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:

Lucy Williams asked for an advisory opinion regarding Independent School District 2149, Minnewaska Area Schools, School Board (Board) members’ 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 September 23, 2025, a private group of residents hosted an informational meeting about an upcoming school bond referendum for Minnewaska Area Schools and sent invitations to other community members. The invitations stated the meeting “will provide the latest information as well as have Superintendent Rankin and school board members present.”

The Board did not advertise the event nor provide any notice on its website or other locations. The Board chair and three other Board members were present at this event. A transcript of the meeting provided in the advisory opinion request shows the host introduced the Board members.

The Superintendent then presented to the group and discussed financial investment in the school district, including possible changes to curriculum and facilities. He then answered some questions from attendees about funding. After the Superintendent presented, a speaker briefly discussed curriculum and job pathways for students. At the end of the meeting, a Board member provided information on how attendees can vote on the bond issue.

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 the law. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(1).)

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) (Moberg). While chance or social gatherings are not subject to the requirements of the OML, Moberg held that “a quorum may not, as a group, discuss or receive information on official business in any setting under the guise of a private social gathering.” Moberg at 518 (citing St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W. 2d 1, 7 (Minn. 1983)).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the OML will be interpreted in favor of public access and transparency. Specifically, it noted that “[b]ecause the Open Meeting Law was enacted for public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.” Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W. 2d 729 (Minn. 2002). The Court also explained 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 governed by [the law].” St. Cloud Newspapers v. District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W. 2d at 6.

In finding that a gathering of township board members violated the OML, the Commissioner relied on Moberg and an earlier Minnesota Attorney General opinion. (See Advisory Opinion 16-005, Issue 3.). The Attorney General wrote:

We also point out that the fact that a particular gathering does not purport to be and is not intended to be an official council meeting does not remove it from the requirements of the open meeting law [sic] and the fact that some of the subjects do not at the time of the gathering appear to require formal council action is of no consequence.

(See Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5, Oct. 28, 1974.) Thus, there are only two elements that determine whether a gathering is subject to the OML: 1) a quorum or more of members of the public body are present, and 2) those members discuss, decide, or receive information related to the official business of that public body.

In its comments to the Commissioner, the Board stated:

The Board did not deliberate toward decisions, receive testimony as a body, or transact official business at the private gathering. There was no roll call, agenda, motions, votes, or direction to the administration. . . .The District did not organize the event. Any comments by the Superintendent were informational in nature; board members’ presence alone did not constitute Board action.

The Commissioner acknowledges the Board’s comments, which clarify that the Board did not take any official action at this meeting. However, formal action following a public body’s procedures or bylaws is not required for a meeting to occur under the OML.

Four of the seven Board members attended the September 23 event, resulting in a quorum of Board members being present. At the event, the Superintendent discussed school funding and plans for improvements and changes to the District, a presenter discussed curriculum opportunities, and a Board member provided information on voting for the related school bond. The topic and focus of the entire event were related to the Board’s work. Additionally, the members of the Board that attended were introduced as Board members, and the invitation itself stated that members of the Board would be present. The quorum of members received information related to the official business of the Board. Therefore, this gathering was subject to all the applicable requirements of the OML, which the Board did not meet.

Opinion:

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

The Minnewaska School Board did not comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13D, when a quorum of members attended an invitation-only event at a private residence.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

November 13, 2025