Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: I <br /> See section Q.G.6.-Serial 'I'he Supreme Court concluded that the absence of a staxutory exception to <br /> ►neetings. <br /> � the open meeting law for interviews indicated that the legislature had <br /> decided that such sessions should not be closed.The reasoning would seem <br /> to apply to a city council's interview of prospective officers and employees <br /> as well, if a quorum is present. <br /> Mmrkato Free Press v City of � 1996,a district court found that it was not a violation of the o en meetin <br /> North Mankato,No.CI-96- p $ <br /> 100036(Fifth Jud.Disk law for candidates to be serially interviewed by members of a city council in <br /> �996>. one-on-one closed interviews. In this case, five city councilmembers were <br /> present in the same building but each was conducting separate interviews in <br /> five different rooms. Because there was no quorum present in any of the <br /> rooms,the court found there was no meeting.The decision, however,was <br /> appealed. <br /> Mmdrato Free P�ess v City of � 1997,the Minnesota Court of A eals reversed the district court's <br /> North Mankato,563 N.W.2d PP <br /> 29t��►.cc a�.�99�. decision and remanded the case back to the district court for a factual <br /> Mmdrato Free Press v.CiLy of determination on whether the city used the one-on-one interview rocess in <br /> Nonh Manlwm,No.C9-98- p <br /> 677(Mirm.Ct App.Dec.15> order to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law.On remand,the <br /> i99s>��puti�nea a�sgt�,>. district court found that the private interviews were not conducted for the <br /> purpose of avoiding public hearings.T'he case was again appealed. In an <br /> , unpublished decision, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's <br /> decision. <br /> The conclusion that can be dra,wn from this decision appears to be that if <br /> serial meetings involving less than a quonun of a public body are held for <br /> � the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the open meeting law, it will <br /> constitute a violation of the Iaw.Cities that aze considering holding private <br /> interviews with job applicants should first consult their city attomey. <br /> 3. Executive sessions <br /> A.G.Op.63-A-5(June 13, 'I'he attorney general has advised that executive sessions of a ci council <br /> 1957).See also Minn.Stat. � <br /> §13D.01,�ba.i�v>�a�. must be open to the public. <br /> 4. Informational meetings and committees <br /> sr.cc�N����,�.�.v. 'I'he Minnesota.Supreme Court has held that informational seminars about <br /> D�r.�az co»�ry <br /> s�hoo�,332 N.W.2d 1 school-board business,which the entire board attends, must be noticed and <br /> �"'n 19s3�. open to the public.As a result, it appears that any scheduled gathering of a <br /> quorum of a city council where it receives information about city business <br /> must be properly noticed and open to the public, regaxdless of whether the <br /> council takes or contemplates taking action at that gathering. <br /> In addition,many city councils create committees to make recommendations <br /> regarding a specific issue. Commonly, such a committee will be responsible <br /> for researching the issue and submitting a recommendation to the council for <br /> its approval.These committees are usua.11y advisory, and the council is still <br /> responsible for making the final decision. <br /> � <br /> League of Minnesota Cfies Information Memo: 11/9/2015 <br /> Meetings of City Councils Page 17 <br />