Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />February 18, 2003 <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM NO. 4,A <br /> <br />Mr, Joe Lynch <br />City Administrator <br />City of Arden Hills <br />1245 West Highway 96 <br />Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 <br /> <br />RE: Open Meeting Law <br />Our File No,: 10450.92-1 <br /> <br />Dear Joe: <br /> <br />The purpose of the Open Meeting Law1 is to prohibit actions from being taken at <br />secret meetings where it is impossible for members of the public to become fully <br />informed as to the reasons for the decision or to detect improper influences; to <br />protect the right of the public to be informed; and to afford the public an opportunity <br />to present its views to the decision making body2, Consequently, the Open Meeting <br />Law is liberally construed by the Courts to protect the public's right of access to the <br />decision making process3. <br /> <br />The Open Meeting Law unequivocally states that all meetings of a statutory city <br />council must be open to the public, unless the purpose of the meeting satisfies one of <br />the following exceptions4: <br /> <br />1. Meetings to discuss confidential data, as defined by the Minnesota Data <br />Practices Act; <br /> <br />2. Meetings to review charges or allegations against an employee, unless the <br />employee requests tha~ the meeting be open; <br /> <br />3. Meetings to evaluate employee performance, unless the employee requests <br />that the meeting be open; <br /> <br />1 MS Chapter 130 <br /> <br />2Prior Lake American v. Mader, 2002, 642 NW 2nd 729; Mankato Free Press Coal v. City <br />of North Mankato, App, 1997, 563 NW 2nd 291 <br /> <br />3St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v, Oistrict 742 Community Schools, 1983, 332 NW 2nd 1; <br />Prior Lake American, supra <br /> <br />e 4MS Chapter 130.01 Subd, 1; MS Chapter 130.03; or MS Chapter 130,04 <br />