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:

Allie Schmidt (Schmidt) requested an advisory opinion regarding the Rush City School Board (Board) members’ 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 closed several meetings during 2026 based on Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b), which allows a public body to close a meeting for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the body’s authority.

Specifically, the Board closed meetings on January 29, 2026, April 2, 2026, April 27, 2026, and May 7, 2026. The Board recorded its meetings, and it provided transcripts of the recorded meetings on these dates. The transcripts indicated the Board gave the following statements on the record prior to closing the meeting, as required by section 13D.01, subdivision 3: 

• January 29, 2026 (01:46:43 – 01:46:56): “So then the last thing is a closed session. Uh, the next thing on the agenda is – involves a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13D.05, subdivisions 2(a)(3) and 2(b).” 

• April 2, 2026 (Part B - 00:00:25 – 00:00:55): “The next item on the agenda is a preliminary consideration of allegations against an individual subject to the Board’s authority. The Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) states that a public body shall close a meeting for the preliminary consideration of allegations against an individual subject to its authority. During the closed meeting, the Board will discuss the allegations and what, if any, action should be taken to address the allegations. Accordingly, pursuant to the law I have cited, I will hereby entertain a motion that this meeting be closed for the purpose of the preliminary consideration of allegations against an individual subject to the Board’s authority.” 

• April 27, 2026 (00:00:45 – 00:01:00): “The first item of business is a closed session for preliminary consideration of allegations against an individual subject to the Board’s authority pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subdivision 2(b). Can I entertain a motion to close the meeting?” 

• May 7, 2026 (Part A - 00:01:39 – 00:01:52): “The next thing on the agenda is a closed session – uh – for preliminary consideration of allegations against an individual subject to the Board’s authority pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.05, subd. 2(b). With that I would entertain a motion to close the session.” 

Schmidt asked the Commissioner whether these statements met the requirements of section 13D.01, subd. 3, writing: 

Based on the information available to me, I have concerns regarding whether the closed meeting requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13D were properly followed. 

 […]

 I have these concerns because we have a complaint about misconduct from the superintendent submitted January 2026 […] however, we do not know how many times they have had a closed session in regards to our complaint and investigation.

Issue:

Discussion:

The OML requires meetings of public bodies to be open to the public, with limited exceptions. One such exception is found in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) which states:

A public body shall close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. If the members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted as a result of those specific charges or allegations, further meetings or hearings relating to those specific charges or allegations held after that conclusion is reached must be open. A meeting must also be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.”

Additionally, “[b]efore closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3.)”

In The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471, (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (The Free Press), the Minnesota Court of Appeals considered the language of section 13D.01, subd. 3 and distinguished between the “grounds” for closing a meeting and the “subject to be discussed.” The Court held that in addition to identifying the “grounds” or statutory authority for closing a meeting, the public body must also provide a “particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed.” (The Free Press at 476).

Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of section 13D.01, subd. 3, public bodies must (1) identify the authority to close a meeting and (2) provide a particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed. (See Advisory Opinion 17-003.)

In comments to the Commissioner, the Board argued that they satisfied the requirement of section 13D.01, subd. 3 by making statements in open session before closing meetings on January 29, 2026, April 2, 2026, April 27, 2026, and May 7, 2026. The Board stated:

Here, the District fulfilled both prongs of the [Free Press] analysis. Regarding the first prong, “[t]he Commissioner has opined that an efficient way to fulfill the first requirement is to cite to the specific statute that allows or requires the public body to close the meeting.” Advis. Opin. 17-003 (DPO Apr. 26, 2017). The recordings confirm the District’s Board Chair identified the specific statute authorizing meeting closure during each public meeting. Nothing more was required.

Regarding the second prong, the Board Chair explicitly identified the “preliminary consideration of allegations against an individual subject to the Board’s authority” as the subject of the April and May closed sessions. In January, he referred to the statute, which allows the Board to close for “preliminary consideration of allegations against an individual subject to the Board’s authority.” That basis for closing was also expressly identified as the reason for closing each meeting on the agenda.

In making these statements, the Chair did more than simply cite a statute. He identified the nature of the discussion (allegations), the stage of the process (preliminary consideration), the person involved (an individual subject to the Board’s authority), and the purpose of the discussion (determining what action, if any, should be taken concerning those allegations). The Chair’s statement was loaded with information regarding the “subject to be discussed” during the closed session, satisfying the second prong in the analysis.

The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the Board’s statements satisfied the requirements of section 13D.01, subd. 3. Although the Board made a statement on the record that identified the authority for closing the meeting by citing section 13D.05, subd. 2(b), the Board did not describe the subject to be discussed.

In The Free Press, the Court of Appeals considered a public body’s statement that a meeting was being closed for discussion of pending litigation under the attorney-client privilege. The Court explained that Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b) provides that meetings may be closed if permitted by the attorney-client privilege. Thus, the public body’s statement identified the grounds for closing the meeting, but it did not provide a description of the subject to be discussed as required by section 13D.01, subd. 3 (The Free Press at 476). The Court also noted that the public body’s reference to “pending litigation” identified the subject to be discussed at the closed meeting, but it did not meet the requirement that the public body describe the subject to be discussed. (Id.)

Similarly, the Board citing and restating the language of section 13D.05, subd. 2(b) identified the “grounds” for closing the meetings, but it did not provide a particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed.

In comments to the Commissioner, the Board also raised concerns that “[i]nterpreting section 13D.01 to require disclosure of the identity of the accused employee or details of pending allegations would create tension with section 13.43, which limits public disclosure before final disposition.” 

In Advisory Opinion 06-020, the Commissioner explained there are ways to balance an employee’s privacy rights and the requirements of section 13D.01, subd. 3, stating: 

Almost all public bodies subject to the OML will need at some point to consider allegations or complaints against an employee. According to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), the existence and status of any complaints against a public employee are public. What is not public is the basis or substance of the complaint or charge. To protect the privacy of the employee, the public body could indicate that it will be reviewing a complaint against an unidentified employee and give a general description of the basis or substance of the complaint. A second option would be to identify the employee and indicate that the public body will be considering an unspecified complaint or charge against the employee. Either method gives the public a description of what will be discussed at the closed meeting without violating the privacy rights of the employee. 

Here the Board could have identified the employee it was considering unspecified allegations against. Alternatively, the Board could have stated it was closing the meeting for preliminary consideration of allegations against an unidentified employee and described the basis or substance of those allegations. Either of these statements would have provided a particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed without revealing private personnel data about the employee. Notwithstanding the Board’s concerns, both the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the OML allow discussion of not public data at an open meeting. (See Minnesota Statutes, sections 13.03, subdivision 11 and 13D.05, subdivision 1(b).) 

As noted by the Court in The Free Press, “[n]arrow construction of exceptions to the open meeting law advances the legislative purpose to support broad public access to the decisions of public bodies.” (at 477). (See also St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs., 332 N.W. 2d 1 (Minn. 1983).) Without a particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed, the public is unable to stay informed on the decision-making process of a public body.

In this instance, it’s not clear whether the four closed meetings all involved the same complaint or the same employee. Although the public would not have been able to confirm that a particular complaint was being considered by the Board, a description of the subject to be discussed would have provided the public with some insight as to whether the Board was considering allegations or charges against a single employee or whether the closed sessions involved four distinct complaints. 

The Board’s failure to provide descriptions of the subject to be discussed in its statements made in open session before closing the meetings means that it did not comply with the requirements of section 13D.01, subd. 3. 

Opinion:

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

The Rush City School Board did not provide an appropriate statement on the record, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, before closing meetings on January 29, 2026, April 2, 2026, April 27, 2026, and May 7, 2026, for preliminary considerations of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

August 4, 2026