09 Open Meeting Law - Review - Laserfiche WebLink

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 c��res�.cr�t V�t(lether the artici at' q Newspapers.lnc.v.Dist.742 P p ion of a uorum or more of councilmembers in a co„��s�+ao�,332 training program should be considered a meetin under the o n meetin N.W2d I(Minn.1983)and taW Would likel de end on whether the ro � � g AG Op.63a 5(Feb.5, Y P p gram includes a discussion of t9�s). general training information or a discussion of specific matters retating to an individual city. A.G.Op.63a-5(Feb_5, i9�s>. The attorney general has advised that a city council's participation in a non- public training program devoted to developing skills at effective cornmunica.tion 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 Mobergv.Indep.Sch.DIs� It is possible that communication throu tele hone calls,email,or other No.28i,336 N.W.Zd 510 �1 p �M;��.�9s3>. technology could violate the open meeting law.The Minnesota.Supreme Court has indicated that communication through letters and telephone ca11s could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. �, �Paa oa-oao. T'he commissioner of the Minnesota Depa.rtment af Administration has advised that back-and-forth email communica.tion among a quorum of a public body in which ot�icial 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 rnem6ers,as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues:' o�Kee,/'e v.carter 1vo..412- �Collttast�the Mi11t]esota.CouTt of A eals,in an un ublished decision has 0811(Minn.Ct.App.De�. p�i p � 3�,2012)(unpublished concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting �`s`°"�. 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 su6stance 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 Citles Information Memo: 11l9/2015 Meetlngs of City Councils Page 20