Laserfiche WebLink
( <br /> � <br /> RELEVANT LINKS: , <br /> A city that wants to hold private interviews with applicants for city <br /> �. employment should first consult with its city attorney. <br /> 7. Training sessions <br /> Compaze St.Cloud Whether the participation of a quorum or more of councilmembers in a <br /> Newspapers,lnc.v.Dist.742 <br /> co,�;cy�hao�,332 tra.ining program should be considered a meeting under the open meeting ' <br /> N.W.2d 1(Minn 1983)and law would likely depend on whether the program includes a discussion of <br /> A.G.Op.63a 5(Feb.5, <br /> �9�s�. general training information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an <br /> individual city. <br /> A.G.Op.63a-5(Feb.5, �e attorney general has advised that a city council's participation in a non- <br /> 1975). <br /> public tra.ining program devoted to developing skills at effective <br /> communication was not a meeting subject to the open meeting law. <br /> However,the opinion also stated that if there were to be any discussions of <br /> specific city business by the attending members, such as where <br /> councilmembers exchange views on the city's policy in gra.nting liquor <br /> licenses, such discussions would likely violate the open meeting law. <br /> 8. Telephone, email, and social media <br /> Moberg v.lndep.Sch.Dist It is possible that communication through telephone calls,email,or other <br /> No.28l,336 N.W.Zd 510 <br /> �M�.i9ss>. technology could violate the open meeting law.The Minnesota.Supreme <br /> Court has indicated that communication through letters and telephone ca11s <br /> could violate the open meeting law under certa.in circumstances. <br /> �. �aD o9-ozo. The commissioner of the Minnesota.Departrnent of Administration has <br /> advised that back-and-forth email communication among a quorum of a <br /> public body in which oi�icial business was discussed violated the open <br /> meeting law. However,the opinion also advised that"one-way <br /> communication between the chair and members of a public body is <br /> permissible, such as when the chair or a staff sends meeting materials via <br /> email to all board members,as long as no discussion or decision-making <br /> ensues." <br /> O'Keefe v.Carter.No.Al2- �COII�I"dSt,the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision, has <br /> 0811(Minn.Ct.App.Dec. <br /> 3i,Zo�2���„b�,�nea concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting <br /> a�'S'°"�. (aw because they aze written communications and are not a"meeting"for <br /> purposes of the open meeting law. <br /> The decision also concluded that even if the email messages were subject to <br /> the open meeting law,the substance of the emails in question did not contain <br /> the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited"meeting"to <br /> have occurred.The decision noted that the substance of the email messages <br /> was not important and controversial; instead, it related to a relatively <br /> straightforward operarional matter.The decision also noted that the town <br /> board mernbers did not appear to make any decisions in their email <br /> messages. <br /> � <br /> League of Minnesota Cfies Infortnation Memo. 11/9/2015 <br /> Meatings of City Councils Page 20 <br />