09 Open Meeting Law - Review - Laserfiche WebLink

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 ofAppeals 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, gased on that decision,the attorney general has advised that mere 1996). aitendance by additional councilmembers ax 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 s�.cr�rv��e,�r,�.v. Chance or social atherin of ci councilmembers will not be considered a DisMct 742 Cmty.Sch,332 g g � rr.w.za��m;�.i9ss�. meeting subject to the open meeting law as long as there is not a quorum Moberg v.hfdep.Sch Dfst present,or, if a quorum is present,as long as the quorum does not discuss, No.28/,336 N.W.2d 510 (M;�.t9ss�. decide,or receive information about official city business. Hubbm�dB�oadcastin�Irrc. 'I'he Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a conversation between two v.Ciey afA,Jtorr,323 N.W.2d �s��.i9a2>. 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 Mobeig v.Indep.Sch.Dist '�e Minnesota Su reme Court has noted that meerin of less than a No.28f,336 N.W.2d 510 p � (Minn.1983).See aLso Q�AD quorum of the pu6lic hody held serially to avoid public hearings or to �o-o�i�a u�A�o6-oiz �hion agreement on an issue may violate the open meeting law depending on the circumstances. NMo haMankato,563 N.W.2df A Minnesota.Court of Appeals' decision also indicates that serial meetings z9��.cc.aPP.t��. could violate the open meeting law.The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual councilmembers conducted separate, serial interviews of candida.tes for a city position in one-on-one closed interviews.Although the district court found that no meetings ha.d 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.Ctty of On remand,the district court found that the rivate interviews were not North Mankato,No.C9-98- p 677(Mitm.Ct App.Dec.15, conducted for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the open meeting lg9s��""p°bl'�t'«t a�;�`°"�. 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 Citlea InformaUon Memo: 11/@/2015 Meetinga of City Counals Page 18