I'm not sure if this question is on topic, but I'll ask it anyway since you've been so helpful in other matters.

Is there any legal doctrine that says information provided by a government body has to be reasonably accurate and reasonably up-to-date?

Here's the situation.

Our district held an Act 34 hearing.  The purpose of the meeting is to inform the public about the proposed construction project so the public can give informed feedback to the school board.  There are statutes about how the meeting has to advertised and the content of the meeting.  A court stenographer is present and a transcript of the meeting has to go to the Dept of Ed for approval.  The applicable statutes are 349.11, 349.12 and 349.13. 

Here is 349.13 - The description shall include material concerning the need for the project, any alternatives considered, any special features of the project, the direct and indirect costs of the project—including a cost analysis of the four alternative methods for financing the direct costs, and the anticipated effect of the direct and indirect costs of the project upon the tax base.

To justify the need for the project the school gave the audience an enrollment projection, but it was done two years ago.  At that time their projection showed an increasing student population and supported their need for extra space.  However, if I use the same methodology, but use the two most current years worth of data the updated enrollment projection says just the opposite - a decrease in student population and no need for extra space.  I asked the Dept of Ed to investigate whether the Act 34 meeting met the law even with the out-of-date projection.  I pointed out in detail the discrepancy between the old and up-to-date projection and how the data was misleading.  In a letter the Dept of Ed said "Based on our review of the materials submitted by the district, the project is in compliance with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements at this time."

It seems illogical that out-of-date information can be presented to the public and still fulfill the legal need requirement.  Am I missing something?

As a follow up to this (and I know it's been awhile) we had an Act 34 hearing ourselves and our District used an enrollment figure from 2007.  We used this and it was approved by the PDE because, "the site that has the latest enrollment statistics was down at the time the approval took place".  We lost over 100 students between 2007 and 2009 and now the District gets more reimbursement from all PA taxpayers because the "site was down"!  At $6200 per student project reimbursement plus $620 LEED certification reimbursement per student, the project qualifies for $682,000 more in reimbursement just because of this.

James