04-08-15-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: The Court of Appeals held that the open meeting law did not apply to these meetings concluding “that a gathering of public officials is not a ‘committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission’ subject to the open meeting law unless the group is capable of exercising decision- making powers of the governing body.” The Court of Appeals also noted that the capacity to act on behalf of the governing body is presumed where members of the group comprise a quorum of the body and could also arise where there has been a delegation of power from the governing body to the group. If a city is unsure whether a meeting of a committee, board, or other city entity is subject to the open meeting law, it should consult its city attorney or consider seeking an advisory opinion. Thuma v. Kroschel, 506 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). In addition, notice for a special meeting of the city council may be needed if a quorum of the council will be present at a committee meeting and will be participating in the discussion. For example, when a quorum of a city council attended a meeting of the city’s planning commission, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open meeting law—not simply because the councilmembers attended the meeting—but because the councilmembers conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting. A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). Based on this decision, the attorney general has advised that mere attendance by councilmembers at a meeting of a council committee—held in compliance with the open meeting law—would not constitute a special city council meeting requiring separate notice. The attorney general cautioned, however, that the additional councilmembers should not participate in committee discussions or deliberations absent a separate special-meeting notice of a city council meeting. 3. Social gatherings St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). Moberg v. Indep. Sch.. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982). Social gatherings of city councilmembers would not be considered a meeting subject to the requirements of the open meeting law as long as there is not a quorum present; or, if a quorum is present, as long as the quorum does not discuss, decide, or receive information on official city business. The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a conversation between two city councilmembers over lunch about a land-use application did not violate the open meeting law because a quorum of the council was not present. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/2/2014 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 19