|
�
<br />:��K�F:�
<br />�� One-on-one interti�iecvs. 'f'��
<br />h fev�r exceptions that
<br />including executive fe�ai¢��
<br />governing body of any * + .
<br />{ of any committee. subcat�n-
<br />department ar corrcmissianer
<br />be open to the public •�+,
<br />t.70n, subd. 1 (19g6). '[�,t
<br />�atvte is to f 1) prohibit ��
<br />�nake it impossible far :�,�
<br />e fully infarmed, c•�7 ass—
<br />= to information, and (3) �rti �
<br />opportunity to express its
<br />1' �'�diira, SZS ?�.� :�t 836,
<br />. The Open Xeeting Lacv
<br />bene�t the public and must
<br />the public's favar. See
<br />statute does nar define
<br />upreme court has held that
<br />to the requirements of the
<br />,w are
<br />or mare members
<br />, ar a quot�um of a
<br />�cornmittee, board. depart-
<br />[mission thereof, at which
<br />iss, decide, or receive infor-
<br />�p on issues relating to the
<br />'S of that governin�Z body.
<br />endent Sch. Disl. \'o. 181,
<br />51$ i34tir�i--`�`��, :3PP�Y��S
<br />skric4 court reasoned that
<br />ancr� conducted the one-on-
<br />�ere was never a "meeting"
<br />he council. The cauit eon-
<br />ltetvEew process "may ha�e
<br />� k�e 0[,�en 1lerti-�g La•r�.
<br />-0 proi�C�dUC�e did mr tinla'.ti
<br />:'
<br />t court also recognized that
<br />her the O�en Xee.ting Law
<br />�4p inwx tao*� u•,�til��}' a�
<br />m rule," and cited the cau-
<br />co�zrt that
<br />in groups of less than a
<br />Pur�ases of avoiding pUblic
<br />,hionlit�g agreement on an
<br />to be a violation of
<br />'pon the facts of the
<br />MANKAfiQ FREE PRESS v. CITY OF N. MANKATO �14inn. 295
<br />CitsasSb3 N.W,2d �91 fAAon_4�. 19971
<br />��;4'r�di at 518. However, the district purpose of avoiding public hearings or fash-
<br />��, after �nding that respondents' inter- ioning agreement on who to hire �s city
<br />ti�p,� process may have violated the spirit of adt�iniatraY,or.x
<br />� Open Meeting Law, went on to find that
<br />�r one-on-one interviewing procedure was �,
<br />p�[ used "to avoid a public hearing or to j�� Appellant �� that respondents
<br />f;ihion agreement on an issue. �� �4n` also violated the Open Meeting Law by �-
<br />�}e that in making this finding about the
<br />cuancil members' reasons for using the o�e- ��'g a written straw vote to narrow the list of
<br />�n.one interviews, the district court decided finalists during the January 2`7 meeting.'
<br />We agree. The results of the straw vote
<br />�act issue, which is appropriate only upon a �,ere not made public during the meeting,
<br />;rial on the merits. See Y'crczcm v. Haar's
<br />�';��ir._ Inc., 364 N.i�V.2d 387, 391 (Minn. but were recarded in the meeting minutes,
<br />Igga� (noting that summary judgment is not and were made available only at a later date.
<br />intencied as s�abstitute far trisl when there
<br />� genuine fact issues to be determined).
<br />,�r�ably the effect of the one-on-one in-
<br />ters-ie«�s is at odds with the purpose of the
<br />Open Xeeting Law. The Open Meeting Law
<br />V intended to give the public access to
<br />meetings at which information is received
<br />tc}tich may influenee later decisions" of a
<br />public body as well as "matters which could
<br />fareseeably require fxmai action" by a pu�iie
<br />kw�d;•- St Clvud �.Inc. v. AistricG
<br />�{1 Community Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1, 6
<br />tY[ian.1983). Here, the council members un-
<br />doubtedly garnered infai�nation during the
<br />one-on-one interviews that affected their
<br />�'�tea about who to hire. Ktsutson admitted
<br />ha: she asked questions during the private
<br />inteniews that she did not ask during the
<br />public inteitiriewra_
<br />R'hile the effect of respondents' in�rview
<br />proeess may have frustrated the purpose of
<br />the Open MeetinR Law, Moberp recagnizes a
<br />violation of the 9� only if � pe�ucr� was
<br />destqrted to avoid public hearings. See 336
<br />�.iti� at 518. Therefare, on remand the
<br />district court should make a proger factual
<br />�. , .�uFr: to determine whether respondents'
<br />� ?•�e�ieu'ir�� }�rxQC:��rr •�� ¢�nt� •�3Lh lh�
<br />� •
<br />�. 4le�i,d�n� �h� if�u� ul �� :�.,.nc�] mM�bfre'
<br />w•��c �� Qdn� d�r mreba��r n�lfr*+r�•ti ••v
<br />tecogniu that �tv did Gq�ul� with the city
<br />aEtnrney 6efore nri6lLhE-� th� intarview proce-
<br />dure, Respondenu argue �hat the city attorney
<br />relied an an unpublished order opinion in which
<br />Ihi� court approved of a district Gourt's deternsi-
<br />nation that serial qppq�� interview do not
<br />��ialace the 4�0 �dR4�� Law evcn though the
<br />P�a� war adapted 1G ellrri7r.t the application of
<br />�'4 Open R{sdin6 Law. �iS 25�oRlh� Publita-
<br />�'�+a. lrtc. v. �i �y of Apple yallev, No. G7-91-332
<br />The Open Meeting Law r�,; res, with lim-
<br />ited exceptions, that all city council meetings
<br />be open to the public. Minn.Stat. § 471.705,
<br />subd. 1. I t further provides:
<br />The votes of the members of *** such
<br />governing body *•' on any action taken
<br />in a meeting herein required to be open to
<br />the public shall be recarded in a journal
<br />kept far that purpose, and the journal shat�
<br />be open to the public during all normal
<br />business E�ours where such recards are
<br />kept
<br />Id A city council meeting is not really "open"
<br />t,a the public if the council is conducting its
<br />voting in secret. See Op. Att'y Gen. 471e
<br />(Aug. 20, 1962) (interpreting Minn.S#at.
<br />§ 471.706 as precluding secret ballots at city
<br />council meetings "[u]nless a secret ballot can
<br />be taken in such a manner as to enable the
<br />council to comply with" the Open Meeting
<br />Law). Secret voting denies the public an
<br />opportunity to observe the decision-making
<br />�, to know the council �embers' stance
<br />on issues, and to be fully informed about the
<br />council's actions. See C�aude, 518 N.W.2d at
<br />$4� (noting that one purpose of Open Meet-
<br />ing Law is to prohibit secret meetings that
<br />CIJi'.i'. I�"�L'j'C�r��:�+ti �rrl 'i7:,t..it �.i I�•f�•.i�C rL'.IL
<br />I�Ilrin.8}y Frh t7, 19?.'i 5+�e .aue,l.s:i :Ir
<br />.�.����.Lkr�cis �f �,r LL�r n�c�r�ey'i n+Twrt�r
<br />here. This cour[ did nOt affirm the district courc
<br />on the merits of that case, but merety denied a
<br />petition for extraordinary reliefon an emergency
<br />basis.
<br />2. The council termed the vote a"straw vote."
<br />which typically is not a farntal binding oiEit�al
<br />vote. In this case, however. �}rr council acted
<br />upo� ihe �++ vote. giving it the same el�ect as
<br />an officialvote.
<br />
|