This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

Deb Scheibel asked for an advisory opinion regarding the Woodrow Township Board of Supervisors’ (Board) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board submitted comments in response to the advisory opinion request.

A summary of the facts is as follows:

On December 12, 2024, the Board held a special meeting to interview candidates for an open supervisor position. While interviewing the three candidates, the two Supervisors and the Town Clerk filled out score sheets for each candidate. These scoring sheets were sealed and provided to the Town Clerk at the end of the interviews.

At the next meeting of the Board on January 9, 2025, the individual receiving the highest score from the scoring sheets was present and appointed to fill the vacancy. This appointment was done by a public vote. Scheibel stated that “[d]uring the January meeting or any other time it was not disclosed how the Supervisors and the Clerk voted.”

Issue:

Discussion:

The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. The Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, but the Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that a meeting subject to the OML “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 interpreted in favor of public access and transparency. Specifically, in Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W. 2d 729 (Minn. 2002), it noted that “[b]ecause the Open Meeting Law was enacted for public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.” The Court also stated 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 governed by [the law]” St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs., 332 N.W. 2d 1, 6 (Minn. 1983).

Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 4(a) specifically addresses member votes, stating:

The votes of the members of the state agency, board, commission, or department; or of the governing body, committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission on an action taken in a meeting required by this section to be open to the public must be recorded in a journal or minutes.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals discussed an earlier version of this subdivision in Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, 563 N.W. 2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). In that case, a city council took a straw vote at an open meeting to narrow a list of job candidates by having council members write their top choices on a piece of paper. The Council did not make the results of the straw vote public during the meeting, but did record the results in the meeting minutes, which were available at a later date. In finding the council violated the OML, the court wrote:

A city council meeting is not really “open” to the public if the council is conducting its voting in secret. . . . Secret voting denies the public an opportunity to observe the decision-making process, to know the council members’ stance on issues, and to be fully informed about the council’s actions. Mankato Free Press, 563 N.W. 2d at 295, 296.

In its response to the Commissioner, the Board stated:

. . . Minnesota Statutes 367.03 Subd. 6(a) states that, “when a vacancy occurs in a town office, the town board shall fill the vacancy by appointment.” No additional guidance or requirements regarding the appointment process are provided in statute. In the name of transparency and fairness, the town board decided to post notice of the vacancy in the official newspaper, and to conduct interviews with those that submit their names for consideration at a special meeting to be held on December 12, 2024 at 6:00 PM.

On December 12, 2024, interviews were held with three people during a special meeting, which was posted and available to the general public to attend. . . . The two remaining Supervisors and the Town Clerk all had score sheets that had been prepared to independently rank each candidate’s responses and score them. Upon the conclusion of the three interviews, each ranking sheet was placed into a sealed envelope and given to the town clerk.

Between the December 12, 2024, Township meeting and the January 9, 2025, Township meeting, the Town clerk and the Town Treasurer, both elected positions, opened each of the envelopes and tallied the results. The reasons these were not tallied at the December 12, 2024, meeting was simply for efficiency and to allow for accurate calculations.

. . . At the January 9, 2025, Township meeting, Alex Haagensen was appointed to fill the vacancy. This was done by a unanimous vote made at a public meeting and in view of all in attendance. Minnesota Statute 367.03 Subd. 6(a) does not require any specific process – only that the vacancy be filled by appointment. That vacancy was filled by appointment at a regular Township meeting in view of all those in attendance.

The score sheets that were [filled] out by [the Supervisors and Clerk] are all on file in the Clerk’s office. These are public documents, and all citizens are welcome to view them by a simple request to the Township Clerk.

The Commissioner recognizes that the law does not prescribe a specific process for township boards to fill a vacancy, and the process the Board followed may allow for some efficiencies and accurate calculations. However, the process the Board created did not comply with the requirements of the OML.

The OML requires public bodies to conduct most official business during an open meeting, and votes conducted during an open meeting must be done in public and recorded in the minutes or journal of votes. Otherwise, members of the public attending a meeting cannot understand how individual members of a public body voted on a particular issue, and the meeting is not open under the OML.

Here, the Board must appoint a new supervisor when a position on the Board becomes vacant, which is part of its official business. The Board chose a process where candidates would be interviewed and evaluated at a meeting. As none of the exceptions to close a meeting applied, the OML required that any discussion or decisions occur at an open meeting. In its comments, the Township noted that the appointment of the individual to the supervisor position was conducted at the meeting on January 9. However, the selection of this individual occurred outside an open meeting. Specifically, it appears the decision by the Board occurred when the scoring sheets from the December 12 meeting were tallied, which occurred at some point between December 12 and January 9. Because these scoring sheets determined who the Board would appoint to the position, the sheets communicated the vote of each Supervisor and were required to be public at the December 12 open meeting.

The Commissioner appreciates that the scoring sheets may be available to requesters outside a meeting. However, the obligation to vote publicly in the meeting remains, and so the results of those sheets needed to be disclosed during the December 12 meeting.

Opinion:

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

The Woodrow Township Board of Supervisors did not comply with the Open Meeting Law when it made a final decision on appointing a new board supervisor outside of an open meeting.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

March 11, 2025