03-05-14 EDC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1 (b), (c). Other not-public data may be discussed at an open meeting without liability or penalty if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body’s authority, and it is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. The public body, however, should make reasonable efforts to protect the data from disclosure. Data discussed at an open meeting retains its original classification; however, a record of the meeting shall be public. 3. Misconduct allegations or charges Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subds. 1(d), 2(b). A public body must close one or more meetings for “preliminary consideration” of allegations or charges of misconduct against an individual subject to its authority. This type of meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. If the members conclude discipline of any nature may be warranted, further meetings or hearings relating to the specific charges or allegations that are held after that conclusion is reached must be open. This type of meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. 4. Performance evaluations Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subds. 1(d), 3(a). A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body must identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing the meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body must summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. This type of meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. If this type of meeting is closed, it must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. 5. Attorney-client privilege Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3 (b). Brainerd Daily Dispatch, LLC v. Dehen, 693 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002). Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 435 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Minneapolis, 251 N.W.2d 620 (Minn. 1976). A meeting may be closed if permitted by the attorney-client privilege. Meetings between a government body and its attorney to discuss active or threatened litigation may only be closed, under the attorney-client privilege, when a balancing of the purposes served by the attorney-client privilege against those served by the open meeting law dictates the need for absolute confidentiality. The need for absolute confidentiality should relate to litigation strategy, and will usually arise only after the city has made a substantive decision on the underlying matter. This privilege may not be abused to suppress public observations of the decision-making process, and does not include situations where the council will be receiving general legal opinions and advice on the strengths and weaknesses of a proposed underlying action that may give rise to future litigation. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 14