Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br /> In an unpublished decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded <br />that this broad grant of jurisdiction authorized a member of a town board <br />to bring an action against his own town board for alleged violations of the <br />open meeting law. This same decision also concluded that a two-year <br />statute of limitations applies to lawsuits under the open meeting law. <br />Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. <br />4. See LMCIT risk <br />management memo, Defense <br />Cost Reimbursement <br />Coverage For Open Meeting <br />Law and Bankruptcy <br />Lawsuits, for information <br />about insurance coverage for <br />lawsuits under the open <br />meeting law. <br />The court may also award reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorney <br />fees of up to $13,000 to any party in an action alleging a violation of the <br />open meeting law. The court may award costs and attorney fees to a <br />defendant only if the action is found to be frivolous and without merit. <br /> A public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred <br />by or awarded against any of its members. <br />Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. <br />4. If a party prevails in a lawsuit under the open meeting law, an award of <br />reasonable attorney fees is mandatory if the court determines that the <br />public body was the subject of a prior written advisory opinion from the <br />commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration, and the <br />court finds that the opinion is directly related to the lawsuit and that the <br />public body did not act in conformity with the opinion. A court is required <br />to give deference to the advisory opinion. <br />Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4 <br />(d). Coalwell v. Murray, No. <br />C6-95-2436 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />Aug 6, 1996) (unpublished <br />decision). Elseth v. Hille, No <br />A12-1496 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />May 13, 2013) (unpublished <br />opinion). <br />No monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded against a member <br />of a public body unless the court finds there was intent to violate the open <br />meeting law. <br />Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3 <br />(a). Brown v. Cannon Falls <br />Township, 723 N.W.2d 31 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. 2006). <br />If a person is found to have intentionally violated the open meeting law in <br />three or more separate actions involving the same governing body, that <br />person must forfeit any further right to serve on the governing body or in <br />any other capacity with the public body for a period of time equal to the <br />term of office the person was serving. <br />Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3 <br />(b). If a court finds a separate, third violation that is unrelated to the previous <br />violations, it must declare the position vacant and notify the appointing <br />authority or clerk of the governing body. As soon as practicable, the <br />appointing authority or governing body shall fill the position as in the case <br />of any other vacancy. <br />Minn. Const. art. VIII, § 5. <br /> Under the Minnesota Constitution, the Legislature may provide for the <br />removal of public officials for malfeasance or nonfeasance. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/2/2014 <br />Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 24