04-01-15-EDC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: 7. Security reports Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3 (d). Meetings may be closed to receive security briefings and reports, to discuss issues related to security systems, to discuss emergency-response procedures, and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure, and facilities, if disclosure of the information would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses. Financial issues related to security matters must be discussed and all related financial decisions must be made at an open meeting. Before closing a meeting under this exception, the public body must, when describing the subject to be discussed, refer to the facilities, systems, procedures, services or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting. The closed meeting must be tape-recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least four years. G. Common issues 1. Interviews Channel 10, Inc. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, 215 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1974). The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a school board must interview prospective employees for administrative positions in open sessions. The court reasoned that the absence of a statutory exception indicated that the Legislature intended such sessions to be open. As a result, a city council should conduct any interviews of prospective officers and employees at an open meeting if a quorum or more of the council will be present. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual councilmembers conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a city position in one-on-one closed interviews. The district court found that no “meeting” of the council had occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present during the interviews. However, the court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had conducted the interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, No. C9- 98-677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished opinion). On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not done to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. This decision was also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process should first consult their city attorney. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/2/2014 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 17