Open Meeting Law for Committees

MCIT members are all aware of and work diligently to comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, commonly referred to as the Open Meeting Law (OML). A frequently asked question of MCIT, is whether the law applies to committees whose membership consists of less than a quorum of the board.

The open meeting law applies to:

• A state agency, board, commission or department when it is required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting.
• The governing body of any school district, unorganized territory, county, city, town or other public body.
• A committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission of a public body subject to the law.

In the context of the Open Meeting Law, “meeting” has been defined as a meeting between a quorum or more of the members at which members discuss, decide or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.¹ The OML cannot be circumvented by having serial meetings with less than a quorum of the members.² A violation of law occurs if the process was designed to avoid public hearings.³

Therefore, the Open Meeting Law applies to a governing body or a committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission of the governing body containing a quorum or more of the governing body’s members. It also applies if members of the advisory committee comprise a quorum of the governing body or the governing body has delegated its power to the subcommittee.

The law is somewhat unsettled regarding the OML’s application to advisory committees that contain less than a quorum of the board.

Case Law

In Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. App. 1988), the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether an advisory committee is subject to the Open Meeting Law.

In that case, the University of Minnesota Senate Consultative Committee, a standing subcommittee of the University Senate, recommended members to serve on a Presidential Search Advisory Committee. The regents approved the committee members. This committee would provide advice and consultation to the regents on the selection of the president.

The committee would assume an active role in screening applicants and narrowing the field to a short list of finalists, but its decisions were subject to review by the regents. Staff support and payment of expenses were provided by the regents.

The University’s newspaper sought injunctive relief, arguing that the committee was a committee of the regents, the governing body of the University and, therefore, subject to the Open Meeting Law.

The court found that the committee was not subject to the open meeting requirements. The court noted that there were no regents on the committee and, therefore, the meetings did not constitute meetings of the “governing body.”

Citing an earlier Minnesota Supreme Court case, the court reiterated that “it is the power to decide, as opposed to the right to recommend, that determines whether one is a member of a governing body.”⁴ Furthermore, the committee had no authority to set policy or make the final decision.

Department of Administration Opinion

However, in a 2005 opinion, the Minnesota Department of Administration opined that standing advisory committees that contain less than a quorum of the board are subject to the OML. In that case, a Community Hospital Board created a standing advisory committee that would meet and consider matters pending before the board.

Two of the five hospital board members were members of the committee. The board had delegated responsibility to the committee to make recommendations to the board. The board would act upon those recommendations without much discussion.

In opining that the standing committee was subject to the Open Meeting Law, the Department of Administration noted that the standing committee received information and analyzed it to make recommendations to the board. The committee decided what information should or should not be communicated to the board. The committee would make recommendations to the board on which the board would act without deliberation.

The Department of Administration found this type of conduct consistent with the type of conduct that would be subject to the OML versus the single purpose advisory committee in Minnesota Daily.

Currently Department of Administration opinions are advisory, meaning they are not binding on a court. Also what constitutes a “standing committee” as defined by the Department of Administration will be fact specific.

Government entities need to be aware of this opinion and its potential implications. Members who have further questions, should consult with their county attorney or other legal counsel.

¹ Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 280 (Minn. 2004).
² Id.
³ Mankato Free Press Co. v City of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. App. 1997).
⁴ Id. at 192 (citing Minnesota Education Association v. Bennett, 321 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Minn. 1982)).