3 The exhibits offered by relator but not accepted by the ALJ are not part of the record and thus cannot be relied upon by relator in this appeal. In contested-case proceedings under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, agencies “may admit and give probative effect to evidence which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs”; “shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law”; and “may exclude incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and repetitious evidence.” Minn. Stat. § 14.60, subd. 1 (2014). And all evidence “offered into evidence by a party to a contested case proceeding, shall be made a part of the hearing record of the case.” Id., subd. 2. When read in context with subdivision one, which allows an agency to exclude evidence, subdivision two is properly understood to include in the record documents available to an agency, offered into evidence by a party, and not excluded by the ALJ or agency. See Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000) (“We are to read and construe a statute as a whole and must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections to avoid conflicting interpretations.”). Accordingly, because the exhibits excluded by the ALJ are not part of the record under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act, we grant the department’s motion to strike references to them in relator’s briefs.

In the Matter of the License of Jeffrey L. Olson, Psy.D., L.P., License No. LP4532. · 2016 1 citation

(2015); see Minn. Stat. § 14.60, subd. 2 (2014).

City of Hinckley, Relator v. North Pine Area Hospital District · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

GH Holdings, LLC v. Minnesota Department of Commerce · 2013 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration · 2013 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Minneapolis Police Department v. Kelly · 2010 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Town of Forest Lake v. Minnesota Municipal Board · 1993 1 citation

*291 Even if the town had timely objected, it cannot be concluded that the excerpts from the MDIF document were not part of the record. The board is required to consider this evidence. See Minn. Stat. § 414.-02, subd. 3(d) (1990) (in arriving at decision on petition for incorporation, one of the factors the board must consider is “[l]and use controls and planning presently being utilized in the area, including comprehensive plans for development in the area and policies of the metropolitan council”). In addition, the board “may take notice of appropriate facts, public documents, or records of a general, scientific, or technical nature by appropriate notice to all parties.” Minn. R. 6000.1900, subp. 1 (1991). Finally, Minn. Stat. § 14.60, subd. 2 (1990) provides that “[djocumentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference.”