Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Committee hears bill to exempt township supervisors from formal notice for on‑site inspections; wording issues pause final action

March 20, 2025 | State and Local Government, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Committee hears bill to exempt township supervisors from formal notice for on‑site inspections; wording issues pause final action
Representative Lawrence Clamine, sponsor of House Bill 1374, told the committee the bill would create a narrowly framed exception to open‑meeting rules to allow boards of township supervisors to conduct on‑site inspections of roads or other township issues without the requirement to post formal public notices and schedule a separate meeting. “The purpose of House Bill 13 74 is ... to allow a Board of Township Supervisors to meet as a group of 2 or more to conduct an on‑site inspection of a problem or issue in the township without violating the open meeting law,” Clamine said.

Larry Severson, representing the North Dakota Township Officers Association, described routine spring road surveys and said township boards currently risk open‑meeting complaints when two supervisors ride together to inspect roads. “It is very common each spring or early summer for township boards to go out and survey the roads for gravel and repair needs,” Severson said.

Nut graf: The bill aims to reduce procedural burdens on volunteer township officers who must inspect roads, culverts and signage but lack staffed engineering departments; it would limit the exemption to on‑site inspection activity and still require the board to make a “good faith effort” to notify any news medium that has requested notice.

Committee response and next steps

Senator Lee moved a do‑pass recommendation and Senator Wallen seconded. During discussion several senators said the bill’s draft language was unclear. One senator commented that the written text “doesn't sound like English” and requested rewording; Senator Castaneda volunteered to work with sponsors to refine the language. The committee paused the motion and agreed to stand at ease so sponsors and committee members could reconcile the draft language; no final committee vote on HB 1374 was recorded at the hearing’s close.

Ending: The committee left the record open for redrafting; members said they expected to reconvene on the motion after staff and sponsors revise the bill language.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep North Dakota articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI