My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-08-15-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2015
>
04-08-15-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/3/2015 1:28:35 PM
Creation date
6/3/2015 1:28:00 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />IPAD 09-020. <br /> The commissioner of the Department of Administration has advised that <br />back-and-forth email communications among a quorum of a public body <br />that was subject to the open meeting law in which the members <br />commented on and provided direction about official business violated the <br />open meeting law. <br /> However, the commissioner also advised that ”one-way communication <br />between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as <br />when the chair or staff sends meeting materials via email to all board <br />members, as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues.” <br />O’Keefe v. Carter, No. A12- <br />0811 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. <br />31, 2012) (unpublished <br />opinion). <br />In contrast, an unpublished decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals <br />concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting <br />law because they are written communications and are not a “meeting” for <br />purposes of the open meeting law. <br /> The decision also noted that even if email communications are subject to <br />the open meeting law, the substance of the emails in question did not <br />contain the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited <br />“meeting” to have occurred. The court of appeals noted that the substance <br />of the email messages was not important and controversial; instead, the <br />email communications discussed a relatively straightforward operational <br />matter. The decision also noted that the town board members did not <br />appear to make any decisions in their email communications. <br /> Because this decision is unpublished, it is not binding on other courts. In <br />addition, the outcome of this decision might have been different if the <br />email communications had related to something other than operational <br />matters, for example, if the board members were attempting to build <br />agreement on a particular issue that was going to be presented to the town <br />board at a future meeting. <br />2014 Minn. Laws ch. 274 to <br />be codified at Minn. Stat. § <br />13D.065. <br />In 2014, the open meeting law was amended to provide that “the use of <br />social media by members of a public body does not violate the open <br />meeting law as long as the social media use is limited to exchanges with <br />all members of the general public.” Email is not considered a type of <br />social media under the new law. <br /> The open meeting law does not define the term “social media” but this <br />term is generally understood to mean forms of electronic communication <br />including websites for social networking like Facebook, LinkedIn, and <br />MySpace as well as blogs and microblogs like Twitter through which <br />users create online communities to share information, ideas, and other <br />content. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/2/2014 <br />Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 21
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.