Did a North Dakota rural ambulance district violate the open meetings or open records laws when its email notice to the official newspaper got stuck in an outbox, and when it took 80 days to release a severance agreement?
Plain-English summary
The Killdeer Area Ambulance Service held two special meetings in July 2023. For the first meeting (July 18), KAAS posted notice at the meeting location and at the county auditor's office, and tried to email the notice to its official newspaper. Due to a technical glitch, the email stayed in KAAS's outbox and was not actually transmitted before the meeting. For the second meeting (July 30), notice went out properly to all required recipients, including the official newspaper.
After the second meeting, where the board terminated its billing specialist, a citizen requested copies of the meeting minutes and the severance agreement. KAAS provided the minutes the same day. It denied the severance-agreement request, citing only "NDCC section 44-04" (an entire chapter, not a specific section). KAAS finally released the severance agreement 80 days later, after the requester took the matter to the AG.
The AG's findings:
1. July 18 meeting notice: Substantial compliance, despite the email failure. Reasonable steps were taken; technical difficulties caused the email not to send.
2. July 30 meeting notice: Substantial compliance.
3. Records request: Violation. The 80-day delay was unreasonable, and citing an entire chapter as the legal basis for denial does not satisfy § 44-04-18(7).
What this means for you
If you are a rural ambulance service district board member
You are subject to the open meetings and open records laws even though you may also be organized as a non-profit corporation. The AG opinion specifically advised KAAS to consult legal counsel about whether it is properly handling its public-funds obligations distinct from its non-profit corporate funds. If your district is in this dual posture (statutory district plus non-profit corporation), make sure your board treats public-funds activity under public-records and public-meetings rules.
For meeting notice, hit all four required recipients for special meetings:
- Posting at the meeting location on the day of the meeting
- Filing with the county auditor (if not a state-level or city-level entity)
- Sending to the public entity's website (if it has one)
- Sending to the official newspaper (special meetings only)
The opinion's substantial-compliance finding for the email-stuck-in-outbox is forgiving. But document your sending: time-stamp evidence that the email left your machine. Without that documentation, an "I tried" defense is weaker.
If you handle records requests for a special district
Two big rules from this opinion:
-
Cite the specific subsection of the statute when denying or redacting. "NDCC section 44-04" is not enough. "NDCC § 44-04-18.1" with an explanation of which exemption applies is the standard. Section 44-04-18(7) requires the denial to "describe the legal authority for the denial."
-
Respond within a reasonable time. The opinion treats 80 days as unreasonable per se. The AG's prior opinions describe a "few hours or a few days" as the typical reasonable window. Multiple weeks needs explanation; multiple months is presumptively too long.
If you are seeking records of a personnel termination or severance
The opinion confirms that severance agreements are not presumptively confidential personnel records. Under § 44-04-19.1(11), a settlement agreement is exempt only until "fully executed." Once both parties sign, the document is open. So a request for a severance agreement filed after the agreement is executed should be honored quickly.
The general personnel-record exemption in § 44-04-18.1 covers only enumerated portions of an employee's personnel record. A severance agreement is not on that enumerated list when fully executed.
If you are a citizen using the records-request system
This opinion is a useful reminder that you can take a slow-walking public entity to the AG under § 44-04-21.1, and the AG can find a violation even when the entity ultimately produces the records. Document your request date and the entity's responses; that paper trail is what makes the timeline analysis possible.
Common questions
Q: Why does an ambulance district have to follow open meetings and records laws?
A: Because rural ambulance service districts are political subdivisions created by N.D.C.C. ch. 11-28.3 and they perform a governmental function. Section 44-04-17.1(11) defines political subdivisions to include rural ambulance service districts; § 44-04-17.1(13)(b) makes them public entities subject to the open laws.
Q: Does it matter if the district is also a non-profit corporation?
A: Not for open-records purposes. The AG opinion notes KAAS is also organized under N.D.C.C. ch. 10-33 as a non-profit, but that does not exempt it from open-meetings and open-records duties on its public-funds activity. The opinion advised KAAS to consult counsel on this distinction.
Q: Is a severance agreement always public?
A: After it is fully executed, generally yes, unless another statutory basis for confidentiality applies. Section 44-04-19.1(11) makes settlement agreements exempt only until fully executed. After execution, the document becomes open unless another rule applies.
Q: What is "substantial compliance" in the meeting-notice context?
A: Functional compliance with the open meetings law, even where some technical step was imperfect. Here, KAAS made reasonable efforts to notice the official newspaper but the email did not transmit. The intent was there; the failure was technical. The AG found substantial compliance.
Q: How specific does a denial citation have to be?
A: Specific enough that a reasonable person can verify the legal basis. Citing an entire chapter ("NDCC section 44-04") fails. Citing a particular section and subsection (e.g., "N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.7(1): active criminal investigative information") satisfies the requirement.
Q: What happens when an entity violates the reasonable-time requirement?
A: The AG can find a violation. The remedy is corrective action (release the records, if not already released). If the records were eventually released, no further corrective action may be needed (as here). If the AG finds a violation that is not cured, the requester can sue under § 44-04-21.2 with mandatory costs and fees if the requester wins.
Q: My official newspaper email failed. Am I covered?
A: Document everything (timestamps, "send" attempt evidence). The AG found substantial compliance here because KAAS could show it tried in good faith. Without documentation, the defense is weaker.
Background and statutory framework
North Dakota's open meetings law (N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20) imposes layered notice requirements. Regular meetings need posting at the principal office (if any), the meeting location on the day of the meeting, the entity's website (if any), and the county auditor (for non-state, non-city entities). Special meetings additionally require notice to the official newspaper, since the special-meeting setting carries less natural public awareness than regular recurring meetings.
The open records law (§ 44-04-18) sets the response timing under subsection (8) ("reasonable time") and the denial-citation requirement under subsection (7) (denial "must describe the legal authority"). Prior AG opinions have built up a reasonable-time framework: hours-to-days normally, weeks only with cause, months presumptively too long.
The personnel-records framework is in § 44-04-18.1 and § 44-04-19.1(11). The first defines confidential personnel records; the second handles settlement agreements (exempt only until executed). The KAAS opinion flagged the executed-severance-agreement scenario specifically.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 (Open records)
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19.1 (Records exemptions, including settlement agreements)
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20 (Open meetings)
- N.D.C.C. ch. 11-28.3 (Rural ambulance service districts)
Prior AG opinions cited:
- N.D.A.G. 2005-O-20, 2010-O-07, 2016-O-17, 2025-O-09, official-newspaper notice for special meetings
- N.D.A.G. 2010-O-14, 2011-O-03, rural ambulance districts as public entities
- N.D.A.G. 2019-O-15, 2022-O-12, 2025-O-09: reasonable response time
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/the-north-dakota-attorney-general-issued-an-opinion-to-the-killdeer-area-ambulance-service/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-O-26.pdf
Original opinion text
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
www.attorneygeneral.nd.gov
(701) 328-2210
Drew H. Wrigley
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION
2025-O-26
DATE ISSUED: December 23, 2025
ISSUED TO: Killdeer Area Ambulance Service
CITIZEN'S REQUEST FOR OPINION
Debra Biffert requested an opinion from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 regarding
whether Killdeer Area Ambulance Service failed to notice special meetings held on July 18,
2023, and July 30, 2023, and improperly denied a request for records in violation of N.D.C.C.
§§ 44-04-20 and 44-04-18.
FACTS PRESENTED
The Killdeer Area Ambulance Service ("KAAS") held special meetings on July 18, 2023, and
July 30, 2023, at the Killdeer Ambulance Station. The day prior to the July 18, 2023, meeting,
KAAS's president posted the agenda at the KAAS Ambulance Station, and the Dunn County
Auditor's Office. The notice for the July 18, 2023, meeting was not successfully transmitted to
The Dickinson Press because the email with the notice stayed in the KAAS email account's
outbox until after the meeting occurred. The email was drafted, the "send" button had been
clicked, the email was queued to send before the meeting, but, unknown to KAAS, technical
difficulties prevented the email from actually being sent until later. No person had requested to
be notified of KAAS meetings.
For the second meeting held on July 30, 2023, notice was posted at the meeting location and the
Dunn County Auditor's office by approximately 5:00 p.m. on July 29, 2023. The meeting notice
was successfully transmitted to The Dickinson Press the day before the meeting. And like the
prior meeting, no one had requested notice of KAAS's meetings. The purpose of the July 30,
2023, meeting was to terminate the employment of KAAS's billing specialist and to eliminate
the position of billing specialist.
On August 1, 2023, Robert Ingold requested a copy of the meeting minutes that were approved at
the meeting the night before and a copy of the severance agreement for the fired billing
specialist. KAAS provided copies of the July 18, and 30, 2023, minutes but denied the request
for the severance agreement, stating that "Pursuant to NDCC section 44-04 we are not at liberty
to release information from employee personnel files." However, KAAS ultimately disclosed
the severance agreement on or around October 20, 2023. In the meantime, Debra Biffert made
a timely request for an opinion from this office regarding both the sufficiency of the notices for
the special meetings and the denial of the request for the severance agreement to Mr. Ingold.
ISSUES
- Whether KAAS provided notice of its July 18, 2023, special meeting in substantial
compliance with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20. - Whether KAAS provided notice of its July 30, 2023, special meeting in substantial
compliance with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20. - Whether KAAS provided records responsive to a request within a reasonable time in
substantial compliance with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.
ANALYSIS
Issue One
"The open meetings law applies to rural ambulance service districts and the boards that serve
them because the districts are created by statute to exercise public authority or perform a
governmental function." KAAS is a rural ambulance service ambulance district created under
N.D.C.C. ch. 11-28.3 and is a public entity subject to the open meeting and open record laws.
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.
Entities that are neither a state-level nor city-level entity must file the meeting notice with the
county auditor or designee of the county. Notice must be provided to anyone who requests
notice of the meetings. If the public entity has a website, notice also must be posted on its
website. For special meetings, notice must also be given to the public entity's official
newspaper. This office has previously held, 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."
Here, KAAS posted the agenda for the meeting at the location of the meeting, and it provided
notice to the county auditor for the July 18, 2023 meeting. KAAS does not have a website to
post notices. KAAS acknowledges that it failed to notify the official newspaper of the July 18,
2023, meeting due to technical difficulties which resulted in the email not being delivered as
expected. It is my opinion under these circumstances that KAAS substantially complied with
N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20 when it took reasonable steps to notify its official newspaper of its July 18,
2023, special meeting, but technical difficulties prevented the email from being sent.
Issue Two
In the case of the special meeting held on July 30, 2023, KAAS posted the agenda for the
meeting at the location of the meeting, and it provided notice to the county auditor. Unlike the
July 18, 2023, meeting, KAAS successfully provided notice to the official newspaper for the July
30, 2023, meeting. It is therefore my opinion that KAAS substantially complied with N.D.C.C.
§ 44-04-20 when providing notice of the July 30, 2023.
Issue Three
"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." Confidential
records are "prohibited from being open to the public," while exempt records "may be open in
the discretion of the public entity."
Only enumerated portions of an employee's personnel record are confidential or exempt. A
settlement agreement is an exempt record only until it has been fully executed, unless there is
another basis for the agreement to continue to be confidential or exempt. A public entity must
respond to an open records request within a reasonable time. And a denial of a request "must
describe the legal authority for the denial."
KAAS provided the minutes of the July 18, and 30, 2023, meetings on the same day Mr. Ingold
made the request. On behalf of KAAS, Dustin Lien cited "NDCC section 44-04" as the
justification for denying the release of the employee severance agreement. The reference to
"section 44-04" is not a reference to a specific section or statute; it is an entire chapter of the
North Dakota Century Code. KAAS now acknowledges that it was not prohibited from
disclosing the severance agreement and provided it to Mr. Ingold on or around October 20,
2023.
The severance agreement was executed by all parties on July 29, 2023, and does not appear to
contain any confidential or exempt information. The open record was not provided to the
requestor until 80 days passed. KAAS did not cite to a specific legal authority in its denial to
disclose the severance agreement, and no explanation has been provided for the delay in
determining that the severance agreement could or must be disclosed. Under these
circumstances, it is my opinion that KAAS violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by not responding to
Mr. Ingold's request within a reasonable time.
CONCLUSIONS
- KAAS provided notice of its July 18, 2023, special meeting in substantial compliance
with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20 because the failure to notify the official newspaper of the
special meeting was caused by technical difficulties. - KAAS did provide notice of its July 30, 2023, special meeting in substantial compliance
with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20. - KAAS violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by not responding to an open records request within
a reasonable time and failing to give the requester an explanation for the nearly 80-day
delay.
STEPS NEEDED TO REMEDY VIOLATION
Mr. Ingold has received the requested records. Therefore, there are no further corrective
measures required.
Drew H. Wrigley
Attorney General
cc:
Debra Biffert
Robert Ingold