Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />Mankato Free Press v. City of <br />The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual <br />North Mankato,563 N.W.2d <br />council members conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a <br />291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). <br />city position in one-on-one closed interviews.The district court found that <br />no “meeting” of the council had occurred because there was never a <br />quorum of the council present during the interviews. <br />However, the court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a <br />determination of whether the council members had conducted the <br />interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open <br />meeting law. <br />Mankato Free Press v. City of <br />On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not <br />North Mankato, No. C9-98- <br />done to avoid the requirementsof the open meeting law. This decision <br />677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, <br />1998)(unpublished decision). <br />was also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s <br />decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process with job <br />applicants should first consult their city attorney. <br />6.Training sessions <br />Compare St. Cloud <br />It is not clear whether the participation of a quorum or more of the <br />Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 <br />members of a city council in a training program would be defined as a <br />Community Schools,332 <br />N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983)and <br />meeting under the open meeting law. The determining factor would likely <br />A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, <br />be whether the program includes a discussion of general training <br />1975). DPO16-006. <br />information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an individual <br />city. <br />A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, <br />The attorney general has advised that a city council’s participation in a <br />1975).DPO16-006. <br />non-public training program devoted to developing skills was not a <br />meeting subject to the open meeting law. <br />The commissioner of the Department of Administration has likewise <br />advised that a school board’s participation in a non-public team-building <br />session to“improve trust, relationships, communications, and <br />collaborative problem solving among Board members,” was not a meeting <br />subject to the open meeting law if the membersare not “gathering to <br />discuss, decide, or receive information as a group relating to ‘the official <br />business’ of the governing body.” <br />However, the opinion also advised that if there were to be any discussion <br />of specific official business by the attending members, either outside or <br />during training sessions, it could be a violation of the open meeting law. <br />7.7.TeTelephone, email, and social medialephone, email, and social media <br />Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. <br />IIt is possible that communicationt is possible that communicationt is possible that communicationthrough telephone calls, email, or other through telephone calls, email, or other through <br /> telephone calls, email, or other <br />No. 281,336 N.W.2d 510 <br />technology technology could violate the open meeting law.could violate the open meeting law. <br />(Minn. 1983). <br />League ofMinnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities7/11/2023 <br />Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and OrdinancesChapter7| Page 23 <br /> <br />