03-05-14 EDC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: However, the court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had conducted the interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, No. C9-98- 677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished decision). On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not done to avoid open-meeting-law requirements. This decision was also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process with job applicants should first consult their city attorney. 5. Training sessions Compare St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). and A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, 1975). It is not clear whether the participation of a quorum or more of the members of a city council in a training program would be defined as a meeting under the open meeting law. The determining factor would likely be whether the program includes a discussion of general training information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an individual city. A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, 1975). The attorney general has advised that a city council’s participation in a non- public training program devoted to developing skills was not a meeting subject to the open meeting law. However, the opinion also advised that if there were to be any discussions of specific city business by the attending members, either outside or during training sessions, it could be a violation of the open meeting law. 6. Technology Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). It is not clear how the open meeting law applies to technology, such as e- mail or telephone calls. Although the law does not specifically address the use of email, telephone calls, and other technology, it is possible that any form of communication between councilmembers or members of other public bodies could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. O’Keefe v. Carter, No. A12- 0811 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012) (unpublished decision). An unpublished 2012 decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that e-mail communications are not subject to the open meeting law because they are written communications and are not a “meeting” for purposes of the open meeting law. The court of appeals’ decision also concluded that even if the e-mail messages were subject to the open meeting law, the substance of the e-mails in question did not contain the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited “meeting” to have occurred. The court noted that the substance of the e-mail messages was not important and controversial; instead, they discussed a relatively straightforward operational matter. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 18