Facts and Procedural History:

On December 10, 2018, the Data Practices Office received an advisory opinion request from Phil Belfiori, Administrator of the Rice Creek Watershed District (District). In his letter, Mr. Belfiori asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the District Board Members’ duties under the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (OML).

The District provided the following information in its opinion request:

The Rice Creek Watershed District hereby requests an advisory opinion to address whether a member of the board of managers may participate in board meetings while out of state by means of the "interactive television" provision of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML). Minn. Stat. §13.02. One member of the board of managers would like to participate in meetings while spending the winter months in Florida.

Our legal counsel has reviewed the Minnesota Department of Administration (MDA) Advisory Opinion 13-009, issued on March 19, 2013, concluding that “the plain language of the statute does not forbid a member of a public body from ‘attending’ a public meeting at a location ‘open and accessible to the public’ outside of the entity's geographic area.” Our attorneys questioned this conclusion in light of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Quast v. Knutson, 150 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1967) where the Court ruled that the phrase "open to the public" as used in a section of the OML means "within the territorial confines" of the public body.

Issue:

Discussion:

The OML allows members of public bodies to attend and participate in meetings via interactive television if certain conditions are met. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02.) Specifically, section 13D.02, subd. 1, requires:

• all members of the body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, can hear and see one another and can hear and see all discussion and testimony presented at any location at which at least one member is present;
• members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear and see all discussion and testimony and all votes of members of the body;
• at least one member of the body is physically present at the regular meeting location; and
• each location at which a member of the body is present is open and accessible to the public.

Subdivision 2 provides that all members who “attend” via interactive television are present for quorum purposes. Subdivision 4 provides the notice requirement for public bodies using interactive television. The Commissioner has previously interpreted “interactive television” to include Skype and other similar applications. (See Advisory Opinion 13-009.)

In 1967, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a school board must hold its meetings within the territorial confines of the school district. Quast v. Knutson, 150 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1967). In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has interpreted that case to apply to all public bodies subject to the OML. (See Advisory Opinions 06-012 – statewide task force; 08-034 – township board; and 18-003 – city council.)

Here, the District’s legal counsel has advised that Quast limits a public body member’s ability to attend meetings by interactive television to situations where the member is within the territorial confines of the District. However, a public body’s use of interactive television is distinguishable from the situation in that case. In Quast, the entire school board held a meeting outside of the school district it served. The Court was concerned with the prospect that a public body could remove itself from the territorial confines of the public body’s jurisdiction, thereby frustrating members of the public from attending meetings and functionally holding closed meetings. Here, in order to utilize interactive television, “at least one member of the body [must be] physically present at the regular meeting location,” members of the public in attendance – regardless of location – must be able to see and hear all member discussion, testimony, and voting, and locations from which members attend by interactive television must also be open and accessible to the public. Therefore, the Court’s concerns in Quast regarding the openness of meetings outside the geographic area of a public body are remedied at meetings in which only some members attend by interactive television.  

The Quast decision applies to an entire public body holding a meeting outside its territorial confines. The Court has yet to address the issue of location of meetings in other contexts. Thus, the plain language of section 13D.02 governs and board members of the District, and other public bodies, may use interactive television to attend and participate in meetings that meet the conditions of that section. 

The Commissioner reminds the District that the Board member attending via interactive television from Florida must do so from a location that is “open and accessible” to the public and must provide notice according to section 13D.02, subd. 4.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:

A member of the Board of Managers for the Rice Creek Watershed District may participate in board meetings while out of state via interactive television, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.02, as long as the conditions of that section are met.

Signed:

Matthew Massman
Commissioner

December 28, 2018