2009_0413_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Open Meeting Law provides that all meetings, including executive sessions, of the City Council and "of any committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission" of the Council shall be open to the public. Minn. Stat. � 13D.01, subd. 1. The application of the Open Meeting Law to advisory committees depends upon the role and authority of the committee. In Sovereig;n v. Dunn, the court held that mediation sessions to discuss the possible resolution of a municipal border dispute were not meetings subject to the Open Meeting Law because the city delegation did not constitute a"committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission." 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1993). In that case, the city's mayor and a city council member attended a series of ineetings on the border questions. The court held that a gathering of public officials was not a"committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission" subject to the Open Meeting Law unless the group was capable of exercising decision-making powers of the governing board. Id., at 67. The court found that the city delegation did not exercise any authority on behalf of the council, was created informally without a vote or resolution on the matter, and no powers were granted to the delegation by statute, ordinance, or other formal action. Id. Although the mediation sessions produced a negotiated agreement, this agreement was presented to the city council in an open meeting with ample opportunity for public involvement. Id. at 67-68. In Minnesota Dailv v. Universitv of Minn., the court had to determine whether the University of Minnesota Presidential Search Advisory Committee ("PSAC")was a committee of the regents. 432 N.W.2d 189, 190 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. 1989). PSAC was comprised of faculty, student, and staff inembers, but no regents. The committee's purpose was to provide advice and consultation to the regents on the selection of the president. The committee assumed an active role in screening applicants and narrowing the field to a short list of finalists, but its decisions were subject to review by the regents. The court explained that PSAC was not literally a committee of regents because no regent was a member of PSAC. Id. Thus, the court focused on whether PSAC meetings were, in effect, the deliberations of the regents. Id. The court reasoned that while PSAC had the power to make recommendations and the obligation to report to the regents, it had no power to decide who the next president would be. Id. at 193. The court explained that PSAC had no authority to set policy or make the final decision. Id. The court held that the committee's participation in the process of transacting public business, without more, would not bring PSAC within the Open Meeting Law. Id. As in the Minnesota Dailv case, the determination of whether advisory committees are committees of the City Council depends on the functions and authority of the particular committee. If an advisory committee will not have the power to decide on City business, set policy or make the final decision, the committee would not be subject to the Open Meeting Law. If the Open Meeting Law does not apply to the committee, the 2