04-01-15-EDC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: 2. Informational meetings and committees St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that informational seminars about school-board business, which the entire board attends, must be noticed and open to the public. As a result, it appears that any scheduled gatherings of a quorum or more of a city council must be properly noticed and open to the public, regardless of whether the council takes or contemplates taking action at that gathering. This includes meetings and work sessions where members receive information that may influence later decisions. IPAD 08-007. IPAD 13-015. Many city councils create committees to make recommendations regarding a specific issue. Commonly, such a committee will be responsible for researching the issue and submitting a recommendation to the council for its approval. These committees are usually advisory, and the council is still responsible for making the final decision. This type of committee may be subject to the open meeting law. Some factors that may be relevant in deciding whether a committee is subject to the open meeting law include how the committee was created and who are its members; whether the committee is performing and ongoing function, or instead, is performing a one-time function; and what duties and powers have been granted to the committee. IPAD 05-014. For example, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has advised that “standing” committees of a city hospital board that were responsible for management liaison, collection of information, and formulation of issues and recommendations for the board were committees subject to the open meeting law. The advisory opinion noted that the standing committees were performing tasks that relate to the ongoing operation of the hospital district and were not performing a one- time or “ad hoc” function. IPAD 07-025. In contrast, the commissioner has advised that a city’s Free Speech Working Group consisting of citizens and city officials appointed by the city to meet to develop and review strategies for addressing free-speech concerns relating to a political convention that was going to be held in the city was not subject to the open meeting law. The advisory opinion noted that the group did not have decision-making authority. A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). IPAD 07-025. It is common for city councils to appoint individual councilmembers to act as liaisons between the council and particular council committees or other government entities. The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where the mayor and one other member of a city council attended a series of mediation sessions regarding an annexation dispute that were not open to the public. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/2/2014 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 18