ND 2025-O-09 2025-06-10

If a North Dakota airport authority misspells the email when notifying the city auditor of a special meeting, has it given valid notice?

Short answer: No. Posting a notice at both terminals on the day of the meeting was not enough. A typo that prevented the city auditor from receiving the notice, plus failure to alert the official newspaper, was not substantial compliance for a special meeting.

Disclaimer: This is an official North Dakota Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed North Dakota attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

The Tioga Airport Authority called a special meeting for August 19, 2024. The chairman posted the agenda at both the old and new terminals on August 17, but on the day of the meeting tried to email notice to the city auditor and got the auditor's email address wrong. The notice never reached the auditor. The Authority did not post the notice on its website (the website was not publicly accessible at the time) and did not notify the official newspaper.

Ten days later, Kathleen Neset asked for the public notices, financial reports, and the lists of bills approved at recent monthly meetings. Two months later she still had not received any of it. When the AG's office asked the Authority what it had sent her, the Authority responded only that "Records were sent 8-29-24 at 10 am to city auditor," which did not address Ms. Neset.

AG Drew Wrigley found two violations:

The special-meeting notice was not in substantial compliance. For special meetings, notification to the official newspaper is mandatory, precisely because the public may not know to look. The misdirected email to the auditor compounded the problem. Posting at the meeting site only is not enough.
The records response was unreasonable. The Authority never claimed it actually sent the requested records to Ms. Neset, and it offered no explanation for the silence.

The remedy: deliver the August 19 meeting minutes and the requested records to Ms. Neset (and to anyone else who asks) at no cost. If the Authority does not act within seven days, it faces mandatory costs and attorney fees in a civil suit, plus potential personal liability for the responsible individuals.

A footnote also addresses Ms. Neset's question of whether actions taken at an improperly noticed meeting are valid. The AG cannot invalidate those actions, only a court can.

What this means for you

If you serve on a special district board (airport, water, fire protection, etc.)

Two reminders. First, special meetings are not the same as regular meetings. The notice rules ratchet up: you must add notice to the official newspaper and to any media outlets that have asked to be notified. Skipping that step makes posting at the door insufficient. Second, treat email notice to the city auditor as a delivery confirmation problem, not just a send problem. A misspelled address and a bounced email mean no notice. Verify with a phone call or read receipt for any meeting where the legal validity of decisions is going to matter.

If you're a journalist covering local meetings in North Dakota

If you cover a special district, file a written request to be added to the official-newspaper notification list for special meetings. The statute (N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20(6)) entitles you to notice. If you do not receive notice and the entity later takes meaningful action at the meeting, that is a fact pattern worth reporting and worth flagging to the AG's office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1.

If you've been waiting on records from a small public body

The fact pattern in this case is common. The entity says it sent records, but to the wrong person. Document your follow-ups, save the original request email, and after a reasonable wait (the AG's standard is hours and days, not weeks), file for an opinion. The Authority here had no defense after months of silence.

If you advise a special district on compliance

The Authority's response to the AG's inquiry, "Records were sent 8-29-24 at 10 am to city auditor," is the kind of answer that converts a possible defense into a clear violation. If the records were sent to the wrong person, say so plainly and explain the corrective steps. Vague responses get treated as no response at all.

If you're concerned about whether decisions made at an improperly noticed meeting are still binding

You will need a court. The AG can declare that the notice was deficient (and that finding is persuasive in litigation), but only a court can invalidate the underlying actions taken at the meeting. The opinion expressly says so.

Common questions

Q: What's a "special meeting" under North Dakota law?
A: Any meeting that is not a previously noticed regular meeting. It triggers extra notice requirements, including notification to the official newspaper.

Q: Does posting at the meeting location count as notice?
A: It is required, but for a special meeting it is not enough on its own. You must also notify the city auditor (for city-level bodies), the official newspaper, and any media that has requested notice.

Q: Why is newspaper notice so important for special meetings?
A: Because the public has no reason to expect the meeting and cannot consult a regular schedule. The newspaper requirement is the public's primary safeguard.

Q: Is sending an email to the wrong address still "notice"?
A: No. The statute requires actual notice. A misspelled email that bounces or never arrives is the same as no email.

Q: Can I get my records for free if the entity violated the law?
A: Under the remedy in this opinion, yes. The Authority was ordered to provide the August 19 meeting minutes and Ms. Neset's requested records "free of charge." That is a standard remedy after an unreasonable-delay finding.

Q: Are decisions made at an improperly noticed special meeting void?
A: Not automatically. The AG opinion does not invalidate them. A court has to take that step. But the AG opinion is persuasive evidence in such a suit.

Citations

N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1(11), (13)(b), airport authority is a "political subdivision" / "public entity"
N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18, open records general rule
N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20, meeting notice requirements
N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20(6), special meeting newspaper notice
N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1, citizen request for AG opinion
N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2, civil action for noncompliance
N.D.A.G. 2009-O-20, airport authority is a public entity
N.D.A.G. 2016-O-17, 2010-O-07, 2005-O-20, newspaper notice for special meetings
N.D.A.G. 2022-O-12, 2019-O-15, 2019-O-09: reasonable response timeframes

Source

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-09
DATE ISSUED: June 10, 2025
ISSUED TO: Tioga Airport Authority

CITIZEN'S REQUEST FOR OPINION

Kathleen Neset requested an opinion from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 asking whether the Tioga Airport Authority violated N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-20 and 44-04-18 by not properly noticing its August 19, 2024, special meeting and by failing to provide open records within a reasonable time.

FACTS PRESENTED

The Tioga Airport Authority (Authority) held a special meeting on August 19, 2024, at the Tioga Airport Terminal. The chairman of the Authority posted the agenda for the meeting at both the old and new terminals at the Tioga Airport on August 17, 2024. The chairman attempted to email notice of the special meeting to the city auditor on August 19, 2024, but the chairman misspelled the auditor's email address, so the city auditor was not notified of the special meeting. Notice of the special meeting was not posted to the Authority's website because the website was not accessible to the public at that time. The Authority also did not notify the official newspaper of the special meeting.

On August 29, 2024, Kathleen Neset made an open records request to the Authority. Neset requested copies of the public notices of the special meeting and any notification provided to the Williston Herald. Neset also requested financial reports and the list of bills approved and paid by the Authority at the Authority's monthly meetings. In her request for this opinion, Neset stated that she had not received the requested records as of October 29, 2024. In response to questions from this office regarding whether the records were provided to Neset, the Authority did not claim that it had provided Neset with the records but instead stated, "Records were sent 8-29-24 at 10 am to city auditor."

ISSUES

Whether the Authority provided notice of its August 19, 2024, special meeting in substantial compliance with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20.
Whether the Authority provided records responsive to a request within a reasonable time.

ANALYSIS

Issue One

An airport authority is a political subdivision under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1(11) and is therefore a public entity subject to open meetings law. A governing body of a public entity must give advance notice of its meetings unless otherwise provided by law. Notice of a meeting must be posted at the principal office of the governing body if such an office exists and at the location of the meeting on the day of the meeting. City-level bodies must provide notice of a meeting to the city auditor, and if the public entity has a website, it must post the notice on its website. For a special meeting, notice must also be given to the public entity's official newspaper. Notifying the official newspaper is an important requirement for special meetings because it compensates for the possibility that the public may not be aware of the special meeting.

The Authority posted the agenda for the meeting at the location of the meeting. But the Authority admits that it did not provide notice to the city auditor or to the official newspaper. The Authority also admits that it did not post the notice to the Authority's website, but it asserts that the website was not publicly accessible at that time. Notably such a website failure is the type of malady cured by notice in the official newspaper. Due to the failure to provide notice of the special meeting to the city auditor and the official newspaper, it is my opinion that the Authority did not substantially comply with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20 when providing notice of the August 19, 2024, special meeting.

Issue Two

"Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all records of a public entity are public records, open and accessible for inspection during reasonable office hours." A public entity must respond to an open records request within a reasonable time. Whether the public entity responds within a reasonable time depends on the facts of the situation.

It is unclear what the Authority meant by "[r]ecords were sent 8-29-24 at 10 am to city auditor" when it responded to this office's inquiries. In any event, the Authority has not claimed that it provided Neset with the requested records, which is consistent with Neset's statement that she had not received the records as of two months after her request. The Authority also did not provide an explanation for the delay. It is therefore my opinion that the Authority violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by not responding to Neset's request within a reasonable time.

CONCLUSIONS

The Authority did not provide notice of its August 19, 2024, special meeting in substantial compliance with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20 because it failed to notify the city auditor and official newspaper of the special meeting.
The Authority violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by not responding to an open records request within a reasonable time.

STEPS NEEDED TO REMEDY VIOLATION

The Authority must provide minutes of the August 19, 2024, special meeting to Kathleen Neset and anyone else who requests them, free of charge. The Authority must also provide Kathleen Neset with copies of the records she requested, free of charge.

While I have every reason to expect the Tioga Airport Authority will remedy this situation, failure to take the corrective measures described in this opinion within seven days of the date this opinion is issued will result in mandatory costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees if the person requesting the opinion prevails in a civil action under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2. Failure to take these corrective measures may also result in personal liability for the person or persons responsible for the noncompliance.

SRH/mjh
cc: Kathleen Neset