Can a North Dakota county make a person sign an acknowledgment as a condition of receiving copies of public records?
Plain-English summary
Lynn Gonzalez asked Ransom County for several years of county-commission meeting minutes and timesheets. After a series of confused exchanges (Gonzalez initially refused to clarify which dates of minutes she wanted, then later did clarify), the records were prepared and made available within a day. But the county auditor required Gonzalez to come in, pay for the copies, and sign an acknowledgment that "this completes the open records request." The auditor said the acknowledgment was required "due to past experiences . . . so she cannot deny receipt of documentation requested."
Gonzalez never returned and never picked up the records. She then asked the AG whether the county violated the open records law by imposing the acknowledgment requirement.
The AG concluded the county did violate the law. North Dakota's open records statute does not allow a public entity to invent additional procedural requirements before releasing records. Even when a requester has been difficult, the public entity must respond within a reasonable time and cannot deter access through extra paperwork.
This was a violation requiring corrective action. The opinion required the county to provide the minutes within seven days or face mandatory costs, fees, and potential personal liability under N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-21.1(2), 44-04-21.2.
What this means for you
If you are filing a public records request in North Dakota
You do not have to sign anything to receive a public record. You do not have to provide your name, employer, or reason for the request. The county can ask for written clarification about which records you want, but it cannot impose a sign-here-before-receipt acknowledgment. If a North Dakota county tries to require this, cite this opinion (2026-O-03) and prior AG opinions including 98-F-13, 2008-O-19, and 2009-O-02.
You can be charged the statutory copy fee (up to 25 cents per page). You can be required to pay before the records are released or mailed. You cannot be charged for any "service fee" or required to fund anything beyond actual copying cost.
If you are a county auditor or municipal records officer
Drop the acknowledgment requirement immediately if your office uses one. The opinion is unequivocal. Even with a difficult requester, the open records law does not let you add procedural steps that are not in statute. If a requester later disputes that records were provided, your remedy is documenting your own response (timestamps, copies, mail receipts), not requiring the requester to sign anything.
You retain your other tools:
- You can ask for written clarification on ambiguous requests under § 44-04-18(2).
- You can require payment of copy fees before mailing or releasing.
- You can document your own response.
- You can decline questions (vs. record requests) under the records-vs-questions distinction.
What you cannot do is impose new conditions on the requester.
If you are a county commissioner
Make sure your county's open records policy does not require any kind of receipt acknowledgment, signature, or affirmation as a condition of records release. Quick audit step: ask your auditor or clerk if any signature form is in use. If yes, eliminate it.
If you are a citizen who has been turned away under a similar requirement
You have a remedy. Section 44-04-21.1 lets you request an AG opinion within 30 days. If the AG finds a violation, the public entity must remedy it within seven days or face mandatory costs, attorney fees in any civil suit, and potentially personal liability under § 44-04-21.2.
Common questions
Q: Can a public entity ever require me to identify myself before getting records?
A: No. Prior AG opinions (N.D.A.G. 2009-O-02) hold that requesters do not need to disclose their name or employer to obtain copies of public records.
Q: Can a public entity require me to give a reason for my request?
A: No. North Dakota's open records law does not require requesters to state a purpose. The records are public; the use of them is the requester's business.
Q: Can the county refuse to release records if my conduct has been "hostile" or "discourteous"?
A: No. The AG opinion explicitly states: "even when a requester's behavior is discourteous, 'it is the responsibility of the public entity to respond to the request within a reasonable time.'" Difficult-requester arguments are not a defense.
Q: What about a written request requirement?
A: The initial request "need not be made in person or in writing" (§ 44-04-18(2)). The public entity can require written clarification when the request is ambiguous (e.g., to specify which dates of minutes you want), but cannot require an initial written request as a precondition.
Q: What kind of fee can the county charge?
A: Up to 25 cents per impression of a paper copy (§ 44-04-18(2)). The county can require payment before mailing or providing.
Q: What was the remedy here?
A: The AG required the county to provide the records within seven days. Failure to do so would result in (a) mandatory costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees if the requester wins a civil action under § 44-04-21.2, and (b) potential personal liability for the responsible person.
Q: Does this apply to school districts and city governments too?
A: Yes. Section 44-04-18 applies to all public entities. The same logic about no-extra-procedural-requirements applies. The Williston Basin School District opinion (2026-O-02) addresses similar issues from a different angle.
Background and statutory framework
North Dakota's open records law (N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18) is unusually direct. The first subsection sets the presumption: "Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all records of a public entity are public records, open and accessible." Subsection (2) provides the procedural rules: requests need not be in writing; clarification can be requested in writing; copy fees up to 25 cents per impression are allowed.
The AG's prior opinions have built a strong layer of restrictions on what a public entity may require beyond those statutory rules. A signature acknowledgment, a name disclosure, a stated purpose, an affidavit of citizenship, all rejected.
The opinion's reasoning is two-fold. First, the statute provides what the entity may require, and the rest is impermissible inference. Second, "[c]ollecting information not required by law before disclosing an open record may be a deterrent to someone who requests access to public records" (N.D.A.G. 2006-O-15). The deterrent effect, even unintended, is enough to find a violation.
The remedy framework in N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(2) makes the seven-day cure period and the threat of personal liability operative. This is not a soft-law admonition. It is a fee-shifting and personal-liability regime.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 (Open records)
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 (AG opinions)
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2 (Civil action and fees)
Prior AG opinions cited:
- N.D.A.G. 98-F-13, 2001-O-12, 2003-O-09, 2004-O-20, 2005-O-05, 2005-O-12, 2006-O-15, 2008-O-19, 2009-O-02, 2011-O-07, 2014-O-07, 2016-O-08, 2024-O-11: collectively, prohibition on additional procedural requirements
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/the-north-dakota-attorney-general-issued-an-opinion-to-the-ransom-county-commission/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-O-03.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
www.attorneygeneral.nd.gov
(701) 328-2210
Drew H. Wrigley
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION
2026-O-03
DATE ISSUED: January 27, 2026
ISSUED TO: Ransom County Commission
CITIZEN'S REQUEST FOR OPINION
Lynn Gonzalez requested an opinion from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 asking
whether the Ransom County Commission violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by requiring Ms.
Gonzalez to sign a document for receipt of open records.
FACTS PRESENTED
Ms. Gonzalez spoke with Ransom County Deputy Auditor Maria Prouty on March 1, 2023, to
request multiple records, including the minutes of certain Ransom County Commission
(Commission) meetings. Ms. Prouty was uncertain whether all the requested documents could
be released and consulted Deputy Auditor Nickela Runck. Ms. Runck asked Ms. Gonzalez to
talk to Auditor Nicole Gentzkow when she returned to the office the following day. Ms.
Gonzalez returned to the Auditor's office on March 3, 2023, and spoke to Ms. Gentzkow about
why she had not been provided the minutes she requested. The meeting dates requested were not
clear; Ms. Gentzkow asked Ms. Gonzalez to provide a request in writing clarifying the dates of
the minutes that were requested. Ms. Gonzalez refused to make the request in writing and left
the Auditor's office without clarifying her request. Ms. Gentzkow described Ms. Gonzalez's
behavior during this encounter as "hostile."
On April 10, 2023, Ms. Gonzalez appeared before the Commission and again made a request for
the Commission's minutes. When asked for clarification by State's Attorney Fallon Kelly, Ms.
Gonzalez still did not specify which minutes she wanted. Finally, on May 11, 2023, Ms.
Gonzalez called Ms. Runck and requested the Commission's minutes for the past three years, in
addition to timesheets. Ms. Runck acknowledged the request, noted she was about to leave for
vacation, and stated that the minutes would be provided the following week. Ms. Gonzalez
became "very upset" as a result. The requested minutes were made available for Ms. Gonzalez
to pick up the next day, sooner than promised. The timesheets Ms. Gonzalez requested were
available three days later on May 15, 2023. The day all the records were available, an email
was then sent by the Auditor's office inviting Ms. Gonzalez "to come to the auditor's office, pay
for these [records], and sign acknowledging she received them." The form that Ms. Gonzalez
was asked to sign stated "I acknowledge the receipt of 2021, 2022, and January-April 18, 2023
commission minutes as requested. This completes the open records request for commission
minutes with the Auditors [sic] office." Ms. Gonzalez was required to sign this
acknowledgment "[d]ue to past experiences . . . so she cannot deny receipt of documentation
requested." Ms. Gonzalez never returned to retrieve the minutes or timesheets. On May 30,
2023, Ms. Gonzalez made a request to this Office for an opinion regarding the Commission's
alleged failure to provide the minutes.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by requiring Ms. Gonzalez to sign a
document for receipt of open records.
ANALYSIS
The Commission is the governing body of a public entity and is subject to the open records
law. "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." Once requested, a
public entity "shall furnish the requester one copy of the public records requested." The initial
request "need not be made in person or in writing," however, the "public entity may require
written clarification of the request to determine what records are being requested." "A public
entity may charge up to twenty-five cents per impression of a paper copy." "A record may not
be denied unless a law provides that it is either exempt from the open records law or
confidential." Collecting information not required by law before disclosing an open record
"may be a deterrent to someone who requests access to public records." This office has
previously held that a public entity may not require, or even imply to a requester, that the
requester "must sign a form" in order to receive copies of open records. "[E]ven when a
requester's behavior is discourteous, 'it is the responsibility of the public entity to respond to the
request within a reasonable time and the requester is not required to contact the entity again to
find out when the records will be provided or made available.'"
The Commission was permitted to request "clarification" from Ms. Gonzalez in writing because
the specific dates for the minutes she requested were not clear. Ms. Gonzalez clarified the
request on May 11, 2023, and the Commission had the minutes available for Ms. Gonzalez to
pick up by the next day. The Commission also was permitted to ask Ms. Gonzalez to pay a fee
for printing the minutes and could require payment of the printing costs prior to mailing or
providing the records to Ms. Gonzalez. However, as prior opinions from this office have made
clear, public entities may not devise and impose additional requirements before providing open
records. Accordingly, the Commission impermissibly required Ms. Gonzalez to acknowledge
in writing that she received the minutes and that the provision of those documents satisfied her
open records request. There is no basis in law for the Commission to impose this additional
requirement, and it may have the effect of deterring open records requests. It is my opinion that
the Commission failed to comply with N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by imposing an additional
requirement not found in law before providing the minutes to Ms. Gonzalez.
CONCLUSION
The Commission violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by requiring Ms. Gonzalez to sign an
acknowledgment as a condition of receiving open records.
STEPS NEEDED TO REMEDY VIOLATION
The Ransom County Commission must provide the 2021, 2022, and January-April 2023,
Commission minutes to Ms. Gonzalez and anyone else who requests them.
While I have every reason to expect the Commission 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.
Drew H. Wrigley
Attorney General
cc: Lynn Gonzalez