6 (b) Open Meeting Law - Discussion

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: For example,when a quorum of a city council attended a meeting of the city's planning commission,the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open meeting law,not because of the councilmembers' attendance at the meeting,but because the councilmembers conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting. A.G.Op.63a-5(Aug.28, Based on that decision,the attorney general has advised that mere 1996). attendance by additional councilmembers at a meeting of a council committee held in compliance with the open meeting law would not constitute a special city council meeting requiring separate notice. The attorney general warned,however,that the additional councilmembers should not participate in committee discussions or deliberations absent a separate notice of a special city council meeting. 5. Chance or social gatherings St.Cloud Newspapers,Inc.v. Chance or social gathering of city councilmembers will not be considered a District 742 Catty.Sch.,332 N.W.2d 1(Minn.1983). meeting subject to the open meeting law as long as there is not a quorum Moberg v.Indep.Sch.Dist present, or, if a quorum is present,as long as the quorum does not discuss, No.281,336N.W.2d510 (Minn.1983). decide, or receive information about official city business. Hubbard Broadcasting Inc. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a conversation between two v.City of Afton,323 N.W.2d 757(Minn.1982). councilmembers over lunch regarding an application for a special-use permit did not violate the open meeting law because a quorum was not present. 6. Serial meetings Moberg v.Indep.Sch.Dist. The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a No.281,336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn.1983).See also 1PAD quorum of the public body held serially to avoid public hearings or to 10-011 and IPAD 06-017. fashion agreement on an issue may violate the open meeting law depending on the circumstances. Mankato Free Press v.City of A Minnesota Court of Appeals' decision also indicates that serial meetings North Mankato,563 N.W.2d 291(Minn.Ct App.1997). could violate the open meeting law. The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual councilmembers conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a city position in one-on-one closed interviews.Although the district court found that no meetings had occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present,the court of appeals remanded the decision back to the district court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had used this interview process for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the open meeting law. Mankato Free Press v.City of On remand,the district court found that the private interviews were not North Mankato,No.C9-98- 677(Mum.CL App.Dec.15, conducted for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the open meeting 1998)(unpublished decision). law.This decision was also appealed, and the court of appeals, in an unpublished decision, agreed with the district court's decision. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/9/2015 Meetings of City Councils Page 19