Can a North Dakota school district wait months to finish a records request and omit notices a resident asked to receive?

Plain-English summary

Lori Fauraus asked White Shield Public School District for records and asked to receive school board meeting notices. The district took more than two months to make an initial response, supplied only some records, and said the rest would follow “soon.” It never provided the remainder. The AG’s office tried repeatedly to get the district’s response to her allegations but received none, so this opinion relied on the facts Fauraus supplied.

The AG found two violations. The long delay and failure to supply the remaining records violated the open records law. Failure to send meeting notices after Fauraus requested them violated the open meetings law. The opinion noted that a reasonable records delay depends on the facts but is usually measured in hours or days, rather than weeks.

The AG directed the district to release the remaining records immediately and provide all meeting notices and minutes from June 21, 2024, through June 21, 2025, without charge. It also told the district to update its practices. The opinion said failure to take those corrective measures within seven days could trigger statutory consequences if the requester later prevailed in a civil action, and might expose responsible individuals to personal liability. Those consequences were stated as conditional, not as penalties already imposed.

What this means for you

School districts and boards

The opinion found that an initial reply after more than two months, followed by an incomplete production, did not meet the records law on the facts supplied. It also found that the district had to provide meeting notices to the person who requested them. The corrective directions applied to this district and specified records, notices, and minutes.

People requesting school records or meeting notices

The opinion treated an unfulfilled promise to send remaining records as a continuing failure to provide them. It also applied the notice duty to a person who had asked to receive board meeting notices. The AG’s findings were based on the requester’s facts because the district did not respond to the AG’s inquiries.

Common questions

Can a district answer a records request only after two months? On these facts, the AG said no. A reasonable delay depends on circumstances, but the opinion described the usual measure as hours or days rather than weeks. The district also failed to complete production.

Must a school board send notices to someone who asks for them? The AG said yes under the cited open meetings provision and found a violation when the district did not send notices to Fauraus after her request.

What did the district have to release?
The opinion directed immediate release of the remaining requested records plus meeting notices and minutes for June 21, 2024, through June 21, 2025, at no cost.

Did the AG immediately fine the district?
No. The opinion warned of conditional consequences if corrective measures were not taken within seven days and the requester later prevailed in a civil action. It did not say those conditions had already occurred.

Background and statutory framework

N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 governed the records response; N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20 governed meeting notice. The opinion used the AG process in N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 and cited N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2 for consequences following failure to remedy a violation. The district’s failure to answer the AG’s inquiries mattered because the AG then decided the matter on the requester’s account.

Citations

• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18, open records duty
• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20, requested meeting notices
• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(2), remedy period and fee consequence
• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2, civil action cited in the opinion

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/the-north-dakota-attorney-general-issued-a-summary-opinion-to-white-shield-public-school-district/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-SO-20.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
www. attorneyg e ne ra I. nd .gov
(701) 328-2210

Drew H. Wrigley
ATTORNEY GENERAL

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS SUMMARY OPINION
2026-SO-20

DATE ISSUED:

September 25, 2026

ISSUED TO:

White Shield Public School District
SUMMARY OPINION 1

Lori Fauraus requested an opinion from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 asking whether the White Shield School District (District) violated N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-18 and 44-04-20 by failing to respond to an open records request and failing to provide her with notice of school board meetings. Despite repeated attempts by this office to obtain a response from the District regarding the allegations, no response was received. Accordingly, this opinion is based on the facts received from the requester. 2 The District took more than two months to initially respond to the open records request, and even then it only provided some of the records with an assurance it would provide the remaining requested records "soon" thereafter. But the District never provided the remaining records. The delay permitted under the open records law is fact dependent, but "will usually be measured in a few hours or days rather than weeks."3 It is therefore my opinion that the District violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 by not responding to the request within a reasonable time and by failing to provide the requested records. It is also my opinion that the District violated N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20 by not providing Ms. Fauraus with notice of school board meetings after she requested notice. 4 STEPS TO REMEDY THE VIOLATION The District should review the resources available on the Attorney General's website regarding meeting notice requirements and responses to open records requests and must update its practices to be in compliance with the law. The District must immediately release the remaining records and provide all meeting notices and minutes from June 21, 2024, to June 21, 2025, at no cost. 1

This Summary Opinion is issued pursuant to the authority granted to this office in N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(1). 2 See N.D.A.G. 2024-0-09 (opinion based on requester's submitted facts when entity failed to respond to the allegations). 3 N.D.A.G. 2025-0-06 (citing N.D.A.G. 2011-0-07) (collecting opinions). 4 N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20(5) requires that notice of a meeting be provided to any member of the public who requests it.

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2026-SO-20
September 25, 2026
Page 2

While 1 have every reason to expect the District 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. 5 Failure to take these corrective measures may also result in personal liability for the person or persons responsible for the noncompliance. 6

Drew H. Wrigley
Attorney General

cc:

Lori Fauraus

5 N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1(2).
6

Id.