5.4 Open Meeting Law - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

13 City-owned social media accounts and social media accounts of elected officials(being used in their role as an elected official)must keep in mind First Amendment protections when considering policies about comment moderation and the blocking of users.Policies that restrict comments to the topic or delete negative comments—and practices of blocking or restricting friends or followers—could face challenges. Councilmembers unable to make a meeting may ask to attend meetings through interactive technology, such as Skype,Zoom,Teams,or other technology where the user can be seen and heard.There is an exception to the open meeting law where a member can be in attendance through the use of interactive technology.The remote location must be a public place unless the councilmember qualifies for one of the limited exceptions—which includes the current military service exception or for the health exception for 6o days after the removal of a previously declared emergency under Minn.Stat.12.31— both of which only can be used three time per year.Additionally,when one or more members join remotely,then notice must be posted at least three days before the meeting indicating the location from which the remote attendee or attendees are joining.We encourage interested cities to develop a policy for using technology like Zoom with the assistance of your city attorney • Intentional violations of the open meeting law A public officer who intentionally violates the open meeting law can be fined up to$300.This fine may not be paid by the public body.In addition,a court may also award reasonable costs,disbursements,and attorney fees up to$13,000 to the person who brought the violation to court. If a plaintiff prevails in a lawsuit under the open meeting law,a court shall award reasonable attorney fees if the court determines the public body was the subject of a prior written advisory opinion from the commissioner of the Department of Administration,and the court finds that the opinion is directly related to the lawsuit and that the public body did not act in conformity with the opinion.A court is also required to give deference to the advisory opinion in a lawsuit brought to determine whether the open meeting law was violated. If a public official is found to have intentionally violated this chapter in three or more separate actions,the public official must be removed from office and may not serve in any other capacity with that public body for a period of time equal to the term of office the person was serving.However,removal is only required if the conduct constitutes malfeasance or nonfeasance. The statute does not address whether actions taken at an improper meeting would be invalid.The Minnesota Supreme Court once held that an attempted school district consolidation was fatally defective when the initiating resolution was adopted at a meeting that was not open to the public. However,in more recent decisions,Minnesota courts have refused to invalidate actions taken at improperly closed meetings.In an unpublished decision,the court stated that"even a violation of the open meeting law will not invalidate actions taken at that meeting." A public body may pay any costs,disbursements or attorney fees incurred by or awarded against any of its members for an action under the open meeting law. A Good Start to Good Governance League of Minnesota Cities