The North Dakota Supreme Court delivered a complex ruling in *Haskell v. Grand Forks Public Schools* that balances transparency requirements with government bodies' rights to private consultation, while establishing new procedural requirements for courts handling open meetings law disputes.
The case arose when Amber Haskell challenged actions by the Grand Forks Public School District, alleging violations of the state's open meetings laws. The dispute centered on whether the school board properly entered executive session and whether certain records should be disclosed under public records laws.
In a decision that affirmed some aspects of the lower court's ruling while reversing others, the state supreme court established several important precedents for North Dakota's open government laws. The court held that when an attorney explains a governing body's legal position during a public meeting, this disclosure does not automatically waive the body's right to later enter executive session for private consultation.
"An attorney at a public meeting explaining the legal position of a governing body did not waive the governing body's ability to enter an executive session," the court wrote in its syllabus, clarifying a point of law that had created uncertainty for public entities across the state.
The ruling also addressed the scope of discussions permitted in executive sessions. The court determined that a governing body can discuss monetary demands from adverse parties in public while still retaining the right to discuss other related fiscal impacts privately in executive session. This distinction allows public bodies to maintain some transparency about financial matters while protecting strategic discussions about broader economic implications.
However, the court imposed new limitations on public access rights in records disputes. The justices held that parties seeking disclosure of records deemed exempt from open records laws do not have due process rights to participate in sealed judicial reviews or to access the disputed records for the purpose of arguing their case for disclosure.
"A party seeking disclosure of records withheld as exempt from open records laws does not have a due process right to participate in an in camera review or to access the records for the purpose of fully arguing why the party should have access to them," the court explained.
This aspect of the ruling limits the ability of requesters to fully advocate for disclosure when courts conduct private reviews of disputed government records. The decision may make it more difficult for citizens and organizations to successfully challenge government claims of exemption from public records requirements.
The court's most significant procedural ruling concerned how lower courts must handle open meetings violation claims. The justices determined that district courts abuse their discretion when they grant summary judgment to public entities without first conducting an in-camera review of executive session recordings that the entities claim are protected by attorney consultation exemptions.
"A district court abuses its discretion if it grants a public entity summary judgment dismissal of an open meetings violation claim without reviewing in camera the short executive session recording that the public entity claims is exempt from disclosure under the attorney consultation exemption," the court held.
This requirement means that when public entities claim their executive sessions were properly conducted and protected by attorney-client privilege, courts must actually review the recordings privately before dismissing challenges. The ruling prevents courts from simply accepting government assertions about the privileged nature of executive session discussions without independent verification.
The case reflects ongoing tensions between government transparency and the legitimate need for public bodies to receive confidential legal advice. North Dakota's open meetings laws, like similar statutes nationwide, attempt to balance public access with practical governance needs, but the boundaries are often disputed.
The Grand Forks Public School District was represented by Howard D. Swanson and Yusaf Abas, while Michael J. Geiermann represented Haskell. The case originated in the District Court of Grand Forks County before Judge Theodore Sandberg, whose ruling was partially affirmed and partially reversed.
Justice Tufte authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Jensen and Bahr. Justice Crothers filed a separate opinion concurring and dissenting, joined by Chief Justice Fair McEvers, though the specific points of disagreement were not detailed in the available syllabus.
The ruling's mixed nature reflects the complexity of balancing transparency with legitimate government privacy interests. While the decision protects certain executive session rights and limits public participation in records disputes, it also requires more rigorous judicial oversight of open meetings claims.
The case now returns to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the supreme court's ruling. The decision will likely influence how North Dakota courts handle future disputes involving executive sessions and public records exemptions, providing clearer guidance for both government entities and transparency advocates.