School Board accused of breaking Open Meeting Law
November 21, 2019
School Board members discuss issues during a meeting on nov. 14. Unlike committees wherein members of the school board only include a minority of directors, a committee should be made up of the whole school board so that action can be taken on major issues.
The School Board has received a letter from the Minnesota Department of Administration declaring the school board had defied the state’s Open Meeting Law during a meeting of the Finance and Operation Working Group on Aug. 29. The incident in question involved a member of the School Board who attended a meeting as a member of the audience and entered into the conversation of the three person panel. The Department of Administration stated that the School Board had not given prior notice that the meeting would be attended by four members.
Minnesota Open Meeting Law declares that governing bodies within the state of Minnesota must give prior notice to official meetings of said body and specify when a “Quorum” would be present. Quorum means that while not all members of the governing body would be present, a majority of the body would be present and could pass potential motions.
Alice Davis-Roberts, Commissioner of the Department of Administration explained in the letter that “Once the fourth School Board member was present to discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to the official business of the School Board, the committee meeting also became a meeting of the School Board.”
The letter is a result of a complaint filed by Carl Blondin, a local attorney. Blondin said that he filed the complaint due to concern with the School Boards’ “slipshod” practices and expressed concern over what he felt were multiple actions of questionable legality. Blondin has been involved in activism in regards to the School Board for many years and has often raised concerns over the sway special interest groups have over the School Board’s decisions.
The posting of the open meeting was missing a small piece of information regarding whether it might be possible that other board members who are not on the working group might be present.
— Sarah Stivland
Members of the School Board have expressed different viewpoints on the matter, although all agree that the ruling was fair and that decisive action must be taken.
Director Sarah Stivland explained, “The posting of the open meeting was missing a small piece of information regarding whether it might be possible that other board members who are not on the working group might be present. That change has been made. Going forward, this information will be included in working group official postings.”
Director Shelley Pearson agreed with Stivland, saying that she felt that the department’s ruling was probably fair, although she wishes that the letter conflicted less with itself. This is an opinion that many other School Board members reiterated when asked.
Meanwhile, Director Jen Pelletier believes that this is a serious issue that demands immediate action. She explained that it was her opinion that if the board committees could not properly organize themselves correctly, they should be completely disbanded and replaced with full board meetings.
The School Board has begun a new policy of adding a disclaimer to all notifications of a meeting that states that a quorum might be present. This policy may still not be enough to comply with the demands of the letter from the Minnesota Department of Administration.
“I don’t believe that we’ve tackled this situation with enough strength,” Pelletier said. “You deserve to be able to trust that your School Board is doing the right thing with integrity and honesty. I don’t think our policy is there yet.”
Ella Nelson • Dec 19, 2019 at 7:30 am
Tjis article intrigued me because of the title. I really enjoyed your unbiased facts, which are really important when reporting this topic. I found this article flowed nicely and contained a variety of quotes and structures that all fit together nicely.
Julia Bennett • Dec 18, 2019 at 10:10 pm
I think this article used strong unbiased facts that connected well with the quotes. The headline was informative and attention grabbing. I also appreciated the varying quote structures to continue flow with the article. This is not as easy topic to write about, but you did an excellent job!
Alex Steil • Dec 11, 2019 at 9:02 am
I think that this was a very well written article, and is was clear and obviously well researched, but the only thing that I would have liked to know is how this impacts the school board, what are the ramifications for the school board if they fail to adhere to the law again.
Kathleen Pothen • Dec 10, 2019 at 12:27 pm
Your headline grabbed my attention because of the use of the word “accused”. I think this article was really well researched. Your sources were very qualified and central to the topic. I like that you explained the meaning for some unfamiliar words e.g. Quorum. Your ending quote was really good showing that this issue is still an ongoing one and part of a bigger issue about trusting the School Board. One improvement I think could be your photo caption, I don’t really understand the comparison made, it is a little confusing. I think also you could have made it more clear why it’s an issue that the addition of the extra school board member made the meeting an official School Board meeting with the public not being informed.