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 - 3 of 3
Advisory Opinion 14-015
October 23, 2014; City of Crystal
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
whether a city council’s conduct under the OML
was proper on eight different occasions. The
council’s “work sessions” were special, not regular
meetings, but the Commissioner could not
determine whether the council complied with the
special meeting notice requirements under section
13D.04, or held an improper meeting via email. The
council did not properly close meetings and
discussed impermissible topics in closed session,
per section 13D.01, subdivision 3, and section
13D.05. The council also improperly excluded
members of the public who were not disruptive. It
did not comply with section 13D.05, subdivision 3
(a), because it did not provide the required
summary of a performance evaluation. It did not
comply with section 13D.01, subdivision 6, because
a public copy of members’ materials was not
available.
Category: Open Meeting Law, Meeting notice, Closed meetings
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Meeting notice, Closed meetings, Attorney-client privilege, Email, Meeting calendar, Closed meetings, Statement on record, Notice, Special meeting notice, Public comments
Commissioner: Matthew Massman Acting
Advisory Opinion 13-015
December 23, 2013; Florence Township
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A member of the public asked various questions about whether a township’s park commission was subject to Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law (OML) and whether the township complied with various other provisions of the OML. The Commissioner concluded that the Park Commission was subject to the OML based on the ordinance creating the commission. The OML is silent with respect to whether public bodies should create agendas, but if an agenda was provided to commission members, a copy must be made available at the meeting pursuant to section 13D.01, subd. 6. To the extent that an email from the chairman was a one way communication, it did not violate the OML. Finally, because the Board changed the time and place of a regular meeting and the place of a previously-noticed special meeting, it was required to provide notice of a special meeting – three days notice, listing date, time, place, and purpose.
Category: Open Meeting Law
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Agendas, Email, Special vs. emergency meeting
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