03-05-14 EDC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: The advisory opinion’s conclusion was primarily based on the fact 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. City councils also routinely appoint individual councilmembers to act as liaisons between the council and particular council committees. These committee meetings may also be subject to the open meeting law. In addition, notice for a special meeting of the city council may be needed if a quorum of the council will be present at the meeting and will be participating in the discussion. Thuma v. Kroschel, 506 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). 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 because the councilmembers attended the meeting—but because the councilmembers conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting. 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 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 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 special-use-permit application did not violate the open meeting law because a quorum of the council was not present. 4. Serial gatherings Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a quorum of a public body held serially to avoid a public meeting or to fashion agreement on an issue of public business may violate the open meeting law. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual councilmembers conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a city position in one-on-one closed interviews. The district court found that no “meeting” of the council had occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present during the interviews. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 17