CC_Minutes_2008_0714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

08-015 The City Manager responded by providin~ a copy of an email message he had sent to Council members the morning of the February 11 meeting. The email provided additional information from city staff about Agenda item 10, including a suggested penalty of a 30-day suspension of the license and a $1,000 fine. The email was not printed or provided in the packet of materials available to the public in the meeting room during the February 11, 2008, meeting. Issue: Based on Mr. Kysylyczyn's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue: Did the members of the Roseville City Council comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 at a meeting held on February 11, 2008? Discussion: Before turning to the issue raised by Mr. Kysylyczyn, it is necessary to establish that the Council is subject to the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. According to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(4), the governing body of a city is subject to the requirements of the OML. Therefore, the Council is subject to Chapter 13D. There are several purposes for the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that: The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes: (1) "to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies'] decisions or to detect improper influences"; (2) "to assure the public's right to be informed"; and (3) "to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body]." St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 7~2 Cmry. Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted). These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that swell-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government. (footnote omitted) Because the Open Meeting Law was enacted for the public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access. State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993); see St. Cloud Newspapers, 332 N.W.2d at 6 (stating that the Open Meeting Law "will be liberally construed in order to protect the public's right to full access to the decisionmaking process of public bodies"). Prior Lake American at 735. With this background and the Court's instruction to construe the law in favor of public access, the next step is to review the issue presented by Mr. Kysylyczyn. The statutory language at issue here is found in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6. That subdivision states: 2