East Side claims county violates Open Meeting Law

The Steele County Board of Commissioners held a special meeting June 29 with three things on the agenda: A tour of the county annex, a facilities plan discussion about the annex, and 2027 Capital Improvement planning.

The meeting was posted on the county’s agenda portal on its official website and was also discussed at the June 23 regular board meeting.

A reporter from the Steele County Times was at the meeting after seeing it on the agenda portal.

Similar to an incident at the city a couple of weeks ago, county officials reportedly did not send written notice to those subscribed to Steele County’s notification system – a specific process that is required by state statute.

It was also not published in the county’s official newspaper, another option.

That stood out to Melissa Zimmerman, a community watchdog with a vested interest in the work of the county board.

She is a member of the East Side Corridor group, which is pushing back against a proposed north-south road on Owatonna’s east side.

In its effort to stop – or at least move – the project, the ESC group has had several issues with the county’s actions.

In November, the Minnesota Court of Administrative Hearings agreed with the residents’ claim that Steele County officials – including the county attorney and the county administrator – violated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

The court also issued a civil penalty of $300 and ordered the county to reimburse $950 of the complainant’s $1,000 filing fee. The county was also ordered to reimburse the CAH for its costs in conducting the matter, up to $1,000.

The group, let by Matthew Sennott and Zimmerman, filed a complaint in May 2025, outlining issues with transparency and accountability concerning public documents about the proposed project.

Zimmerman said she sees the lack of transparency continuing, and sent an email to county leaders about the June 29 meeting.

She asked several questions on behalf of the ESC, including how the county officially notified residents of the special meeting – and if/when that process has changed.

The email also asked if the meeting was recorded, and asked for a copy of any recording.

County Attorney Robert Jarrett responded to the email, which Zimmerman shared with the Steele County Times.

He suggested she had “mixed up” the process of receiving news releases from the engineering team with the process of receiving county board notices, and included a link to the “Agendas and Minutes” tab on the Steele County website.

He wrote that the MGDPA “does not require the County to answer questions,” and that the “volume of your requests … prevents the county from doing so going forward.”

Zimmerman said she was surprised by that response, and said as much in her response to Jarrett.

“As you are aware, the Office of Administrative Hearings previously concluded in our matter involving Steele County that, under the circumstances presented, relying solely on the assertion that the MGDPA does not require answers to questions was not an appropriate response,” she wrote. “Nevertheless, the County has again relied on that same rationale rather than addressing the factual and procedural issues identified above or identifying responsive public data, if any.”

Jarrett said the June 29 meeting was “noticed on the county’s website on June 24 at 7:47 a.m.,” and that per a county resolution passed in January, “the county website is designated the official publication of proceedings.”

But according to state law: “As an alternative to mailing or otherwise noticing the special meeting, the public body may publish the notice once, at least three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the public body.”

It does not say the “official website” of the public body.

The county board may not pass a resolution that directly conflicts with state law. Violating those processes constitutes a violation of Minnesota’s open meeting law.