The Mandan City Commission violated North Dakota's open meetings law by holding improper executive sessions and not answering public document requests in a timely fashion, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said Friday.

Stenehjem, in an opinion requested by Mandan resident Susan Beehler, said the city violated the law by holding improper executive sessions on three occasions in February and March. An executive session on Feb. 6 went beyond the scope of its announced intent, while sessions on March 6 and March 20 were preceded by notices that were too vague as to the session's intent.

Executive session, a term in public meetings law, describes a portion of a public body's meeting that is held in private. Usually, such sessions are held to discuss sensitive issues such as personnel decisions or negotiation strategy.

Stenehjem found that Mandan was also in violation for prolonging a public records request from Beehler by trying to obtain outside records, instead of telling her that the city did not have the records she sought, the decision found.

Mandan has seven days to remedy the situation by issuing revised records of what happened during the improper executive sessions.

Mandan City Administrator Jim Neubauer said the city intends to immediately take these steps and will be more careful to follow public records law in the future.

"Obviously, we thought what we were doing was proper, otherwise we wouldn't have been doing it," he said.

Beehler, a community activist and former mayoral candidate in Mandan, is a frequent observer and participant in the city's government meetings. She did not return a phone call for comment Friday afternoon.

Beehler also sought opinions on a Jan. 29 incident where she was prevented from finishing her testimony before the commission and a separate public records requests. Stenehjem found the city to be in compliance on these area.

Mandan's main area of noncompliance centered around the three executive sessions, the opinion said.

A Feb. 6 executive session was held to discuss negotiation strategies on a contract to demolish two buildings. Although this was proper use of an executive session, the conversation drifted into other topics including the sale of another building and a new title insurance company that should have been discussed in public.

"It is my opinion that the discussion held during the closed portion of the Feb. 6 meeting was not limited to that authorized by law to be held in executive session," Stenehjem wrote.

The March 6 and March 20 infractions occurred when the city's notices of intent to convene an executive session to discuss contracts failed to specify which contracts would be discussed during the private meetings, the opinion found.

In addition to changes in its meeting notices, Neubauer said the city will also be more strict in making sure commissioners know what they can and cannot discuss, based on what setting they're in.

"Sometimes we just need to remind the commissioners that when they go into executive session, they can't go off and talk about other topics," he said.

(Reach reporter Jonathan Rivoli at 223-8482 or jonathan.rivoli@;bismarcktribune.com.)