Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/82797120/2012-O-03
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 18:55:01
Document Index: 795430220

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 44', '§ 15', '§ 44', '§ 15', '§ 44', '§ 44', '§ 44', '§ 44', '§ 44']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinOPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2012-O-03DATE ISSUED: ISSUED TO:
February 24, 2012 North Dakota State University Research and Technology Park CITIZEN’S REQUEST FOR OPINION
This office received a request for an opinion from Mr. Rob Port asking whether the North Dakota State University Research and Technology Park (Research Park) violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19 by holding its annual meeting out of state. FACTS PRESENTED On September 22 and 23, 2011, the Research Park held its annual meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Research Park is a nonprofit corporation created pursuant to the authority set forth in N.D.C.C. § 15-10-17(8).1 It is located on 55 acres adjacent to the North Dakota State University campus. It is governed by a 10-member board of directors consisting of the NDSU president, two NDSU officials, and seven private sector members. The Research Park publicly noticed the annual meeting and does not dispute that it has an obligation to comply with the open meetings law.2 Mr. Port requested an Attorney General’s opinion because he was concerned that a meeting held in another state, some 250 miles from Fargo, effectively made the annual meeting inaccessible to North Dakota citizens and therefore constituted a violation of the open meetings law. ISSUE Whether the location of the Research Park’s 2011 annual board meeting made the meeting inaccessible to the public in violation of N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19.
Entities created pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 15-10-17(8) are created and operated under the authority of the State Board of Higher Education to encourage university system entities to enter into arrangements with “private business and industry for the purpose of business or industrial development or fostering basic and applied research or technology transfer.” 2 N.D.A.G. 2010-O-04; N.D.A.G. 2006-O-01.
OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2012-O-03 February 24, 2012 Page 2 ANALYSIS The open meetings law requires all meetings of a public entity to be open to the public 3 unless otherwise specified by law. A meeting must be accessible to the public to be 4 considered open. The law specifically states “the meeting room must be accessible to, and the size of the room must accommodate, the number of persons reasonably 5 expected to attend the meeting.” Mr. Port contends that the Research Park denied public access to its annual meeting by holding the meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Research Park explained that typically meetings are held in Fargo, but because the NDSU football team was playing a game in Minneapolis, it presented an opportunity for the annual meeting to be held in conjunction with the other events surrounding the game. This provided an opportunity for everyone affiliated with the Research Park, including the board, to make contacts and gain business leverage with alumni and CEO’s from corporations that would also be in Minneapolis at the same time.6 In 2002, a Minot resident argued that Minot residents were denied access to a meeting of the State Board of Higher Education (SBHE) because the meeting was held in Williston, North Dakota.7 Because N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19 does not address the proximity of the public entity’s meeting place to the people affected by the public entity’s decisions, I considered the following factors to analyze whether the location of the meeting denied access: the jurisdiction of the public entity; the proximity of the meeting place to the persons affected by the public entity’s decisions; and the purpose behind the choice of location to determine whether the meeting location violated the open meetings law.8 Here, in response to questions from this office, the Research Park explains that the location of the annual meeting is consistent with the Research Parks “jurisdiction” because it is authorized to actively pursue partnerships that bring out-of-state businesses into North Dakota.9 It further explains that in order to expand the economic base of North Dakota it must develop partnerships with international, national, and regional centers of excellence and technology based businesses.10 In the context of N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19(2). 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 N.D.A.G. 2002-O-12. The SBHE discussed a matter that involved Minot State University at that meeting. 8 N.D.A.G. 2002-O-12. 9 Letter from Lowell Bottrell, NDSU, RTP Corporate Counsel, to Janilyn Murtha, Asst. Att’y Gen., Oct. 17, 2011. 10 Id.
OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2012-O-03 February 24, 2012 Page 3 the open records and meetings law, the “jurisdiction” of a public entity does not necessarily refer to physical boundaries, but often refers to the scope of its authority or the “public business” of the public entity.11 The location of the Research Park board’s annual meeting was related to the “public business” of the Research Park: to facilitate business relationships. Thus, the location was within the jurisdiction of the Research Park. The Research Park also explains that holding the annual meeting in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, area, where NDSU alumni were attending events surrounding the NDSU football game, put the board members and the meeting in close proximity to potential business contacts. As explained above, persons affected by the decisions of the Research Park board are not confined within North Dakota’s boundaries. By holding the meeting in Minneapolis, it allowed affected persons to attend who otherwise may not have an opportunity to attend the board meetings of the Research Park when held in Fargo. Finally, according to the Research Park, in addition to advancing the mission of the Research Park, the location of the annual meeting was practical for speakers and board members. The board president12 had to be in Minneapolis for meetings in advance of the sporting event with alumni, potential donors, and businesses;13 the Executive Director and another board member had to be in Minneapolis to speak at another advisory board meeting for NDSU;14 and one of the speakers at the board meeting was an associate director of another research park traveling from Wisconsin.15 It is my opinion, therefore, that the location of the Research Park’s board’s annual meeting was consistent with the “public business” of the Research Park and consequently the location of the meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was not in violation of North Dakota’s open meeting laws. Although individual or infrequent meetings, such as Research Park’s annual meeting in this case, do not violate the open meetings laws, I might come to a different conclusion if the board consistently met out of state, or it appeared the board was doing so with the intent of avoiding our open meetings laws. Business contacts are important for governing bodies such as the Research Park, but in
See N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1(12)(definition of public business means all matter that relate or may foreseeably relate in any way to the performance of the public entity’s functions). 12 Bylaws of the NDSU Research & Technology Park, Inc., Art. VI, Section 6.01 requires the Board President be the President of NDSU. 13 Attachment to Letter from Lowell Bottrell, NDSU, RTP Corporate Counsel, to Janilyn Murtha, Asst. Att’y Gen., Oct. 17, 2011. 14 Id. 15 Agenda, NDSU Research & Technology Park, Inc., Sept. 22-23, 2011.
OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2012-O-03 February 24, 2012 Page 4 scheduling such meetings, public entities should keep in mind the transparency required by the North Dakota Open Meetings law. CONCLUSION The Research Park’s annual meeting was accessible to the public in compliance with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19 even though it was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Wayne Stenehjem Attorney General jkm/vkk
2012-O-03 by Rob Port1.0K viewsEmbedDownloadInterests: PartnershipRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedDraft a Moot Memorialby ankitkoolIng-espby lotraducidoMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS? MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 11, 2015by JBS RI2014 Charter Revisionsby ABoyd8SiOS "We Work for the City" Meeting - June 2015by Christian HuelsmanLetter from IL State Sen. Tim Bivins (R-Dixon) to Attorney General Lisa Madigan re: her office's investigation of the Save-A-Life Foundation, 1/18/12by Peter M. Heimlich1404159222by thegreensatsevenoaksGlee clubby ohmisselphabaToo Late Nate Flyer v2by defensedenverPMO State of the PMO Functionby hsommer740Types of Company meeting.pptby sivaganesh_7Company Meetings as Per Indian Compnay Lawby Zaheer Abbas JangralCouncil Rock Agendaby BucksLocalNews.comCCP104by api-3849444Agenda 1-13-10by prideandpromiseOysterponds school board meeting agenda, Feb. 12, 2013by Riverhead News-ReviewSection 3by dist5701_Improving Efficiency and Confidence in Local Government_Finalby trcMay 2010 Agenda Notesby econnelltimberlandsatyam16.4.09by Manik Singh003 - Functionsby Press And Journal2013-12-06 Snuneymuxw Files Legal Action Challenging SD68 School Boardby Scott KimlerSSD Board 2010Decby smsversuscptRecall Phone Scriptby defensedenverRCE Capitalby mrf236phpzFgzZEby rq_tech_adminUniversity of Notre Dame Australia Act 1989by the University of Notre Dame AustraliaExecutive Profile -Rochester Area Foundation Presidentby rebeccadriscollSimilar to 2012-O-03Draft a Moot MemorialIng-espMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS? MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 11, 20152014 Charter RevisionsSiOS "We Work for the City" Meeting - June 2015Letter from IL State Sen. Tim Bivins (R-Dixon) to Attorney General Lisa Madigan re1404159222Glee clubToo Late Nate Flyer v2PMO State of the PMO FunctionTypes of Company meeting.pptCompany Meetings as Per Indian Compnay LawCouncil Rock AgendaCCP104Agenda 1-13-10Oysterponds school board meeting agenda, Feb. 12, 2013Section 301_Improving Efficiency and Confidence in Local Government_FinalMay 2010 Agenda Notessatyam16.4.09003 - Functions2013-12-06 Snuneymuxw Files Legal Action Challenging SD68 School BoardSSD Board 2010DecRecall Phone ScriptRCE CapitalphpzFgzZEUniversity of Notre Dame Australia Act 1989Executive Profile -Rochester Area Foundation PresidentCHPOA Board Minutes Nov 16 2009MOU UCLA Smarter Balanced2012-O-03