Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />February 18, 2003 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />manner in which the Minnesota Courts have liberally interpreted the <br />Open Meeting Law in favor of public access to the decision making <br />process and upon the Court's indication that violations of the Open <br />Meeting Law could involve less than a quorum, it is my opinion that the <br />serialized use of correspondence, telephone calls, voicemails and e- <br />mails could result in a violation of the Open Meeting Law, This opinion <br />is shared by the League of Minnesota Cities, <br /> <br />(b) A chance or social gathering of a quorum or more is not a meeting as <br />long as the members do not discuss, decide or receive information7. <br />Please note that it is not necessary to discuss or decide, it is only <br />necessary to receive information relative to the City's official business, <br /> <br />2, The term "open to the public" means that the meeting is preceded by <br />appropriate public noticeS and generally that the meeting is conducted within <br />the jurisdictional boundaries of the governing bOdl, <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The League of Minnesota Cities has published some literature in connection with this <br />topic, It may be helpful to order the appropriate pamphlets. <br /> <br />If you have any questions or if you would like for me to order the pamphlets, please <br />let me know. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />Jerome P. Filla <br />JPF:jtc <br /> <br />7Berglund v, City of Maplewood, MN,D, Minn. 2001, 173 F. Supp. 2nd 935; Moberg, <br />supra; St, Cloud Newspapers, Inc., supra <br /> <br />8Sullivan v, Credit River Tp, 1974, 217 NW 2nd 502 <br /> <br />e 9Quast v, Knutson, 1967, 150 NW 2nd 199 <br />