03-05-14 EDC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: A public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred by or awarded against any of its members. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4. If a party prevails in a lawsuit under the open meeting law, an award of reasonable attorney fees is mandatory if the court determines that the public body was the subject of a prior written advisory opinion from the commissioner of the Department of Administration, and the court finds that the opinion is directly related to the lawsuit and that the public body did not act in conformity with the opinion. A court is required to give deference to the advisory opinion. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4 (d). Coalwell v. Murray, No. C6-95-2436 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug 6, 1996) (unpublished decision). Elseth v. Hille, No A12-1496 (Minn. Ct. App. May 13, 2013) (unpublished decision). No monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded against a member of a public body unless the court finds there was intent to violate the open meeting law. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3 (a). Brown v. Cannon Falls Township, 723 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). If a person is found to have intentionally violated the open meeting law in three or more separate actions involving the same governing body, that person must forfeit any further right to serve on the governing body or in any other capacity with the public body for a period of time equal to the term of office the person was serving. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3 (b). If a court finds a separate, third violation that is unrelated to the previous violations, it must declare the position vacant and notify the appointing authority or clerk of the governing body. As soon as practicable, the appointing authority or governing body shall fill the position as in the case of any other vacancy. Minn. Const. art. VIII, § 5. Jacobsen v. Nagel, 255 Minn. 300, 96 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1959). Under the Minnesota Constitution, the Legislature may provide for the removal of public officials for malfeasance or nonfeasance. To constitute malfeasance or nonfeasance, a public official’s conduct must affect the performance of official duties and must relate to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public. Jacobsen v. Nagel , 255 Minn. 300, 96 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1959). Claude v. Collins, 518 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994). “Malfeasance” refers to evil conduct or an illegal deed. “Nonfeasance” is described as neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform what is a public officer’s legal duty to perform. More likely than not, a violation of the open meeting law would be in the nature of nonfeasance. Although good faith does not nullify an open-meeting-law violation, good faith is relevant in determining whether a violation amounts to nonfeasance. Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 217 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1974). In re D & A Truck Line, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). The open meeting law does not address whether actions taken at a meeting that does not comply with its requirements would be valid. Minnesota courts have generally refused to invalidate actions taken at an improperly closed meeting. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 21