Minnesota's Open Meeting Law and Data Practices Act help keep government meetings and public records open and transparent for all citizens. A cornerstone of our democracy is giving citizens access to information so they can make informed decisions. It also allows citizens and journalists to be a watchdog on government.
However, when people suspect there have been violations of the Open Meeting Law or the Data Practices Act, the current process to press those claims can be expensive, lengthy and can lack enforcement power. Government bodies or agencies may get away with illegal behavior related to openness because they don't think they will be dragged into court.
It is time for reform. It is time to put teeth into the process.
A proposal in the Legislature this session would offer remedies. We urge the proposal get speedy hearings in the House and Senate and become law.
Here is how the proposed reforms would work: If a citizen believes a governmental body violated the statutes, they would take the dispute to the state Office of Administrative Hearings, a respected judicial agency that is part of the executive branch.
ADVERTISEMENT
Currently, the dispute has to be filed in the overworked district court system where it will require months to be resolved. The bill calls for the complaints to be processed in about 60 days.
In addition, there would be a $1,000 filing fee for each complaint. If the administrative law judge rules in favor of the complainant, there will be a $950 refund and the violating party would have to pay attorney fees.
A possible timetable would give the government body 10 business days to respond to a complaint, have a hearing set within 20 days and a ruling within 30 days.
The administrative law judge hearing the complaint would conduct a fact-finding process where there are facts in dispute, which gives the review more weight. The judge would be able to make a ruling, including penalties that could not be ignored by the violator.
Citizens who feel they see an Open Meeting Law and Data Practices Act violation but don't want the expense of a court case currently can ask for an advisory opinion from the Department of Administration. But that isn't a fact-finding operation and you have bureaucrats rather than judges ruling on the matter. This proposal is a reasonable reform to speed up the process and reduce the cost of enforcing the statutes on open government and records.
The proposal also helps the government bodies in two ways. The speedier process will help reduce litigation costs. The reforms also will help deter frivolous claims.
For those who think these possible violations don't happen often, they are wrong. Few days pass without media lawyers fielding questions from editors or reporters on possible violations of the open meeting and open records statutes. Those are just the journalists. We believe there are many more instances where citizens think the statutes have been violated and want corrective action taken.
