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 - 10 of 37
Advisory Opinion 23-005
November 14, 2023; Woodbury City Council
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A member of the public asked whether a city council violated the Open Meeting Law when it closed a meeting on the basis of attorney-client privilege to discuss a contract it had with a local school district and decide whether to break it. The Commissioner opined that the council violated the OML because a public body cannot close a meeting for attorney-client privilege purposes when there was no threatened or pending litigation. The Commissioner noted the threat that litigation may be a result of a public body deciding a matter one way or the other is not sufficient justification to close a meeting, and therefore the public's right to hear the discussion about the contract outweighed the need for absolute confidentiality.
Category: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Attorney-client privilege
Commissioner: Tamar Gronvall
Advisory Opinion 23-004
October 3, 2023; City of Fertile
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A data subject asked whether a city council violated the Open Meeting Law when it held multiple closed sessions under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05 subd. 2(b), to discuss allegations against an individual subject to its authority. The data subject also asked whether a city responded appropriately to a request for data made under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04. The Commissioner opined that the Council did not comply with the Open Meeting Law when it held closed meetings under section 13D.05 subd. 2(b), as it had previously determined that discipline may be warranted and discussed matters outside the scope of closure permitted by the section. Additionally, the Commissioner concluded that the City did not respond appropriately to a request from the data subject because it did not provide access to the data within ten business days, as required by section 13.04.
Category: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Requests for data, Data subjects
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Requests for data, Data subjects, Timeliness of response to data subject - immediately or ten business days, Recording meetings
Commissioner: Stacie Christensen Temporary
Advisory Opinion 22-009
December 8, 2022; Modern Montessori Charter School
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A member of the public asked whether the school board of a charter school violated the Open Meeting Law when it did not record the closed portion of a meeting and whether the board provided appropriate notice of the purpose of a special meeting. The board acknowledged it failed to record the closed meeting at issue as required by the OML and described steps it would take to avoid similar situation in the future. The Commissioner opined that the board did not provide appropriate notice of the special meeting's purpose because the notice indicated the board would hold closed session "for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the board's authority." However, the board violated the OML when it moved beyond the stated purpose of a "preliminary consideration" when it also voted to impose discipline on the individual.
Category: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Meeting notice
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Meeting notice, Special meeting notice, Recording meetings
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 22-008
December 2, 2022; Thomson Township Board of Supervisors
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A member of the public asked whether a township board of supervisors violated the Open Meeting Law when it closed a meeting to review applications to appoint a new board supervisor. The board maintained that its meeting was properly closed under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) because it was reviewing applicant data of individuals who voluntarily placed themselves under the Board’s authority. The Commissioner opined that section 13D.05, subd. 3(a) permits public bodies to close meetings only to “evaluate the performance of individuals” rather than to discuss general personnel issues, such as hiring or appointment decisions. Therefore, the board closing its meeting to review applications violated the Open Meeting Law.
Category: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Individual performance, Individual subject to authority
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 21-004
May 7, 2021; Windemere Town Board of Supervisors
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2020). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A member of the public asked for recordings of a township board of supervisors meetings closed for labor negotiations pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03. The Board argued that members voted to post the recordings to the Township website and to make them available upon request, but it was unclear from the facts whether the Board actually made the recordings available. The Commissioner opined that the Board members did not comply if they did not make the recordings “available” to the public after it had signed all of the contracts for the current budget period.
Category: Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Open meeting, Closed meetings, Record of meeting, Recording meetings, Labor negotiations, Open Meeting Law, Open Meeting Law (Ch.13D / 471.075) (See also: Public Meetings)
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis;
Advisory Opinion 19-008
May 22, 2019; Tower City Council
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: a City Council held closed meetings to discuss allegations against a staff member after it decided to hire an investigator. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subd. 2(b), requires a public body to close a meeting(s) to consider allegations against an employee subject to its authority until it determines that discipline may be warranted. Once it makes that determination, subsequent meetings and hearings for additional consideration of the allegations must be open. The Commissioner concluded that the Council members did not comply with the Open Meeting Law.
Category: Open Meeting Law, Personnel data
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Personnel data, Closed meetings, Open meeting, Open Meeting Law, Personnel data, Complaint or charge
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 16-003
June 22, 2016, Motley City Council
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2015). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: a newspaper reporter asked whether a city council properly closed a meeting pursuant to the attorney-client privilege exception to the Open Meeting Law (Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(b)). The Commissioner opined that the council had met the standard for closing the meeting because the council had been threatened with litigation and it needed absolute confidentiality to discuss the provisions of a proposed separation agreement.
Category: Closed meetings, Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Closed meetings, Open Meeting Law, Attorney-client privilege
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 16-002
June 22, 2016, Moorhead City Council
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2015). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: a member of the public asked whether a city council complied with the Open Meeting Law requirement to provide a summary of conclusions following a closed meeting for a performance evaluation (Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(a)). Because the council only discussed two salient points the closed session, and the summary given at the next open meeting included the conclusions of those two points, the Commissioner opined that the council had met the statutory requirements.
Category: Closed meetings, Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Closed meetings, Open Meeting Law, Employee evaluation summary
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 15-002
May 7, 2015; Edina City Council
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A member of the public asked if a City Council had complied with the Open Meeting Law
(Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D) when closing two meetings to evaluate the performance of an individual subject
to its authority (under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a)). The Commissioner concluded that
when a public body requires more than one closed session to do a performance evaluation, the proper procedure is
to recess and continue a meeting, rather than holding two separate meetings. The Commissioner also opined that
the Council’s summary of the evaluation was not timely and not sufficient.
Category: Closed meetings, Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Closed meetings, Open Meeting Law, Individual performance, Employee evaluation summary
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 14-017
October 28, 2014; City of East Grand Forks
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2014). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A requester asked whether a
public body properly closed two meetings on the
basis of attorney-client privilege pursuant to
section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b). In applying the
balancing test required by the Minnesota Supreme
Court, the first meeting was improperly closed
because the body had not yet decided to act upon
an underlying issue, which barred the body from
initiating legal action. The potential opposing party
attended a portion of the second meeting, so the
attorney-client privilege exception does not apply
because those circumstances do not dictate the need
for absolute confidentiality. However, the remainder of
the meeting at which the attorney for the body
discussed legal options and strategies with the body was
properly closed.
Category: Closed meetings, Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Closed meetings, Open Meeting Law, Attorney-client privilege
Commissioner: Matthew Massman Acting
Refine your search
Filter By Keywords
- All Results
- Closed meetings (37)
- Open Meeting Law (36)
- Employee evaluation summary (9)
- Personnel data (8)
- Attorney-client privilege (6)
- Individual performance (5)
- Meeting notice (5)
- Statement on record (5)
- Labor negotiations (4)
- Notice (4)
- Recording meetings (4)
- Open meeting (3)
- Special meeting notice (3)