Editorial: Willmar School Board needs Open Meeting Law lessons

The Willmar School Board members apparently violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law several times last month during a closed meeting to discuss a pending land purchase for the proposed new middle school.
During the Aug. 10 closed meeting to discuss land purchase negotiations, the board discussed and voted 7-0 to “redesign softball field area and look at a second access.”
The board also decided when to have their next closed meeting about the proposed land purchase before re-opening the meeting.
In both incidents, the school board’s discussion and motion were not the stated purpose of the closed meeting
In addition, neither topic is eligible for a closed meeting under state law in the first place.
A public body meeting in Minnesota may be closed to discuss certain issues relating to government property sales or purchases.
The specific incidents include:
n To determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the government entity;
n Review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data; and
n To develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property.
Discussing or making decisions on possible layout of a new elementary school grounds or setting the meeting time for a future closed meeting is not among the eligible reasons for a closed meeting of a Minnesota public body.
It is unfortunate that the seven school members chose - either inadvertently or through lack of awareness - to commit open meeting law violations so early under Superintendent Jeff Holm’s tenure.
Board Chairwoman Liz VanDerBill said Friday that the votes were “intended as direction, versus a decision.” She said further that the motion and vote came out of a discussion about how much land was need for the school and adjacent facilities.
It is also likely that the discussion of “how much” land the district needs for the proposed elementary site does not qualify as an eligible closed meeting topic either.
It certainly is not eligible for a vote to be taken in a closed meeting.
The fact remains that the board did violate the Open Meeting Law and their vote was invalid under Minnesota law.
We expect that Liz VanDerBill, Mike Reynolds, Jackie Saulsbury, Laura Warne, Jared Anez, Mike Carlson and Linda Mathiasen did not intentionally seek to violate the Open Meeting Law.
But lack of awareness is no excuse.
What is disappointing is that despite the fact that their school board experience ranges from one to 15 years, it is apparent all the board members share a lack of understanding about their responsibility as public officials in regards to the open meeting law.
The board certainly should have known better.
Discussing an apparently unrelated matter, voting on a motion and setting another meeting in a closed meeting outside of the public’s view, all reflect “an apparent lack of appreciation for the requirements of the” open meeting law, said Mark Anfinson, attorney for the Minnesota Newspaper Association.
We would recommend the Willmar School Board seek out additional training on the Open Meeting Law from the Minnesota School Board Association.