7(b) Open Meeting Law - Discussion

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: A.G.Op.63a-5(Feb.5, The attorney general has advised that a city council's participation in a 1975).DPO 16-006. non-public training program devoted to developing skills was not a meeting subject to the open meeting law. The commissioner of the Department of Administration has likewise advised that a school board's participation in a non-public team-building session to"improve trust, relationships, communications, and collaborative problem solving among Board members,"was not a meeting subject to the open meeting law if the members are not"gathering to discuss, decide, or receive information as a goup relating to `the official business' of the governing body." However,the opinion also advised that if there were to be any discussion of specific official business by the attending members, either outside or during training sessions, it could be a violation of the open meeting law. 6. Telephone, email, and social media Mobergv./ndep.Sch.Dist It is possible that communication through telephone calls, email, or other No.28/,336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983).DPO 17-005 technology could violate the open meeting law.The Minnesota Supreme (advising communication Court has indicated that communication through letters and telephone calls through a letter violated the op�m�t;ng iaW�. could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. Dro o9-oao.Dro ia-ois. '�e commissioner of the Department of Administration has advised that back-and-forth email communications among a quorum of a public body that was subject to the open meeting law in which the members commented on and provided direction about official business violated the open meeting law. However,the commissioner also advised that"one-way communication between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as when the chair or staff sends meeting materials via email to all board members,as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues." O'Keefe v.Carter,No.Al2- Ill C011tl'i1.St, an unpublished opinion by the Minnesota Court of Appeals 0811(Minn.Ct.App.Dec. 3i,2012)(unpublished concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting °p'"'°"�. law because they are written communications and are not a"meeting"for purposes of the open meeting law. The decision also noted that even if email communications are 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 court of appeals noted that the substance of the email messages was not important and controversial; instead,the email communications discussed a relatively straightforward operational matter. The decision also noted that the town board members did not appear to make any decisions in their email communications. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/16/2017 Meetings,Motions,Resolutions,and Ordinances Chapter 7�Page 21