My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008_0107_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2008
>
2008_0107_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/22/2011 2:50:22 PM
Creation date
12/22/2011 2:26:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
M� <br />MW <br />2. Inte. iriv,19"WS <br />The Nlinnesota Supreme Court has held that aschoof hoard must inte-rview prospective employees <br />for administrative positions in open sessions. The court said that the absence of a statutory exnception <br />indicaticzA that the Legislature had decided that sucti sess-ions should not be closed. The reasoning would <br />seem to, apply to city council inter-views of prospective officers and, employees as well, if a quorum is <br />Present. <br />In 11.196, a district court found that it was not a violation. of' the -open 111eCtiDg law for candidates to be <br />serially interviewed by inembers of a city council in one-on-one closed interviews. In this case, five city <br />ckjullcil members were present in the same building but each was conductinor Separate intei-views in five <br />different roorns, Becarise there was no quoruin present in ally of the roorns, the court found there was <br />jao meeting. The decision., however, was appealed. <br />In 19971 the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remaiided the case <br />back to it for a factual determination on whether the cit)r used the one-on-one interview process in <br />order to avoid, the requirements of the open meeting la y. On remand, the district Court found that the <br />private interviews were not conducted for the puil?ose of avoiding public he-r-trinors. The case was again <br />;D <br />appealed. In an unpublished decision. the court of appeals agreed. <br />The implication of this decis= appears to be that if serial meetings are held for the purpose of avoiding <br />&D <br />the requirements of the open rnec tin g law, it will constitute a viollation of the imv. Cities that are <br />:P <br />considering holding private interviews with job applicants should first consult their city attorney. <br />31. Executive sessions <br />The attorney crenerial has advised that exccutivQ sessions, of a city council TRUst be open to the public. <br />v. <br />Chance oir soc�ial gatherings <br />Chance or social gatherings of a quorum aTe, not considered ineetings under the open ineeting law and <br />Z:) <br />are therefore exempt from it. However, a quorum may not., as a group,, discuss or receive information <br />on official business in any setting under the guise of a social gathering. I <br />.In 1982, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a conversation between two council members over <br />lunch regarding an application for a special-use pennit did niolt violate the open meeting law because a <br />quorum was riot present., <br />A Good Start to Good Governance League of Minnesota Cities <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.