A terminated symphony employee is asking for her reinstatement and that of "any other employees terminated as a result of the illegal meetings,"according to a recently filed lawsuit against the Bismarck-Mandan Symphony Orchestra.

Linda Olsrud, of Bismarck - the symphony's marketing and grants employee from September 2003 to Aug. 24, 2005 - is also asking for other things, including documents and meeting records, attorney's fees, damages and costs.

"We didn't bad-mouth her,"said Al Wolf, symphony board chairman and president. "The job is no longer here."

Wolf said that Olsrud's job "disappeared"after the symphony moved Susan Lundberg, the symphony's full-time executive director, into the role of fundraising consultant.

Wolf said the board had the right to take the action because "(Olsrud)was subject to review by the board at any time."

In the lawsuit - Olsrud versus Bismarck-Mandan Orchestral Association, aka Bismarck-Mandan Symphony Orchestra - Olsrud offers other concerns.

On Aug. 24, 2005, the day of her termination, Olsrud requested in writing a personnel manual, a full copy of her personnel file and any other reports of the consultant, as well as board minutes and committee reports that pertained to personnel issues, according to the lawsuit.

The orchestral association, in a Sept. 6, 2005, letter, refused to provide the documents, with the exception of the personnel and office policies handbook, according to Olsrud's complaint.

Olsrud then requested an opinion from the North Dakota attorney general, asking whether the association was a public entity subject to open records and meeting laws - and, if it was, whether the association had violated laws by holding "secret" meetings, by failing to provide the requested records and for failing to provide her with notices of the meetings.

According to Olsrud's complaint, the attorney general issued an opinion that the association is a public entity because it is supported in part by public funds.

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem also concluded, in his opinion issued Feb. 21, that "the association did not violate the state's open records law by refusing to provide copies of 'personnel records' because personnel records of a nonprofit corporation such as the association, which is a public entity solely because it is supported in whole or in part by public funds, are exempt from the open records law."

Stenehjem concluded that the association did violate state law "by refusing to give copies of other records requested, with confidential or personnel information redacted."

In a letter to Olsrud, Stenehjem advised that the association had seven days to take any remedial actions identified with the opinion.

According to Olsrud's lawsuit, the association provided documents, "but many that had been requested were missing."

Also, Olsrud was provided the date and place of the board's next meeting on Feb. 26, but no agenda, and when she attended the meeting - and several documents were disseminated of a financial nature, and she asked for a copy - her request was refused, according to her lawsuit.

She also alleges that the board illegally went into executive session on Feb. 26 without proper notice and without opportunity for Olsrud or the public to attend. She also claims the board stated its intent to proceed with future business by e-mails, copies of which have been requested by Olsrud and have not been provided as requested.

Olsrud claims that to date many of the materials requested have not been provided.

She also is claiming that prior to her termination she observed association staff, at the direction of the board, shredding official association documents and files and deleting e-mail transmissions regarding association business.

Wolf told the Tribune there has been absolutely no shredding of documents.

He also said that board members are extremely busy people, and so they sometimes do correspond by e-mail.

Gary R. Wolberg, the symphony's attorney, said Monday morning that he had prepared a motion to dismiss the case based on "insufficiency of service to process."

Wolberg and Wolf contend that Olsrud tried to serve papers on Wolberg and Wolf, who don't have the authority to accept service. Papers should have been served on the symphony's registered agent, Karen daSilva, they indicated.

"We've taken the position that (the symphony's) not been served … There's been no legal service made on the symphony orchestra," Wolf said.

Olsrud's attorney, Deborah J. Carpenter, said Monday that according to the rules of civil process "You only need to serve either someone who has acted as an agent or attorney for the association - and that would be the people we served."

Olsrud's position is that the defendant is trying to avoid service, "knowing that there is an extremely short statute of limitations for commencing this action in the first place," according to a court document filed by Carpenter Friday.

"Once the attorney general issued his opinion indicating that the defendant had violated the open meetings laws, the plaintiff only has 30 days in which to commence suit …," according to the court document.

Carpenter's position is that after there was timely notification that Olsrud intended to file suit, "Wolf apparently absented himself from the jurisdiction … and Mr. Wolberg chose not to meet with the person delivering the summons and complaint, even though he was in the office."

Wolberg said he isn't trying to avoid service.

"Thatâ€'s completely untrue. Mr. Wolf was out of the office on a trip that had been planned long before the service had been made,"Wolberg said.

And Wolberg said he didn't even know that the server was trying to make the service at his office until after he had already left. But regardless, Wolberg said he had "no authority to accept service… ."

Olsrud couldn't be reached for comment.

(Reach reporter Virginia Grantier at 250-8254 or at virginia.grantier@;bismarcktribune.com.)