Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br /> This type of committee may be subject to the open meeting law. Some <br /> �., . factors that may be relevant in deciding whether a committee is subject to <br /> the open meeting law include how the committee was created and who aze <br /> its members;whether the committee is performing an ongoing function,or <br /> instead, is performing a one-time function;whether the committee receives <br /> public funds or uses public facilities or staff; and what duties and powers <br /> have been granted to the committee. <br /> �r�os-o�a_ For example,the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of <br /> Administration has advised that"standing"committees of a city hospital <br /> boazd that were responsible for management liaison,collection o�f <br /> information,and formulation of issues and recommenda.tions for the board <br /> were committees subject to the open meeting law. The advisory opinion <br /> noted that the standing committees were performing tasks that relate to the <br /> ongoing operation of the hospital district and were not performing a one- <br /> time or"ad hoc"function. <br /> irAD o�-oas. In contrast,the commissioner has advised that a city's Free Speech Working <br /> Group was not a committee that was subject to the open meeting law.This <br /> group consisted of inembers, including city officials,the city council had <br /> appointed to develop and review stra.tegies for addressing free-speech <br /> concerns relating to a political convention that was going to be held in the <br /> city. The commissioner reasoned that the group was not a committee subject <br /> to the open meeting law because it did not have any decision-making <br /> authority. <br /> `�.- A.G.Op.63a-5(Aug.28, City councils also routinely appoint individual councilmembers to act as <br /> 1496). <br /> liaisons between the council and particular groups.These types of groups <br /> may be considered a committee that is subject to the open meeting law. <br /> �ve.er�v.a�,498 'I'he Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where the mayor and <br /> N.W.2d 62(Mirm.Ct App. <br /> 1993).See also Mittnesota one other member of a city council attended a series of inediatio�sessions <br /> DaiJy v.Univ.of Mi�mesota, �g�ding an annexation dispute thax were not open to the public. T'he court <br /> 432 N.W.2d 189(Minn.Ct <br /> A�.t9ss>�a z�y v. of appeals held that the open meeting law did not apply to these meetings <br /> Univ.oj'Mirmesota,sa� concluding"that a gathering of public officials is not a `committee, <br /> 9 6).d 32(Minn.Ct.App. SUbCOIIlII11Lt@6,board,department or commission' subject to the open <br /> meeting law unless the group is capable of exercising decision-making <br /> powers of the governing body:9 <br /> sove.�t�v.�,49s 'r'he court of appeals also noted that the capacity to act on behalf of the <br /> N.W.2d 62(Mum.C�App. <br /> i99s�. governing body is presumed where members ofthe group comprise a <br /> quorum of the body and could also arise where there has been a delegation <br /> of power from the governing body to the group. <br /> r�v.,�o�n�r,so6 � addition, a separate notice for a special meeting of the city council may <br /> N.W.Zd 14(Minn.Ct.App. <br /> 1993�. also be required if a quorum of the council will be present at a committee <br /> meeting and will participate in the discussion. <br /> � <br /> • League of Minnesota Cities Inforrnation Memo: 11/9/2015 <br /> Meetings of City Councils Page 18 <br />