If a city's online complaint form silently routes my records request to the wrong inbox, is that my fault or the city's?
Plain-English summary
S. Paul Jordan used the City of Mandan's "Report a Concern" website on October 9, 2022, to ask whether the City had a pet registration record for him, and to be told if no such record existed. The website auto-confirmed receipt and forwarded the request to the Code Enforcement Officer, who never saw it. The Officer suspects it was unintentionally deleted in his inbox.
Six weeks later Mr. Jordan emailed the AG's office. After the AG contacted Mandan, the City finally responded on December 30, 2022, telling Mr. Jordan that the requested records did not exist or were not records the City kept.
AG Drew Wrigley held that the two-month-plus delay was unreasonable, even though no one at the City intentionally ignored the request. North Dakota measures reasonable response in hours and days, not weeks. The opinion also points out that an earlier opinion (N.D.A.G. 2019-O-14) found two months unreasonable on identical facts: an entity failing to respond that no records existed, even by accident.
Because the records did not exist and the City eventually said so, no further corrective action was needed. But the violation stands.
What this means for you
If you administer an online complaint or "Report a Concern" portal
Your portal is not a substitute for monitored intake. Most third-party civic forms route messages to a single staff role. If that role is on leave, vacant, or just buried, an unanswered records request becomes a violation regardless of intent. Two safeguards will protect you:
- Add a second recipient on every routing rule. The first person's deletion or absence cannot bury the message if it also lands in another inbox.
- Send an automated confirmation that includes a phone number and an alternative email. Mr. Jordan's experience shows the auto-confirmation can lull the requester into thinking the matter is being handled.
If you submit records requests through a city's intake form
Save your confirmation receipt. If you do not get a substantive response within a couple of weeks, file with the AG's office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1. You do not have to keep emailing the city. The AG opinion in this matter, like several others, says the requester is not obligated to chase the entity.
If you advise small political subdivisions
Two practical points to add to your records training. First, the entity is responsible for monitoring whatever address it advertises as official. Mr. Jordan used the address the City had set up for citizen reports, so the duty to monitor that address attached. Second, "we did not see it" is not a defense. The Code Enforcement Officer's suspicion that the request was inadvertently deleted did not save the City from a violation finding.
Common questions
Q: How long is too long for a North Dakota public entity to respond to a records request?
A: The AG's office measures reasonableness in hours and days, not weeks. Two months is well past the line, even when the records do not exist and the response is just to say so.
Q: Does it matter if the delay was unintentional?
A: No. The opinion explicitly addresses this. An "unintentional delay" of over two months can still be unreasonable. The entity, not any individual, holds the duty to respond.
Q: Does an automated confirmation count as a response?
A: No. An auto-confirmation that the city has received your request is not the substantive response the law requires. The substantive response is either producing the records or explaining the legal reason for not producing them.
Q: What if the records I asked for do not exist?
A: The entity must still tell you that, within a reasonable time. Saying nothing for two months because there is nothing to send is itself a violation, just as much as withholding existing records would be.
Q: What can I do if a city ignores my online records request?
A: After a reasonable wait (the AG suggests days, not weeks), file a written request for an opinion with the North Dakota Attorney General under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1. You can submit by email; the office will reach out to the city.
Q: What happens to a city that violates open records law?
A: The opinion itself does not impose a fine. But a public entity that fails to comply with an AG opinion within seven days can face mandatory costs, disbursements, and attorney fees in a civil action under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2, and individuals responsible may face personal liability.
Citations
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18, open records access and reasonable response time
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18(8), definition of open records violation
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1, citizen request for AG opinion
- N.D.A.G. 2003-O-09, reasonable response measured in hours and days
- N.D.A.G. 98-O-22, same standard
- N.D.A.G. 2004-O-20, multi-week delays unreasonable
- N.D.A.G. 2019-O-14: two months to confirm no records exist is unreasonable
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/an-unintentional-delay-of-over-two-months-to-respond-to-a-record-request-was-unreasonable/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-O-08.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Drew H. Wrigley, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2025-O-08
DATE ISSUED: March 7, 2025
ISSUED TO: City of Mandan
CITIZEN'S REQUEST FOR OPINION
S. Paul Jordan requested an opinion from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 asking whether the City of Mandan (City) violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by failing to respond to a records request within a reasonable time.
FACTS PRESENTED
On October 9, 2022, S. Paul Jordan submitted a records request via the City's "Report a Concern" website asking for a copy of a "pet registration record and [for the City to] provide notification if that record does not exist." An automated response was sent from the website acknowledging receipt of the concern, and the request was automatically forwarded to the Code Enforcement Officer per system settings. The Code Enforcement Officer does not recall receiving a copy of the request and suspects it may have been unintentionally deleted. On November 22, 2022, Mr. Jordan emailed this office seeking an opinion, asking whether the City unreasonably delayed its response to the records request. Upon hearing from our office, the City responded to Mr. Jordan on December 30, 2022, informing him that the requested records did not exist or were not records of the City.
ISSUE
Whether the City of Mandan responded to a records request within a reasonable time.
ANALYSIS
An open records violation occurs when "a person's right to review or receive a copy of a record that is not exempt or confidential is denied or unreasonably delayed." When determining whether a delay in responding to a request for information is reasonable, this office will evaluate the matter in terms of hours and days, not weeks. The determination of reasonableness depends on the given facts, and even unintentional delays may sometimes be deemed unreasonable. In an instance similar to this one, this office stated that "although unintentional, it took [the entity] two months to respond that no records existed, which is an unreasonable delay." The City has addressed the oversight by adding an additional recipient to the "Report a Concern" website and has provided a response to the records request from Mr. Jordan, but the fact remains: a failure to respond to a records request for over two months, however unintentional, is an unreasonable delay.
CONCLUSION
The City of Mandan violated open records laws when it failed to respond to a records request within a reasonable time.
STEPS NEEDED TO REMEDY VIOLATION
A response stating the requested records did not exist has been provided to Mr. Jordan, therefore, no further action is required.
Drew H. Wrigley
Attorney General
MEO/AML/mjh
cc: S. Paul Jordan (via e-mail)