session
• 29 Del. C. § 10004(b)(9), personnel-matters exception for executive session
• 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(2), standard seven-day advance notice requirement
• 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(3), 24-hour notice option for special meetings with a stated reason

Cases:

• Att'y Gen. Op. 96-IB15 (May 10, 1996), only a stated reason, not a detailed factual basis, is required to justify shortened meeting notice

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2003/05/06/03-ib09-f-o-i-a-complaint-against-christina-school-district/
• Original PDF: not linked from landing page

Original opinion text

May 6, 2003

Kent County – Civil Division (739-7641)

Ms. Bonnie S. Mucha

10 W. Elgin Court

Newark, DE 19702-4005

RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Christina School District

Dear Ms. Mucha:

On March 11, 2003, we received your letter alleging that the Christina School District ("the School District") violated the open meeting requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Ch. 100 ("FOIA"), by (1) not giving the public seven days' notice of a meeting on February 26, 2003; and (2) going into executive session at that meeting for a purpose not authorized by law.

By letter dated March 20, 2003, we asked the School District to respond to your complaint within ten days. We received the School District's response on April 2, 2003. We then asked the School District for a copy of the minutes of the executive session held on February 26, 2003 for our in camera review, which we received on April 4, 2003.

According to the School District, the February 26, 2003 meeting of the School District "was a special meeting held less than seven days after the scheduling decision was made. The

[School] District complied with the requirements of 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(3) by giving at least 24 hours notice of the meeting, and providing an explanation as to why 7 days notice could not be given." The notice of the meeting (a copy of which was attached to your complaint) confirms that the School District posted notice of the February 26, 2003 meeting on February 25, 2003 twenty-four hours in advance, and stated: "Less than 7 days notice of this meeting is being provided because the consultants involved in gathering the information which will be discussed are leaving the State on the evening of February 26, 2003, and the closing of school the week of February 17, 2003 [due to snow] interfered with the ability to schedule and post notice of the meeting."

The notice for the February 26, 2003 meeting also stated that the School Board would meet in executive session "to discuss issues and concerns in the District which must be addressed by the new Superintendent. This discussion will be pervaded by references to the names, competencies and abilities of District employees." The School District claims that FOIA authorized an executive session for this purpose to discuss "personnel matters." See 29 Del. C. § 10004(b)(9).

Relevant Statutes

FOIA requires that "[e]very meeting of all public bodies shall be open to the public execpt those closed for" for executive session as authorized by law. 29 Del. C. § 10004(a).

FOIA authorizes a public body to meet in executive session to discuss "[p]ersonnel matters in which the names, competency and abilities of individual employees or students are discussed, unless the employee or student requests that such meeting be open." Id. § 10004(b)(9).

As a general rule, FOIA requires public bodies to "give public notice of their regular meetings and of their intent to hold an executive session closed to the public, at least 7 days in advance thereof." 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(2). For special meetings, FOIA allows a public body to post notice "as soon as reasonably possible, but in any event no later than 24 hours of such meeting." Id. § 10004(e)(3). "The public notice of a special meeting . . . shall include an explanation as to why the [normal 7-day notice] could not be given." Id.

Legal Analysis

A. Notice

According to the School District, snow resulted "in the closing of all schools from February 17 to February 21 [2003]. . . The heavy snow caused the collapse of the roof at the Leasure Elementary School. The need to address the roof collapse, and relocate the Leasure students, pushed to the 'back burner' the rescheduling of the February 26, 2003 meeting with the consultants."

To notice a special meeting in less than seven days, FOIA "requires only a reason, not a detailed factual basis, why the seven-day requirement could not be met." Att'y Gen. Op. 96-IB15 (May 10, 1996). We determine that the School District satisfied that requirement in the notice of the February 26, 2003 meeting by explaining that the consultants had not been able to meet during the prior week because of heavy snow, and were scheduled to leave the State the evening of February 26, 2003.

B. Executive Session

We have reviewed in camera the minutes of the executive session on February 26, 2003, and are satisfied that the matters discussed by the School District fell within the personnel exception for executive session under FOIA.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we determine (1) that the School District did not violate FOIA by posting notice of the February 26, 2003 special meeting less than seven days in advance; and (2) that the School District did not violate FOIA by going into executive session because it discussed personnel matters authorized by law.

Very truly yours,

W. Michael Tupman

Deputy Attorney General

APPROVED

Keith R. Brady

Assistant State Solicitor

cc: The Honorable M. Jane Brady

Attorney General

David H. Williams, Esquire

Phillip G. Johnson

Opinion Coordinator