Search Opinions
Browse Opinions by Date
Request an Opinion
Our Role
Help with searching
For a Topic Search use terms suggested on our Topics page. Please note that clicking the "Browse Topics" link on the Search Opinions tab will take you away from the search page to a different page, which will lose any existing search results or data that has been entered into search boxes. If you plan to search by topic, we recommend selecting your topic first, and complete any additional fields in the search form after that.
For a simple search, type a few words or a phrase in the Full Text search box, then hit Enter or click the Search button. Your search query can be a single word, multiple words separated by spaces, or it can use more advanced syntax described in the FAQ below. Try to use words that are likely to be unique to the content you're looking for.
Note: For best results when searching for a particular citation, spell out the section and subdivision. For example, “13.43, subdivision 4.”
About Search Results
The advisory opinion library currently includes:
- Data practices advisory opinions issued by the Commissioner of Administration from 1993 to the present.
- Open Meeting Law advisory opinions issued by the Commissioner of Administration from 2003 to the present.
The Commissioner's authority is found in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072. Opinions are nonbinding, but a court may give them deference in a court action. Parties to a court action that act in conformity with an advisory opinion are not liable for certain damages or attorneys fees.
A written, numbered, and published opinion issued by the attorney general shall take precedence over an advisory opinion issued by the Commissioner of Administration.
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Advisory Opinion 16-005
July 13, 2016, Westfield Township Board of Supervisors
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2016). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: a member of the public asked whether a Township Board complied with Open Meeting Law (OML) requirements for a special meeting; whether the board held serial meetings; and whether the board violated the law when a quorum attended a county planning commission meeting at which zoning/planning issues were discussed.
The Commissioner determined that the board acted properly because the actions it took during the meeting were related to the special meeting notice. In addition, the board did not meet outside of the noticed special meeting or otherwise engage in serial meetings. Finally, because a quorum of the board attended and participated in the county planning commission meeting, relayed board business, deliberated, and received information as a group on issues relating to its official business, the quorum’s presence at the county planning commission meeting was a special meeting that the board should have noticed.
Category: Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Interpretation of meeting, Serial meetings
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 12-011
May 29, 2012; Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD)
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A gathering of “ditch viewers”
appointed by a Watershed District Board (drainage
authority) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
103E, is not subject to the Open Meeting Law
(Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D). The ditch viewers
are not a separate public body subject to the OML, and
given the nature of the viewers’ statutory duties, they
are also not a committee, subcommittee, board,
department or commission of the Board. The Board
appoints the viewers, whose duties and
responsibilities are described in statute, but it has the
final authority to make determinations regarding any
drainage project.
Category: Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Interpretation of meeting
Commissioner: Spencer Cronk
Advisory Opinion 12-008
May 2, 2012; South Washington County School Board
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A newspaper asked if a school district
complied with the Open Meeting Law regarding its
summary of the superintendent's performance evaluation.
The Board conducted the evaluation during a closed
“workshop” meeting held before its regular meeting, and
provided a summary at a regular meeting the next month
(see Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a)).
The workshop was a special meeting pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 1, and
therefore separate from the regular meeting that
immediately followed adjournment of the special meeting.
Thus, the Board should have provided the summary at that
regular meeting, because it was its next open meeting.
Also, public bodies should convene and adjourn or
otherwise conclude meetings in open session.
Category: Open Meeting Law, Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Closed meetings
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Closed meetings, Statement on record, Employee evaluation summary, Interpretation of meeting, Recessed/continued meetings
Commissioner: Spencer Cronk
Advisory Opinion 12-001
January 12, 2012; School District 47 (Sauk Rapids-Rice)
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2011). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: An individual asked if a school district
violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) when it
conducted an open meeting (a 15-minute presentation
by the superintendent with a quorum of school board
members present) then broke in to small discussion
groups where the board members were in separate
locations and could not hear and/or see one another.
The Commissioner concluded that a quorum of the full
body did not participate in any of those discussions
and therefore the board did not violate the OML.
The Commissioner also acknowledged the requester’s
concern that the Board violated a purpose of the OML
as articulated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, i.e.,
“to afford the public an opportunity to present its
views to the [public body].” Prior Lake American v.
Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002). However,
the OML does not provide the public with the right to
speak at a public meeting.
In addition, the requester asserted that the board
violated the OML because it did not create meeting
minutes. The Commissioner noted that the OML does
not require a public body to do so.
Category: Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Interpretation of meeting, Public comments
Commissioner: Spencer Cronk
Advisory Opinion 09-020
September 8, 2009; Metro Gang Strike Force Advisory Board
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data ...
Description: Is the Advisory Board for the Metro Gang Strike Force a public body that must comply with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D?
Did the members of the Advisory Board for the Strike Force comply with the OML when they exchanged certain email messages relating to the activities of the Strike Force?
Category: Open Meeting Law, Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Open Meeting Law, Metro Gang Strike Force, Email, Interpretation of meeting
Commissioner: Sheila M. Reger