CC_Minutes_2006_1128 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minnesota Statutes 179A.01 to SS 179A.25, as cited in the exception, is the Public Employment Labor Relations Act ("PELRA"). PELRA establishes the rules for collective bargaining between Minnesota public employers and representatives of public employees. PELRA does not apply to the contracts of individual employees outside the collective bargaining process. Accordingly, under a plain and ordinary reading of the statute, while the labor negotiations exception would allow the City Council to close a meeting to the public in order to discuss strategy for negotiations with a collective bargaining unit (and also has requirements for taping such meetings, such tapes becoming public at a later date), the exception does not permit the closing of a meeting to discuss negotiation of an individual's contract, nor for the contract negotiation itself. This issue comes up often in our representation of public entities. As we do with our other public clients, we offer you the following options for your consideration: 1. The full City Council can discuss the terms of the offer it wishes to make to the chosen applicant during an open meeting. After discussion, the City Council can approve an offer to be made to the individual. 1fthe chosen applicant accepts the offer, the negotiations would be at an end. If the chosen applicant makes a counter-offer, the City Council would review and discuss the counter-offer during an open meeting and could choose to either accept, reject, or respond with its own counter-offer. This process would continue until a deal is reached or negotiations fail. 2. The City Council could appoint a committee of two council members to negotiate a contingent agreement with the chosen applicant. In doing so, the City Council would authorize this committee to negotiate the best terms possible with the chosen applicant and to bring the proposed contract back to the full City Council for discussion and potential approval. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has limited the application of the Open Meeting Law to committees possessing decision-making authority on behalf of the governing body. Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d 189, 192-193 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988); Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62,67 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). Conversely, committees that do not possess decision-making authority are not subject to the provisions of the Open Meeting Law. The capacity to act on behalf of the governing body is presumed where members of the committee comprise a quorum of the governing body. Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Minn. App. 1993). This presumption could also arise where there has been a delegation of power from the governing body to the committee. Id. at 67. Accordingly, when appointing a committee, the City Council should take care to limit the number of Council members on the committee and to clarify that the committee does not have the final authority and power to approve the employment, and the terms thereof, of the prospective city administrator.