Laserfiche WebLink
Mr., Cral , g, Oscar so <br />Ap�ril 2, 20�07 <br />Page 2 <br />N-W.2d 23 (1965). Beicause the open meeting, law is enacted to benefi- t the public, the courts <br />T - <br />-s tavor in 11 ciricumstan <br />state that it is construedin the public" ^ a ces. See, Mankato Free <br />Press v. City of'North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291. (Minn. App. 1997). <br />The Moberg court dealt with the definition of what is a "meeting". However, it also <br />dealt with other concerns. It noted that the rule that it was fashioning could be circumvented <br />by, serial face-to-face or telephone conversations between Board members to marshal their <br />votes, on an 'Issue ble-fore it Is initially raised at a, publici hearing. The court stated that it did no <br />follow that two or three person conversation should be prohibited, 'because officials who wer <br />determined to act furtively will hold such discussions anyway, or miprht simply use an outsidei <br />%-1 <br />