6 (b) Open Meeting Law - Discussion

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: A city that wants to hold private interviews with applicants for city employment should first consult with its city attorney. 7. Training sessions Compare St.Cloud Whether the participation of a quorum or more of councilmembers in a Newspapers.Inc.v.Dist.742 Community Schools,332 training program should be considered a meeting under the open meeting N.W.2d 1(Minn.1983)and law would likely depend on whether the program includes a discussion of A.G.Op.63a-5(Feb.5, 1975). general training information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an individual city. A.G.Op.63a-5(Feb.5, The attorney general has advised that a city council's participation in a non- 1975). public training program devoted to developing skills at effective communication was not a meeting subject to the open meeting law. However,the opinion also stated that if there were to be any discussions of specific city business by the attending members, such as where councilmembers exchange views on the city's policy in granting liquor licenses, such discussions would likely violate the open meeting law. 8. Telephone, email, and social media Moberg v.Indep.Sch.Dist It is possible that communication through telephone calls,email,or other No.281,336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn.1983). technology could violate the open meeting law.The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that communication through letters and telephone calls could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. IPAD 09-020. The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has advised that back-and-forth email communication among a quorum of a public body in which official business was discussed violated the open meeting law. However,the opinion also advised that"one-way communication between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as when the chair or a staff sends meeting materials via email to all board members,as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues." O'Keefe v.Carter.No.Al2- In contrast,the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision, has 0811(Minn.Ct.App.Dec. 31,2012)(unpublished concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting decision). law because they are written communications and are not a"meeting"for purposes of the open meeting law. The decision also concluded that even if the email messages were subject to the open meeting law,the substance of the emails in question did not contain the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited"meeting"to have occurred.The decision noted that the substance of the email messages was not important and controversial; instead, it related to a relatively straightforward operational matter.The decision also noted that the town board members did not appear to make any decisions in their email messages. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/9/2015 Meetings of City Councils Page 20