CC_Minutes_2008_0714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

08-015 (a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and: (1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body; (2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or (3) available in the meeting room to all members; shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter. (b) This subdivision does not apply to materials classified by law as other than public as defined in chapter 13, or to materials relating to the agenda items of a closed meeting held in accordance with the procedures in section 13D.03 or other law permitting the closing of meetings. Ms. Goering, the attorney for the Council, argues that because the statute only speaks of "printed materials," and because the email message from the City Manager was not printed, it did not need to be provided in the public packet in the meeting room. Additionally, she argues that neither a City employee nor the Council itself directed that the email be distributed and so the members of the Council did not violate subdivision 6. The language in subdivision 6 does speak of "printed materials" and, technically, an email that is not printed does not fit the commonly understood meaning of that phrase. The Legislature should revise the language to recognize the use of electronic and other types of communication. The Commissioner is not persuaded by Ms. Goering's argument for two reasons. It would be an absurd result to apply the language in subdivision 6 when the email is printed and not apply it when the email is not printed. See Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17. Furthermore, taking the argument to its next logical step, public bodies could avoid providing any meeting materials to members of the public by merely sending all communications via email. Given the Minnesota Supreme Court's direction in Prior Lake American to interpret the requirements of the OML in favor of public access and the need for clear requirements to assist with compliance, the Commissioner cannot accept the limited reading of subdivision 6 suggested by the Council. The second argument presented is that neither a City employee nor a member of the Council directed that the email be distributed. This argument fails because the email was sent by the City Manager to the members of the Council. Therefore, a City employee chose to distribute the email and that portion of the subdivision 6 has been satisfied. The Commissioner concludes that the members of the Council should have made the text of the email sent by the City Manager on the morning of February 11, 2008, available to the public as part of the materials provided in the meeting room per the requirements of section 13D.01, subdivision 6. Opinion: Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Kysylyczyn raised is as follows: