CC_Minutes_2013_0318 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 18,2013 Page 11 b. Receive Presentation from Attorney Mark Gaughan Discussion Open Meet- ing Law,Data Practices and Electronic Communications City Attorney Mark Gaughan's presentation was detailed in the RCA and attach- ments, dated March 18, 2013; and preliminary as an overview to a more in-depth presentation scheduled in the very near future for all of the cities advisory com- missions. Attachment A entitled, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D (Open Meeting Law); Attachment B entitled, "LMC handout from 2013 Leadership Conference for Newly Elected Officials, `Legal Realities,' presented by Attorney Tim Kuntz;" Attachment C entitled, "LMC Memorandum, `Electronic Communications be- tween Councilmembers,' dated September 2009;" and Attachment D entitled, "City of Roseville Policy on Councilmembers' Electronic Communications, adopted August 2009." Data Practices Privacy Law At the request of Councilmember Etten regarding how to define "organization," Mr. Gaughan advised that it would be more appropriate to define "individual," and whether they were representing the community/group or as an individual. At the request of Mayor Roe as to whether an individual was communicating on behalf of another individual, Mr. Gaughan advised that he was not aware of a de- finitive answer, but would need to be based on the best interpretation on a case by case basis, since the law did not provide great clarity. Open Meeting Law Mr. Gaughan advised that there were only five (5) reasons for a closed meeting: 1) employee evaluation; 2) attorney/client privilege regarding litigation or threat- ened litigation; 3) to discuss the sale or acquisition of property, usually real prop- erty; 4) labor negotiations or strategies related to those negotiations; and the most recent option, 5) for issues related to security or emergency response. Mr. Gaughan noted that the City Council must identify who or what is involved in the closed meeting, which are typically taped unless specifically excepted, with rea- sonable notice obligations for posting and/or publishing the date, time and content of those meetings. Otherwise, Mr. Gaughan noted that all other business was in- tended for discussion in an open meeting, with some precise exceptions for emer- gency meetings. Mr. Gaughan advised that those members of the public or other organizations having previously requested notification of any meetings, needed to be noticed, even for emergency meetings; and noted the need for staff to ensure that those people were included in those notice requirements and practices. If there were omissions in providing those notices, and in meeting Open Meeting Law requirements, Mr. Gaughan advised that there were applicable penalties upon determination if the omissions were intentional or unintentional. In some cases