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:

David Ellens (Ellens) requested an advisory opinion regarding the Windemere Township Planning Commission’s (Commission) conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Commission provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.

A summary of the facts is as follows:

On February 28, 2026, Ellens submitted a request via email to the Township Clerk, Zoning Administrator, Commission members, and other Township officials for notice of all special meetings held by the Windemere Zoning Administrator, Windemere Township Planning Commission and the Windemere Township Board.

At a meeting on July 7, 2026, the Commission confirmed that a special meeting had been scheduled for July 13, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Notice of the July 13 special meeting was posted on the Township’s principal bulletin board on July 9, 2026. On July 12, 2026, the Township also issued a News Alert through the Town website regarding the July 13 special meeting. Ellens received an email and text message informing him of this News Alert on July 12, 2026, at approximately 7:48 p.m.

Issue:

Discussion:

The Open Meeting Law requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. Further, 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), the Court 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).

One of the mechanisms to ensure a public body’s meetings are open to the public and transparent is to provide appropriate notice of its meetings as is required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04.

Section 13D.04, subdivision 2 sets out notice requirements for special meetings.

Subdivision 2(a) requires that a public body post a written notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board, or if there is no bulletin board, on the door of its usual meeting room. This notice must be posted at least three days before the meeting.

Additionally, subdivision 2(b) requires the notice to be “mailed or otherwise delivered to each person who has filed a written request for notice of special meetings with the public body.” This notice must be mailed or delivered at least three days before the date of the meeting. 

Alternatively, subdivision 2(c) provides that a public body may publish the special meeting notice in an official newspaper in place of delivering the individual notices required under subdivision 2(b). To do so, the notice must be published “at least three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the public body or, if there is none, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation within the area of the public body's authority.”

In comments to the Commissioner, the Commission acknowledged that the Township received a written request for notice of special meetings from Ellens. The Commission described a February 25 request and a February 28 email and stated that Ellens provided different mailing addresses on the request and the email. The Township had no record that its staff had informed Ellens it received his request and noted that there had been staffing changes between the time the request was received and the July 13 special meeting. Namely, the current Township clerk was not serving in that position at the time Ellens’ request for notice was received.

The Commission also noted that notices for public hearings of the Commission were published in the newspaper. However, the Commission did not establish that notice of the July 13, 2026, special meeting was published in the newspaper.

It appears that the Commission provided this contextual information as support for the position that it provided appropriate notice of its special meeting on July 13. However, the Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the Commission met all its obligations under section 13D.04, subd. 2.

The parties agree that the July 13, 2026, meeting was a special meeting. While the Commission met the posting requirement in section 13D.04, subd. 2 by posting notice of the July 13 special meeting on the Township’s principal bulletin board on July 9, 2026, the statute also requires that the notice be mailed or otherwise delivered to individuals who have submitted a written request for notice. If a public body does not wish to provide these individual notices, section 13D.04, subd. 2 provides publication in a newspaper as an alternative method to satisfy this notice requirement.

There is no question whether Ellens submitted a written request for notice of the Commission’s special meetings, and the Commission had a record of receiving Ellens’ request. As a result, the Commission was required to mail or otherwise deliver a notice of the July 13 special meeting to Ellens at least three days before the date of the meeting unless it published the notice in the newspaper.

Although there may have been confusion about which mailing address should be used to send Ellens the notice, the Commission (or other Township staff) could have contacted Ellens to confirm his address or simply sent notice to both addresses. Delivery of the notice to Ellens via email would also have satisfied the “otherwise delivered” requirement of section 13D.04, subd. 2.

The Commission did not mail or otherwise deliver notice of the July 13 special meeting to Ellens at least three days before the date of the meeting. Nor did the Commission provide any documentation that it published the notice of the special meeting in the newspaper. Therefore, the Commission did not meet the requirements of section 13D.04, subd. 2 when it failed to directly notify Ellens of the July 13 special meeting.

Opinion:

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

The Windemere Township Planning Commission did not provide appropriate notice of its special meeting on July 13, 2026, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

September 23, 2026