Facts and Procedural History:

Carl Blondin requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the ISD 834 – Stillwater Schools – School Board (School Board) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Attorney Maggie R. Wallner responded on behalf of the School Board.

Mr. Blondin stated that at a Finance and Operations Working Group meeting on August 29, 2019, the three regular committee members attended, in addition to a fourth School Board member. He indicated that, 

No notice was made pursuant to statute that this would be a regular meeting of the ISD 834 board, nor was a notice made that a quorum of the ISD 834 school board would be present. This was not a properly noticed special meeting of the ISD 834 School Board. This was not an emergency meeting of the ISD 834 School Board. This was a committee meeting of a committee that the District informs the public of having only three members, not a quorum. Yet, in spite of those facts, four members, a quorum of the ISD 834 school board, were present, and were able to receive and discuss, and in fact did receive and discuss information related to matters of public concern, deliberate on school business, and potentially take action to bind the board. This appears to be a violation of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. The law presumes a violation of Minnesota' (sic) open meeting law when a quorum is present and proper notice has not been given. Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1993).

Mr. Blondin provided a video recording of the committee meeting, along with a written transcript. The video depicts the fourth board member engaging in a discussion with the committee members, including whether items have been presented to the School Board, an exchange about one-time funding, and a potential form to use to present information to the School Board.

Issue:

Discussion:

The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The governing body of a school district is a public body subject to the law. (Minnesota Statutes, 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(1).) These meetings must be properly noticed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04. 

While the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court held the following:

‘Meetings’ subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body. Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public's right to full access to the decision-making process of public bodies...This includes meetings at which information is received which may influence later decisions of such bodies.” St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983). And that the purposes behind the law “are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.” (Footnote omitted.) Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002).

Mr. Blondin stated, the School Board provides notice for its regularly scheduled meetings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13D.04, subdivisions 1, 2. He indicated that the School Board also has multiple committees, one of which is the Finance and Operations Working Group. On its website, the school board posts the members of each committee.The Finance and Operations Working Group has three members. The School Board also “posts a schedule for these committee meetings on its bulletin board, and keeps a list of its meetings at its main office.”

In its comments, the School Board states, “it is undisputed that four School Board members, a quorum, were present at the August 29, 2019, meeting. However, it was a regularly scheduled, properly noticed meeting that was open to the public. Therefore, it is the District’s position that no Open Meeting violation occurred.” In support of its argument, the School Board provided a copy of the Finance and Operations Working Group Meeting Calendar, which included the August 29, 2019, meeting notice. 

Although the Finance and Operations Working Group may have properly noticed its regularly scheduled meetings, the School Board did not provide notice that a regular or special meeting of the School Board would also occur on August 29, 2019. Each group identified in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subd. 1 is independently subject to the notice requirements of the OML. Once the fourth School Board member was present to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to the official business of the School Board, the committee meeting also became a meeting of the School Board. 

The notice provisions of the OML inform the public when a School Board meeting will take place, so the public has “access to the decision-making process” of the relevant public body. St. Cloud Newspapers, 332 N.W.2d at 6. The Commissioner notes that an important aspect of this access is that the public knows which public body is meeting. If the quorum of the School Board present at the August 29, 2019, meeting took a vote and unanimously agreed to an action, they would have bound the entire School Board and circumvented the OML, as the public was only provided notice that a committee meeting was taking place on that date.

Opinion:

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

The School Board did not comply with the OML when it failed to provide notice of a School Board meeting that took place at the August 29, 2019, Finance and Operations Working Group meeting.

Signed:

Alice Roberts-Davis
Commissioner

October 24, 2019