This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

Sai Thao (Thao) requested an advisory opinion regarding the Saint Paul Public Schools Board of Education (Board) directors’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Board provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.

A summary of the facts is as follows:

The Board held a meeting on December 18, 2025, and the meeting’s agenda included board action on the Txuj Ci Hmong Language and Culture School facilities, which is part of Saint Paul Public Schools (SPPS). The Board directors engaged in a substantial discussion about a SPPS workgroup’s recommendation for how Txuj Ci school facilities could serve students and parents. The discussion concluded with a motion to support one of the workgroup’s recommended options, which failed on a 6-1 vote. 

After the failed vote, Director Carlo Franco presented a motion directing the SPPS superintendent to take specific actions regarding the Txuj Ci school facilities. Additional discussion among the directors ensued, including Director Yusef Carillo offering amendments to the proposed motion. The Board then adopted the motion as amended on a 6-1 vote. 

A video recording of the December 18 meeting showed Director Franco reading from a document when presenting his motion. While Director Carillo was proposing amendments, the other Board directors appeared to be passing a stack of written documents with each director taking a copy. Upon receiving a copy, Director Carillo paused to read and began formulating his amendment in response to the document he reviewed. During the ensuing conversation about the amendment, Directors Franco and Carillo referenced the document shared among the directors, and all directors appeared to review the document during the discussion and vote on Director Franco’s motion. 

Thao explained that the document the directors reviewed and referenced throughout the discussion of Director Franco’s motion were not included in the public copies of the members’ materials that were available for inspection in the meeting room while the Board considered the Txuj Ci school facilities agenda item.

Issue:

Discussion:

The Open Meeting Law requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. Section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b) makes clear that the governing body of a school district is subject to the requirements of the OML. 

Section 13D.01, subdivision 6 states: 

(a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and: 

(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body; 

(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or 

(3) available in the meeting room to all members; 

shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter. 

In its response to the Commissioner, the Board stated: 

There is no question that the Agenda item regarding the Txuj Ci Facilities Recommendation of the [Txuj Ci Facilities Work Group (TCFW)] was properly noticed for the December BOE Meeting, and that corresponding materials were included in the BOE Meeting Book materials. The December BOE Meeting was well-attended by community members, thirteen of whom spoke in favor of the recommendation of the TCFW. The individual BOE directors each spoke at length about the facts and opinions that guided their votes. Ultimately, the recommendation did not pass, and that decision is not at issue in this inquiry. 

Instead, the only question raised by Ms. Thao is whether the BOE violated the open meeting law [sic] when Director Franco made a spontaneous motion after the BOE vote on the Agenda item and apparently relied on his own notes as a reference point. The District and the BOE maintain that no violation occurred. 

First, Director Franco’s motion followed appropriate parliamentary procedure. Any Board member has the authority to make a motion on the topics being discussed by the Board as long as no other motion is in progress. … 

Second, to the extent that Director Franco relied on his own notes, the information was not “members’ materials” as contemplated by Minn. Stat. 13D.01 Subd. 6. Indeed, the members’ materials for the December BOE Meeting were the published Agenda and the Boardbook, both available before the meeting and to this day in the archives. 

Finally, the purpose and the transparency of the Open Meeting Law was satisfied. At most, Director Franco may have relied on written notes he had prepared in order to make his motion, but he openly read that motion into the record, and it was subsequently amended in “real time” by Director Carrillo in order to revise the wording. The action taken by the Board that evening was squarely within the Board’s right to conduct the business of the District. 

The Commissioner agrees the Board is within its authority to conduct SPPS district business during its regular meetings, which may include directors proposing motions on issues before the Board. However, the Commissioner disagrees that the Board met its obligation to ensure that copies of the members’ materials were available for public inspection during the December 18 meeting. 

Under the plain language of section 13D.01, subd. 6, any materials relating to agenda items distributed at a meeting to all members of a public body must be available for inspection by the public while the body is considering the subject matter. 

The Boardbook referenced by the Board for the December 18, 2025, meeting includes one item related to the Txuj Ci facilities (Background Info_Txuj Ci BOE_12.16.25). There is no document related to Director Franco’s motion. The video recording of the meeting clearly shows copies of a document being provided to the directors shortly after Director Franco made a motion regarding school facilities. The video also shows the directors reviewing and referencing the document as they amended and discussed Director Franco’s motion. 

Thao noted in her advisory opinion request that the Board’s packet of member materials in the meeting room did not contain any documents that were directly related to Director Franco’s motion. As a result, it appears that the Board did not place a copy of the document distributed to all directors in the public packet of members’ materials. 

Additionally, the fact that a director read the motion into the record does not alleviate the Board of its obligations under section 13D.01, subd. 6. The Board was obligated to allow the public to inspect a copy of a document when members received documents that were relevant to agenda items during the meeting, and the Board should have placed a copy of the document in the public packet of member materials shortly after the document was shared with all directors. 

Therefore, the Board did not comply with the OML when it failed to make at least one copy of the shared document available for public inspection during its December 18 meeting while the directors discussed the Txuj Ci facilities agenda item and related motion.

Opinion:

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

The Saint Paul Public Schools Board of Education did not provide appropriate public access to its members’ materials, as required by section 13D.01, subdivision 6, during a meeting on December 18, 2025.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

September 4, 2026