Can a North Dakota public committee vote on bills by email and then cure the problem with a public vote?

Plain-English summary

Members of the Stutsman County Local Emergency Planning Committee used a reply-all email chain to move, second, and vote on paying two bills. The Attorney General found that the chain was an unlawful meeting: committee members deliberated and voted on public business by email. The chairman later halted action on the bills, and the committee took another vote at its next public meeting. That later vote did not erase the earlier violation.

The opinion requires the committee to provide the complete email chain to reporter Masaki Ova and anyone else who requests it, without charge. It also calls for the committee to review the Attorney General's open meetings resources and update its practices.

What this means for you

Committee members

The opinion treats a quorum's email discussion or attempt to reach consensus on public business as a meeting subject to open meetings requirements. Here, the motion, second, and affirmative votes over email violated those requirements. A public vote afterward did not cure what had already happened.

Journalists and other requesters

The committee must release the full email chain to Ova and anyone else who asks for it, free of charge. The opinion names that release as a corrective measure for this specific violation.

Common questions

Q: Can a North Dakota public committee vote on a bill by reply-all email? A: On these facts, no. Members moved, seconded, and voted by email on two bills, and the Attorney General found an open meetings violation.

Q: Does repeating the vote in public fix an earlier email vote? A: No. The opinion says the violation occurred when committee members began deliberating and voting in the email chain, even though they later voted at a public meeting.

Q: Can the committee charge for the email chain?
A: The remedy in this opinion requires a complete copy for Ova and anyone else who requests it, free of charge.

Background and statutory framework

Ova, a Jamestown Sun reporter, asked whether the committee's email vote violated N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-19 and 44-04-20. The Attorney General relied on earlier opinions about email exchanges among a quorum that discuss public business or seek consensus. The opinion says these exchanges are meetings that violate the open meetings law. Its corrective measures are tied to N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1; it also describes costs and fees if the measures are not taken within seven days and a requester prevails in a civil action under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2.

Citations and references

• N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-19 and 44-04-20
• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1
• N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/the-north-dakota-attorney-general-issued-a-summary-opinion-to-stutsman-county-local-emergency-planning-committee/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-SO-22.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
www. atto rneygene ra I. nd. gov
(701) 328-2210

Drew H. Wrigley
ATTORNEY GENERAL

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS SUMMARY OPINION
2026-SO-22

DATE ISSUED:

September 25, 2026

ISSUED TO:

Stutsman County Local Emergency Planning Committee
SUMMARY OPINION 1

Masaki Ova, reporter for the Jamestown Sun, requested an opm10n from this office under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 asking whether the Stutsman County Local Emergency Planning Committee (Committee) violated N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-19 and 44-04-20, by conducting a vote by email to pay two bills. The Emergency Manager of the Committee emailed the Committee members requesting a motion to pay two bills. One member replied all to make the motion; another member replied all to second it; and several members subsequently replied all to cast affirmative votes on the motion. A Jamestown Sun employee included on the email chain questioned the legality of voting on a motion via email. The Committee Chairman then replied all stating it was his idea to vote on paying the bills via email "because of past practices of voting by email," though he admitted "not knowing the legalities of email voting."2 The Chairman's email also directed the Emergency Manager to "do nothing with these bills" until the Committee's next scheduled meeting. 3 It has been well established through multiple opinions from this office that emails in which a quorum of a governing body discusses public business or seeks consensus constitute meetings that violate the open meetings law. 4 Although the Committee later reconsidered the matter and 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 Email from Jim Reuther, Chairman, LEPC, to Kathy Steiner & Scott Edinger (Sept. 4, 2025, 10:35 AM). 3 Id.

4

See N.D.A.G. 2015-0-14 ("Emails that delve into the substantive merits of the suggested agenda topic or a matter of public business, provide opinions including opinions on how to handle public business, attempt to build support and consensus for certain positions, or emails in which a quorum discusses, formulates, or narrows options, are equivalent to having a meeting that requires notice." Citing N.D.A.G. 2014-0-12; N.D.A.G. 2013-0-07; N.D.A.G. 2010-0-09; N.D.A.G. 2007-0-14; N.D.A.G. 98-0-05.). "This office has further warned against emails that request other members to share their thoughts and opinions about certain topics because doing so invited further discussions regarding public business that should be held in an open meeting." citing N.D.A.G. 2014-0-12.). Even assuming that there may be a case where a meeting could be properly conducted by email, this case does not present facts that the meeting would have complied with the notice requirements in N.D.C.C. § 44-04-20 or the public access requirements in N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19.

OPEN RECORDS AND MEETINGS OPINION 2026-SO-22
September 25, 2026
Page 2
conducted a new vote during its next public meeting, the violation had already occurred once Committee members began deliberating and voting on public business through the email chain. STEPS NEEDED TO REMEDY VIOLATION The Committee must provide a copy of the complete email chain to Masaki Ova and anyone else who requests it, free of charge. The Committee should also review the resources available on the Attorney General's website regarding open meetings and must update its practices to be in compliance with the law. While I have every reason to expect the Committee 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

srh
cc:

Masaki Ova

5 N .D.C.C. § 44-04-21.1 (2).
6

Id.