Laserfiche WebLink
Mr., Craig Oscarson. <br />Apri"I 2, 2007 <br />Page 9 <br />rnionths., 'The IPAD analysis is therefore, opinion, flawed. It is also inconsistent with the <br />prionouncements of the courts of the State of Minnesota. <br />I am enclosing a couple of items with this letter. First, is my Outline that I use for open <br />m ning, u <br />.e�e�ting law trai ' pdatedjust recently. The second is the IPA D opinion referred to herein. <br />Conclusion <br />I Relying upon the IPAD opinion for a contrary determination of"meetings" to which the open meeting law applies is not <br />unlike the circumstance that was facing the court in, the case of the Mimiesota Dail v. University.cif Minnesota. The <br />l imiesiota Daily in that case was relying upon a 1.975 opinion. of the Minnesota Attorney General that concluded that <br />meetings of advisory panels to the State Arts Council must be open because they were "committees" of the governing board <br />of a state agency. It is worth noting that the Court of Appeals completely disregarded this opinion, and noted that which we <br />see in every case where the Court of Appeals is faced with an opinion of the Attorney General or some other administrative <br />entity, noting that while the opinions are. entitled to consideration., they are not binding upon the courts, Id. at 1 94. <br />