Report of the

Delaware Department of Justice

on the Monitoring of the Christina School
District Board of Education

September 26, 2025

Table of Contents
Introduction and Relevant Law ............................................................................................................3
Review & Findings ...............................................................................................................................4
Board Meetings......................................................................................................................................4
July 9, 2024 Board Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................4
August 13, 2024 Board Meeting ................................................................................................................................................4
September 11, 2024 Board Meeting..........................................................................................................................................5
October 8, 2024 Board Meeting ................................................................................................................................................5
December 10, 2024 Board Meeting ..........................................................................................................................................5
January 14, 2025 Board Meeting ...............................................................................................................................................6
January 28, 2025 Workshop .......................................................................................................................................................6
January 31, 2025 Board Meeting ...............................................................................................................................................6
February 11, 2025 Board Meeting.............................................................................................................................................7
March 5, 2025 Policy Review Committee Meeting ................................................................................................................7
March 11, 2025 Board Meeting .................................................................................................................................................7
April 1, 2025 Policy Review Committee Meeting...................................................................................................................8
April 8, 2025 Board Meeting......................................................................................................................................................8
April 17, 2025 Board Meeting ...................................................................................................................................................8
May 6, 2025 Board Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................8
June 3, 2025 Policy Review Committee Meeting ....................................................................................................................9
June 10, 2025 Board Meeting ....................................................................................................................................................9
FOIA Opinions ................................................................................................................................. 10
Opinion No. 24-IB25 (June 26, 2024)................................................................................................................................... 10
Opinion No. 24-IB29 (August 9, 2024) ................................................................................................................................ 10
Opinion No. 24-IB45 (October 23, 2024) ............................................................................................................................ 10
Opinion No. 24-IB48 (November 14, 2024) ....................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion & Recommendations .......................................................................................................11

Board Meetings ................................................................................................................................... 11

2
Introduction and Relevant Law
This report details the Delaware Department of Justice’s (“DDOJ”) monitoring and evaluation of the
Christina School District Board of Education (“the Board”) pursuant to the directive of the General
Assembly.

The DDOJ provides legal advice, counsel, and services for administrative offices, agencies,
departments, boards, commissions and offices of the state government.1 The DDOJ generally does
not provide legal advice, counsel or services to Delaware’s public school districts, which may employ
their own attorney or attorneys.2 This report is an ad hoc work product produced pursuant to Section
39 of Senate Bill 327 (152nd General Assembly), the grants-in-aid appropriation package for Fiscal
Year 2025:

Notwithstanding any provision of the Delaware Code or law to the contrary,

the Department of Justice will monitor the meetings of the Christina School
Board for one year, commencing July 1, 2024. The monitoring will focus on
transparency, adherence to public information laws, and other issues that may
arise. At the conclusion of that year, the Department will issue a report to the
General Assembly of its activities, including a synopsis of any Freedom of
Information Act matters observed and any recommendations for changes
necessary to ensure the proper operation of that Board.

The Board is a public body subject to Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).3 FOIA
requires public bodies to make meetings open to the public, except in limited circumstances, and to
provide the public with a timely agenda, including a general statement of the major issues to be
discussed.4 The Board members in this period were Donald Patton, President; Althea Smith-Tucker,
Vice-President; Dr. Naveed Baqir, District F; Y. F. Lou, District E; Douglas Manley, District C;
Monica Moriak, District B; and Dr. Amy Trauth, District D.

The following information and guidance are suggested best practices only and do not reflect how the
DDOJ might evaluate hypothetical FOIA petitions. Any legal analysis is strictly through the lens of
State law with regard only to that which we could observe; DDOJ cannot opine on whether the Board
has followed its own bylaws, policies, and procedures, including Robert’s Rules of Order.

1
29 Del. C. § 2504
2
29 Del. C. § 2515(a)
3
29 Del. C. Ch. 100
4
29 Del. C. § 10002
3
 Review & Findings

Board Meetings
Board meetings are held in-person at an anchor location and live-streamed for a virtual audience.
Members of the Board and the public may attend by either method. DDOJ reviewed all available
videos, agendas, minutes, and public documents that the Board produced from July 1, 2024 through
June 30, 2025, i.e. FY 2025.5 DDOJ also reviewed its relevant FOIA determinations (“AG Opinions”)
as part of this analysis. This report summarizes the Board’s meetings with a focus on observed FOIA
and operational issues.

July 9, 2024 Board Meeting

Board President Donald Patton announced changes to the agenda and the format of public comment,
citing compliance with 14 Del. C. § 1048(e), which requires that members of the public be given the
opportunity to comment on agenda items before a vote is taken. Patton stated that while the standard
format allowed for—and the agenda reflected—three minutes per speaker and twenty minutes per
topic, he was reducing the time limit to two minutes in order to keep total comment under fifty
minutes due to the high number of speakers. Patton allowed individual speakers additional time when
requested.

The July 9 meeting also included discussion of the non-renewal of Superintendent Dan Shelton’s
contract. Some Board members urged discussion in open session, while Patton insisted that the matter
not be debated publicly due to potential litigation. The meeting was marked by cross talk, disruptions
from the audience, and procedural confusion, with adjournment motions from board members
Monica Moriak and Douglas Manley ignored.

August 13, 2024 Board Meeting

Patton and Moriak disputed whether certain personnel documents should be made public, with Patton
insisting on their release and Moriak objecting to protect staff confidentiality. Tensions escalated when
the Board considered appointing an interim superintendent. Board member Y.F. Lou nominated
former Acting Superintendent Robert Andrzejewski, seconded by Vice-President Alethea Smith-
Tucker. Manley and Moriak raised concerns about bypassing the Deputy Superintendent and
questioned whether the process complied with FOIA, citing specific concerns that there was no
interview and that Andrzejewski was not discussed in executive session. The DDOJ has previously
opined that school boards may not discuss the selection process for a superintendent in executive
session.6 Whether that finding extends to installing an interim superintendent has never been
presented for opinion.

5
Public meeting agendas, meeting minutes and public documents are usually available at
https://christinak12.diligent.community/Portal/MeetingTypeList.aspx. Board meeting videos are
available at https://www.christinak12.org/Page/459
6
Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 13-IB01, 2013 WL 2477025 (Mar. 26, 2013)
4
Despite objections, the motion to install Andrzejewski passed 4–3, with dissenting members noting
their votes were cast “under protest” because of unresolved questions about Board member Naveed
Baqir’s eligibility to serve. Audience members and board members alleged side discussions and texting
outside of public view, fueling accusations of a “serial meeting” as well as other questions about
whether the process complied with FOIA.7 FOIA defines a public meeting 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 either in person or by video-conferencing.” Although there is not enough evidence
on this record to confirm that the members were engaged in a serial meeting, it cannot be foreclosed
either given Moriak’s assertion that Andrzejewski was not discussed in the executive session.

Finally, Patton excluded one submitted public comment, which was later read aloud by Manley, only
for the video recording to cut out.

September 11, 2024 Board Meeting

Patton’s President’s Report strongly criticized colleagues and members of the public for raising
ongoing challenges to Baqir’s residency, alleging that legal counsel and the Department of Justice had
already found no basis for disqualification. Patton pledged to hire an outside consultant to improve
board cohesion, drawing pushback from audience members who were ruled out of order. The meeting
grew tense when Manley attempted to read a public comment during his report; Patton declared him
out of order and his microphone was cut.

October 8, 2024 Board Meeting

The October 8 meeting was attended by only four members—Patton, Manley, Moriak, and Trauth—
and was characterized by inconsistency in how motions were handled. Patton sometimes allowed
discussion before a motion was properly made and other times insisted on a motion first. Patton also
denied Manley’s request for a roll call vote.

December 10, 2024 Board Meeting

Chief Financial Officer Robert Vacca suggested postponing a school referendum until the following
year. Patton asked if Vacca was asking the Board to terminate the previously voted-on motion to
schedule the referendum and pointed out that this was not on the agenda. Smith-Tucker made a
motion that the referendum be postponed for a year, with Patton seconding. While the motion was
briefly considered, it was withdrawn in favor of scheduling a workshop in January. FOIA requires
that public bodies include a “general statement of the major issues” which a public body expects to
discuss. A sufficient agenda should be a notice “alert[ing] members of the public with an intense
interest in the matter that the subject will be taken up by the [public body].”8 A referendum is
presumably a matter of intense public interest, and in this case the Board acted appropriately by
rescheduling discussion of the issue for a January 7, 2025 workshop.

7
A “serial meeting” is a FOIA violation whereby individual members of a Board meet in various
configurations, in numbers less than a quorum, outside of the public view, reaching a consensus
of a quorum without the benefit of deliberation and discussion in a public setting. See Del. Op.
Atty. Gen. 15-IB06, 2015 WL 5014135 (Aug. 19, 2015).
8
Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 20-IB06, 2020 WL 719670 (Feb. 5, 2020)
5
Board conflict arose over the selection of a firm to search for a new superintendent. Smith-Tucker
explained the Board’s involvement with the bidding process thus far, Patton accused Moriak of
unnecessary delay, and Moriak alleged that the winning bidder appeared to have pre-written elements
of the request for proposals. The motion to approve the selected firm passed with a vote of 4-2.

January 14, 2025 Board Meeting

The meeting was hampered by audio difficulties throughout the evening, particularly during public
comment and presentations. The most substantial debate of the evening concerned a policy protecting
undocumented students’ right to a public education. Moriak moved to reaffirm the Board’s support
for the policy and to direct District administration to disseminate clear procedures to staff. The motion
ultimately failed after Patton directed a re-vote because he did not think the members understood
what the motion meant, since members expressed uncertainty over whether to reaffirm the policy as
written or refer it to the Policy Review Committee for revision. Patton stated that there did not need
to be a motion to send the issue to the Policy Committee, but that protocol is that they take whatever
language they want and send it to policy committee and to the superintendent, and then it will
eventually go to legal counsel.

January 28, 2025 Workshop

This workshop focused on the State-mandated transition to the Infinite Campus student information
system. The District administration indicated it might request a delay from the Department of
Education or the Governor. Patton emphasized that any formal letter from the Board must first be
approved by the Board’s attorney, Michael Stafford, Esq., proclaiming “[w]e’re not gonna sign
anything unless Mike Stafford says ‘sign this.’” It’s important to note that, while this advice is prudent,
legal counsel to the Board can only give guidance and does not make final decisions for elected
officials.

January 31, 2025 Board Meeting

The Board held a special meeting devoted to the superintendent search. Consultants outlined the
process and clarified that, while candidate names would remain confidential by default until finalists
were selected, the Board could choose to release them publicly. Moriak urged greater transparency by
sharing finalists’ names, while Patton emphasized that the District administration, not the Board,
should manage stakeholder engagement.
Previous AG Opinions establish that school boards may not discuss issues bearing on the
superintendent selection process outside of the public view. From Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 13-IB01:
We previously determined, and it now should be well settled, that school
boards may not discuss issues bearing on the superintendent selection process
in private. See, e.g., Att’y Gen. Op. 02-IB17 (determining that school board
violated FOIA by discussing in executive session the mechanics of the
superintendent selection process); Att’y Gen. Op. 03-IB23 (Oct. 20, 2003)
(determining that school board violated FOIA by discussing in executive

6
 session matters relating to the search for a new superintendent). The
“selection process” includes discussions, deliberations and decisions about
whether (or not) to hire a professional search firm, the professional,
educational and other criteria that will be used by the school board to select a
new superintendent, and the selection of the final applicants to be considered
for a superintendent position.

February 11, 2025 Board Meeting

This meeting highlighted both transparency and technical issues. No minutes were available online,
and documents referenced in minutes were housed on a password-protected platform. Questions
arose about discrepancies in vote counts recorded in the minutes. Moriak raised concerns about
accessibility, ensuring that an ASL interpreter was connected before the meeting continued. Technical
issues also prevented presentation slides from being shared on Zoom until midway through a student
report. The Board conducted a first read of a policy on protecting undocumented students’ rights,
with discussion centering on how District staff would be trained to respond to potential ICE inquiries.

March 5, 2025 Policy Review Committee Meeting

Policy deliberations continued at this meeting, which lacked a formal call to order, roll call, or minutes.
The committee discussed firearm restrictions and corporate sponsorships without clearly linking
documents in the agenda. Board members raised concerns about blurring administrative and policy
functions and ultimately decided to remove the sponsorship policy from Board consideration.

March 11, 2025 Board Meeting

This meeting included heated public comment criticizing Board member conduct on social media.
Presentations from school leaders followed, but questions about transparency arose when linked
videos were not played during the meeting. The Board debated the Douglass ESC program, a
behavioral health initiative. Patton pressed for a full investigation, and Manley’s motion to direct the
District to investigate the arrests passed without opposition.

Most notably, the Board engaged in an extended discussion regarding the District’s Human Resources
reorganization process. Several members expressed concern over the process, particularly Chief
Financial Officer Bob Vacca’s role in developing the recommendations. Patton emphasized that the
proposed restructuring appeared to rely primarily on Vacca’s internal analysis rather than an external
professional evaluation, which he argued was necessary to provide credibility and should ultimately be
reviewed by the incoming superintendent. Moriak noted that while a consulting firm, Willis Towers,
had been engaged, the Board had not received the final results of that work. Vacca clarified that his
recommendations combined the consultant’s process with his own analysis, but acknowledged that he
had assumed oversight of HR functions temporarily while the director position remained vacant. The
exchange grew tense, with Patton questioning the accuracy of Vacca’s statements and reiterating his
opposition to consolidating HR under the CFO. Ultimately, members agreed that while the Board has
an oversight responsibility, the details of HR reorganization are administrative matters that should be
addressed by the superintendent, with any necessary approvals brought formally before the Board.

7
April 1, 2025 Policy Review Committee Meeting
The Committee again experienced procedural and transparency challenges, beginning with difficulty
accessing linked policies on the public agenda. Members noted that the policies had not been posted
on the access portal, leaving both the Committee and the public without clear access to the documents
under discussion. Committee Chair Y.F. Lou acknowledged the oversight, citing his limited experience
presiding over meetings, and eventually shared the policies via e-mail and Zoom.

The committee reviewed Policy 02.31 on protecting undocumented students’ right to education.
Members emphasized the importance of providing both clean and tracked-change versions of the
policy to ensure public clarity. Concerns were raised that the version circulated did not appear
consistent with what had previously been presented at a Board meeting, underscoring the need for
improved document management and transparency. The meeting concluded with suggestions to
establish clearer committee procedures, including the use of a shared drive and more formalized
agenda preparation.

April 8, 2025 Board Meeting

The Board convened in open session with all seven members present. Proceedings began with a
dispute over the residency of Board Member Baqir, who was and had been in Pakistan for an extended
period of time. Manley argued that Baqir’s extended absence from Delaware disqualified him from
sitting on the Board under State law. Board President Patton denied the challenge, alleging consistent
legal guidance affirming Baqir’s eligibility.

Public comment focused heavily on parent dissatisfaction with the Bayard School principal selection
process, with repeated calls for greater transparency and parental involvement. Substantive discussion
centered on the Wilmington Learning Collaborative’s role in school decision-making and an update
on the Douglass School Emotional Support Classrooms, where concerns were raised about program
oversight, student arrest incidents, and staffing ratios. Dr. Joyner committed to providing additional
data to address the issues.

April 17, 2025 Board Meeting

Sound quality problems hampered the meeting, with virtual participants unable to hear much of the
discussion. Despite this, the Board conducted the critical process of selecting a new superintendent.
After extended debate, the Board voted 4–3 to approve Dr. Deirdra Joyner as the next superintendent.
A subsequent attempt to immediately install Dr. Joyner as interim superintendent was withdrawn after
members raised liability concerns, and the Board instead voted unanimously to direct counsel to
negotiate her contract.

May 6, 2025 Board Meeting

The Board reviewed elements of the superintendent’s proposed contract in public session. While
members discussed provisions such as termination clauses and performance incentives, disagreements
arose over whether such details should be debated publicly or routed through legal counsel and the
superintendent. Later in the meeting, controversy erupted during consideration of recommendations

8
from the Wilmington Learning Collaborative (WLC). Disputes over whether the District itself
endorsed the candidates devolved into shouting and accusations of procedural impropriety.

Major discussion focused on the superintendent’s contract, where members debated whether
performance incentives should be tied to student outcomes and emphasized the importance of public
input before finalization. A contentious exchange followed over WLC recommendations for principal
appointments, with disagreements about whether District officials should weigh in alongside WLC
under the governing Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”). The motion ultimately failed on a
divided vote, reflecting sharp differences among members. Additional items included approval of a
tax refund request, consideration of Manley’s residency-related hearing request regarding Baqir (which
failed), and debate over the Board’s $90,000 contract with Willis Towers for HR evaluation work.
President Patton expressed frustration, stating about Moriak and Manley:

When you talk about money and it being wasted, I could give you a number
of stories. We do this big dog and pony show up here for the public, but when
you start digging behind some of these folks, you’ll find that it ain’t what you
think it is. So let’s figure out who really cares about where the money goes, or
do you only really care about where it goes if I recommend it or if I suggest it,
because that’s where we are unfortunately.

In closing remarks, Member Smith-Tucker announced her resignation from the WLC council,
prompting concerns from colleagues about representation and adherence to the MOU.

June 3, 2025 Policy Review Committee Meeting

The Committee convened but again failed to formally call the meeting to order. Policies were discussed
in a brainstorming format with comments from the chat feature on Zoom addressed as they went
along. Policies discussed included a proposed cell phone policy and an AI policy.

June 10, 2025 Board Meeting

At the last full Board meeting of FY 2025, ongoing conflict within the Board came to the forefront.
The Board also approved the appointment of a new Committee member, despite President Patton
stating the matter was not listed on the published agenda. Although not in the outline format, the
document attached to the agenda stated the action item for the Board was to approve the new member.

Further discussion centered on a motion introduced by Manley to authorize exploration of commercial

bank loans or lines of credit as potential financial options, subject to explicit Board direction. While
the proposal was seconded and debated, members questioned whether such action required a formal
vote, with Patton and others noting that financial inquiries of this type typically fall within standard
administrative practice. Chief Financial Officer Vacca advised that the item was elevated to the Board
because it represented a departure from prior practice, though he confirmed such investigations could
proceed without formal approval. Ultimately, Manley withdrew the motion following clarification that
staff could pursue preliminary inquiries independently, with Board engagement reserved for any future
recommendations requiring action.

9
During his President’s Report, Patton launched into an extended defense of Baqir, criticizing other
board members for alleged personal attacks and describing the atmosphere of board meetings as
hostile and racially charged. He announced Baqir’s forthcoming resignation effective July 15, 2025,
framing it as the result of prolonged unfair treatment.

FOIA Opinions
During the reporting period, the DDOJ issued several AG Opinions in response to petitions alleging
FOIA violations by the Board. These opinions addressed concerns raised by members of the General
Assembly, local residents, and the press, and provide insight into both compliance challenges and the
limits of FOIA’s scope.

Opinion No. 24-IB25 (June 26, 2024)

State Representatives Madinah Wilson-Anton, Paul Baumbach, Cyndie Romer, Sophie Phillips, and
Eric Morrison petitioned DDOJ alleging that the Board held an improper executive session, failed to
provide public notice of a vote of no confidence in the superintendent, and took several actions at its
March and May meetings without appropriate notice on the meeting agendas. The Attorney General
concluded that the Board violated FOIA by entering an executive session to discuss parliamentary
procedure, by failing to provide notice of the May 2024 vote of no confidence, and by inadequately
noticing the March 2024 contract rescission.

However, the Attorney General found no violation in the suspension of the superintendent, as the
meeting agenda provided sufficient notice, and determined that allegations regarding the Board’s
compliance with its own policies and Robert’s Rules of Order were outside the scope of FOIA. The
opinion recommended that the Board reconsider and ratify the noncompliant actions at a future public
meeting held in strict compliance with FOIA.

Opinion No. 24-IB29 (August 9, 2024)

Petitioner Connie Merlet alleged that the Board used computers to review information and record
votes without disclosing the results publicly, and that the Board President improperly refused to hear
a point of order. Because the Board did not respond to the petition, and the burden of proof rests
with the public body to prove compliance, the Attorney General was compelled to find a FOIA
violation on the first claim, concluding that the Board failed to adequately inform the public of the
results of several votes and of how each member voted. The Opinion recommended that the Board
ratify those votes at a properly noticed meeting using a public roll call.

The second allegation, concerning refusal to hear a point of order, was found not to implicate FOIA,
as compliance with Robert’s Rules of Order is not required by statute.

Opinion No. 24-IB45 (October 23, 2024)

Petitioner Sarah Mueller, a reporter with WHYY, alleged that the District failed to produce all records
responsive to her request for materials related to the hiring of Superintendent Robert Andrzejewski,
and that the District improperly redacted the records it did produce. The District provided sworn

10
affidavits attesting that its search was thorough and that withheld records were protected by attorney-
client privilege. DDOJ determined that the District had met its obligations and concluded there was
no FOIA violation.

Opinion No. 24-IB48 (November 14, 2024)

Petitioner and Board member Monica Moriak alleged that four Board members engaged in improper
private discussions before and after an executive session, and that these members routinely decided
matters in advance of public meetings. The DDOJ found no FOIA violation, determining that the
allegations were too vague and based solely on suspicion, and that the limited discussion that could be
proven did not concern public business. Nevertheless, the Opinion cautioned the Board against
discussing District matters outside of public meetings and reminded members that robust deliberation
before voting serves the public interest better than silent, coordinated voting.

Conclusion & Recommendations

At Board meetings throughout FY25, Board members referenced the need for transparency,
adherence to FOIA, and adherence to Robert’s Rules of Order. To that end, the Board discussed at
least one training they underwent. Looking ahead, the Board should be cautious of misleading,
inaccurate, or incomplete minutes; vague agendas, irregularities in voting procedures; and lack of clear
identification of speakers, Collectively, these issues illustrate the need for strengthened adherence to
FOIA mandates to ensure the public’s right to observe and understand the actions of the Board.
Training for FOIA coordinators is provided by the Department of Justice every year, and past training
presentations may be found on the Department’s website. We recommend the Board use these
training options to ensure compliance with all of FOIA’s open meeting requirements going forward.

Board Meetings
Board meetings were characterized by recurring conflict between members, along with frequent
procedural, technical, and clerical problems. While these issues may not constitute specific FOIA
violations, they interfere with the exercise of public business and, when allowed to persist and fester,
undermine public trust in the community’s most important public bodies. We recommend that the
Board take all steps and undergo all training necessary to correct these issues.

Executive Session Agendas

11
Agendas for the Board’s executive sessions consistently reuse three generic bullet points: (1) Student
Matters; (2) Personnel Matters; and (3) Legal Matters. FOIA requires public bodies to include a
specific reason for entering executive session.9 Each of these three reasons is allowable10 and may
sufficiently descriptive for a public body to enter an executive session.11 However, the Board’s
published agendas and notices reveal that this agenda is a template that reuses the same categories
every month, regardless of whether it accurately reflected the matters the Board actually needed to
discuss. For example, the Board’s Executive Session minutes for September 11, 2024 use the same
three categories, but state that there were no student matters or legal matters to discuss and that the
Board only discussed personnel matters.

In 2013, the DDOJ evaluated Sussex County Councils’ similar and longstanding practice of including
on its public meeting agendas a generic statement of intent to convene into executive session, along
with generic references to issues commonly addressed in executive session.12 At the time, the DDOJ
did not find that the Council violated FOIA. However, the Opinion noted that this practice was
problematic and potentially misleading to the public, and urged the Council to only include on its
agenda those items that the Council specifically intended to discuss or act upon. Similarly, while the
Christina School Board may frequently need to meet in executive session for any of these three
reasons, the Board should ensure that its agendas accurately characterize the impetus for executive
session specific to that meeting.

Meeting Minutes

There are issues with the formatting, accuracy, and transparency of meeting minutes. The Board’s
General Session minutes use the phrase “it is recommended” as a precursor to almost all board
motions. For example, in the minutes for the October 8, 2024 General Business Session the motion
for approval of the agenda for the evening reads, “[i]t is recommended that this evening’s agenda be
approved with the following exception: removal of action item 11.02-Policy Review: 2.34 Syllabi Policy
– SECOND READ.” Board member Althea Smith-Tucker actually stated that she was “making a
motion to approve agenda with removal of agenda item 11.0213” The addition of the phrase “it is
recommended” is confusing in this context. In the March 11, 2025 General Business Session, Board
Member Douglas Manley moved “to instruct the District to investigate the 28 arrest incidents outlined
here, and any others at any other schools and provide a report to the Board at the April meeting.”
However, the meeting minutes state “[i]t is recommended that the Christina Board of Education instruct
the District to investigate the 28 arrest instances outlined here and any others at any other schools and
provide a report to the board at the April 8 BOE meeting as submitted” (emphasis added). FOIA
mandates that public bodies’ meeting minutes accurately include “a record, by individual members …

9
29 Del. C. § 10002(a)
10
29 Del. C. § 10004(b)
11
“[FOIA] requires public bodies to provide the reason for entering into an executive session,
but [] does not require public bodies to elaborate in great detail on agendas what legal, personnel,
or other subjects are to be discussed.” O’Neill v. Town of Middletown, 2007 WL 2752981, at *7
(Del. Ch. Mar. 29, 2007)
12
Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 13-IB02, 2013 WL 2477026 (May 1, 2013)
13
The motion originally made was to remove the stated action item. This was clarified as a
motion to approve the agenda with the removal of the stated action item.
12
of each vote taken and action agreed upon.”14 The requirements for minutes are minimal, but they
must be accurate. The Court of Chancery of Delaware in Reeder v. Delaware Dept. of Ins. reviewed the
statute’s use of the word “action” to determine what a public body needed to record in its minutes
before concluding that it need not decide the breadth of the term action but instead, “once a public
body undertakes to cover a particular topic in minutes, it cannot describe the topic in a manner that
is materially misleading.”15 Depending on the factual content of the motion, inclusion of the phrase, “it
is recommended” could be considered materially misleading because it implies that the action they’re
taking is not final but instead is merely a recommendation made to an unidentified entity to whom the
Board answers.

We also note that at the beginning of FY 2025, minutes for the Board’s meetings could be found
online at https://christinak12.diligent.community/Portal/MeetingTypeList.aspx. Finalized minutes
are no longer available beginning with the December 10, 2024 meeting, although draft minutes can
still be found attached to the agenda of the meeting where the Board voted on approval. FOIA does
not required the Board to post its minutes online, but posting inconsistently may lead to public
frustration.

Electronic Voting
Voting procedures should focus on ensuring that the public clearly understands what is being voted
on and how each member of the Board is voting. At the beginning of FY25, the Board relied on
electronic voting that was projected onto a screen, which was visible both online and in person.
Technical difficulties plagued the electronic voting system in July, August, and September 2024, with
some votes appearing and some not. On July 9, 2024, for instance, the Board voted on a preliminary
budget, but the recording did not capture the vote, and the President did not announce whether the
motion carried. FOIA recognizes the possibility of technological problems when a board is conducting
a virtual or hybrid meeting, and states that technical difficulties that limit or prevent public access will
not invalidate a virtual meeting or an action taken at a virtual meeting.16
The Board acknowledged its struggles with the electronic voting system and during the October 8,
2024 Board meeting, the President announced that the Board would add voice voting to the electronic
voting system based on a FOIA decision from the summer. Although moving to voice voting was a
step towards clarity, the electronic voting system continued to experience issues, including periodically
showing votes from previous agenda items. For example, in the January 14, 2025 Board meeting the
vote count for a motion to approve the executive session minutes remained on the screen through
several subsequent votes.

The Board should take steps to increase transparency regarding how Board members are voting, and
whether motions made are passing. For example, President Patton frequently announced the result of
a vote by announcing that absent members were being counted as “no” votes. Minutes of the same
meetings accurately reflect members as absent rather than “no” votes, but the President’s inarticulate

14
29 Del. C. § 10004(f)
15
Reeder v. Delaware Dep’t of Ins., 2006 WL 510067, at *15 (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2006) aff’d sub
nom., Reeder v. Delaware Dep’t of Ins., Defensive Driving Credential Comm., 931 A.2d 1007
(Del. 2006)
16
29 Del. C. § 10006(d)(4)
13
tally announcements could introduce confusion for the public as to what members of the Board are
present for any particular vote, especially given the difficulty in finding minutes.

Streaming
Finally, Board meetings that are conducted simultaneously in person and virtually present a challenge
and opportunity for boards. To ensure transparency for the public watching online, Board members
need to ensure that they are, at minimum, heard, their identity verified, and their actions
authenticated.17 Although stating one’s name before speaking is not required by FOIA, it is an easy
way for the public to follow along with how each Board member is participating in the meeting. At
almost every meeting during FY25, at least one board member or staff spoke or made a motion
without identifying themselves. This practice made it difficult for observers to determine who was
responsible for particular statements, further undermining transparency.

Trainings
Over the past year, Board discussions have alluded to board trainings and discussions geared towards
increasing the Board’s cohesion as well as engagement with legal counsel to improve the Board’s
procedures and focus on Robert’s Rules. The DDOJ notes recent legislation requiring additional
board trainings and implementing a physical residency requirement for Board members.18
FOIA Petitions

The FY 2025 FOIA petitions and corresponding AG Opinions highlight recurring transparency issues
in the Board’s meeting agendas and public disclosure of its actions. While some allegations were found
to be beyond FOIA’s scope or insufficiently substantiated, the DDOJ found clear violations where
the Board failed to provide adequate notice or disclose voting outcomes, underscoring the need for
greater compliance with both the letter and the spirit of Delaware’s open government requirements.

17
29 Del. C. § 10006(c)
18
85 Del. Laws, c. 50, § 1
14