|
�9� Minn, 563 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES
<br />Syllabus by the �'�rcr�
<br />1. The .�',�+t'mr:��t T�d� PeactaCes +�k�
<br />Ylinn,Stat. § 13.43, sqbd. 3(1996), requires
<br />that the names of certain applicants for P� �
<br />lic employment be �,� Pu�Fi� �� th� a�
<br />they are selected to be interviewed.
<br />2. Determinin� whether a city council's
<br />procedure 0� 9l!a°sr,e+ti� j4� ag�licarF�s i
<br />�� a� �2ss �.�Bn ■ �4TFR �fFF �[�rfrd
<br />far the purpose of avoiding the public hear•
<br />irkg required by the Open Meeting Law,
<br />�Iinn.Stat. § 471.705, subd. 1(1996}, presents
<br />a fact question that cannot be answered on
<br />summary judgment.
<br />3. 'tFre � 32�tir� L�. 1+�rye,3Le�
<br />5 471.7t�.5, subd. 1, requires that the results
<br />qP a�►'ICk�lS atraK � taket� du-ir� q� vpea
<br />meeting be made p�}�Ue during thc meeting.
<br />Mark R. A,r�nson, Minneapolis, James H,
<br />il�fanahan, �lanahan & Biuih Law Office,
<br />Chartered. Mankato, for Appellant.
<br />Pierre N. R�gnier, Shari L. Johnson, J�r-
<br />�� bh�' � 4'F.r�� P,L.L.�., �t Fp�.
<br />ar Itesp en s.
<br />Carla J. Heyl, St. Paul, for � cur�t�
<br />League of Minnesota Cities.
<br />Considered and decided by HUSPENI,
<br />P.J.. and TOUSSAINT. C.�., and PARKER,
<br />J.
<br />OP1N10N
<br />HUSPENI, Judge.
<br />Appellant M��t,p Free p�s� Co., �'�
<br />The Free Press, �Sroaght a1i ACt�4n agRinst
<br />respondents City of North Mankato and its
<br />counc�l members, claiming the� respondents
<br />violated portions of �}l� �oti'�nr �ad
<br />1� ��inn� t. 1�, aUbd, 3
<br />�7Qa�j �w• �I]In.
<br />Stat. � 471.705, subd. 1(t996). � aSaRr[ck
<br />vou4# �ranted respondents' motian for sum-
<br />�I�F Ju�$ment. FFe r�'�[ �n� T�msn�.
<br />FACTS
<br />Respondents hired a consultant to help
<br />select a new North Mankato city aldmini9�-
<br />tor, rlfter meeting with applicants, the con-
<br />s►�ltant narrowed the pool of applicants t r��.
<br />Debra � editar of 7�te }'ft� Pres�,
<br />m� with A$rL �ar�k�W rna�•�p Naney
<br />�� �d � ��#i ��4 ci�y aitot
<br />ney �od requested that the names � the
<br />applicants be disclosed as soon as the city
<br />council decided t�i interview them. She .ti�
<br />rr.r.ua�F,p� „IFL � =n{Cf�l4w� bC r:iq�?�; i•_
<br />����- �ifYiQQp � �Pf:�ITI' 7� �t 4ht'
<br />council would conduct onean-one -nt*�.;�.s
<br />that would not be open to the public.
<br />The council held a special meeting on Jan_
<br />uary 10, 1996, during which it reviewed r}ip
<br />applications of the 11 candidates and selected
<br />five of the applicants to inteiw~ie�v. The
<br />m�+etiqg s�e open �+�I� public, but the
<br />council did not revea� the names of the appli-
<br />cants. +i.'�k�� the meeting, a reporter for The
<br />Free Press requested the names of the five
<br />finalists. The council refused, saying the
<br />finalists' identities would be disclosed only
<br />after they agreed to be interviewed. The
<br />next morning the five candidates were eon-
<br />#aeted, and they al] agreed to interview for
<br />the position. Their names were publicly an
<br />nouncedlater that day.
<br />�� January �� i�. the council members
<br />conducted simultaneous, serial one-on-one in-
<br />terviews of each of the five finalists so that
<br />each candidate was interviewed separately by
<br />each council member. The one-on-one inter-
<br />views were not open to the public or the
<br />media. After the interviews, the eounc�
<br />members ate lunch together but did not cdis-
<br />cuss the interviews. Following lunch, the
<br />council conducted public interviews. Knut-
<br />a� stated that she asked different questions
<br />sG the public interviews than at the private
<br />;nr,..5�i4�.
<br />,��,p� ;�puhll� interviews, I[7ir
<br />merq�err� d �Li�� ti'�O� �Y '•�1�FI5� �{'� i
<br />�le�e �f p�r tlre �rmga er �r !ti� ��
<br />candidate choices. The result of the straw
<br />� yP�9 n0� Cnsd� � aL k�5� time, �e _ Z
<br />included � �F.e �puras'3 me�kin� ��pp�
<br />which were a�ailable at a later date. From
<br />the straw vote, three candidates remained,
<br />and the council members ranked these three.
<br />A motion was then made to hire the favored
<br />candidate, and a unanimous roll call was
<br />taken in favor of hiring the top candidate.
<br />
|