|
�
<br />�
<br />�
<br />���
<br />hl�� �lrrnrtcr in jV 4V.�d
<br />h�l Reporttd tn N.W.2d, I'� V�'L �6S^=�(Minn.�4qP•1, �7 �t�1,7 ��e� r�
<br />�£'itc � lti�� Rrpoe�eeT ifi t�F.Vl7.2d}
<br />H
<br />NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED AS
<br />UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED
<br />EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC.
<br />4$OA.08(3).
<br />Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
<br />MANKATO FREE PRESS CO., dlb/a The Free
<br />Press, Appellant,
<br />v.
<br />C1TY OF NORTH MANKATO, et al.,
<br />Respondents.
<br />No. C9-98-677.
<br />Dee. 15, 1998.
<br />Review Denied Feb. 24,1999.
<br />Nicollet County District Cnurt, File No.
<br />Cf-56-100U36.
<br />Mark R. Anfinson, Lake Calhoun Professional
<br />Building, Minneapolis, MN and James H. Manahaz�,
<br />Manal�an & Bluth Law Office, Mankato, MN, for
<br />appellant.
<br />Pierre N. Regnier, Shari L. Johnson, Jardine, Logan
<br />& OBrien, St. Paul, MN, for respondents.
<br />Before KALITOWSKI, Presiding Judge,
<br />5CY-TUMACC��.It, and AMUNDSON,3J,
<br />AMUNDSON.
<br />* 1 Appellant challenges the district court's
<br />determination that private interviews conducted by
<br />respondents (city, city council, and individual city
<br />council members) with applicants for a city
<br />administrator position were not conducted for
<br />purposes of avoiding public hearings and therefore
<br />did not violate the Open Meeting Law. Respondents
<br />challenge the district court's denial of their motion
<br />to dismiss appellant's complaint and the district
<br />court's grant of appellant's amendment to its
<br />complaint. We af�rm.
<br />Page 1 of 4
<br />Page i
<br />FACTS
<br />After the city administrator of respondent City of
<br />North Mankato (city) announced his retirement, the
<br />city sought a replacement. It retained the services of
<br />consultant Jim Brimeyer, who recommended a
<br />serial one-on-one interview process conducted by
<br />respondent city council, closed to the public,
<br />followed by a public meeting which would include
<br />interviews and selection. Brisneyer recommended
<br />private interviews because he believed that they
<br />would best foster candid answers by candidates.
<br />Brimcyer did not believe the interview process was
<br />a violation of the O��n Me�ting Law.
<br />Respondents consulted with the city attorney
<br />regarding the proposed interview process's
<br />conformance with the Open Meeting Law. The city
<br />attorney opined that the process was legal.
<br />Respondents then adopted the advice of Brimeyer,
<br />and after narrowing the initial pool of I I applicants,
<br />they interviewed five applicants. The interviews,
<br />which were closed to the public, including tlie news
<br />media, were conducted in separate rooms, whers no
<br />more than one council member interviewed one
<br />applicant at a time. When one interview was
<br />complete, the applicant would then move to another
<br />room and be interviewed by another council
<br />member. The private interviews took place in the
<br />morning; the city council then adjourned for lunch,
<br />during which the interviews were not discussed.
<br />After lunch, the city council held a public meeting
<br />during which council members asked the applicants
<br />questions and then voted to make their final
<br />decision.
<br />Appellant Mankato Free Press Co., owner of the
<br />Mankato newspaper The Free Press, filed a
<br />complaint alleging that respondents violated the
<br />Government Data Practices Act and the Open
<br />Meeting Law. The district court granted summary
<br />judgment to respondents. This court reversed,
<br />stating that respondents violated the law by failing
<br />to mal�e public: (1) the list of finalists for the
<br />4 2006 ThomsonlWest. No Claim to Ori�. U.S. Govt. Works.
<br />htt��: fr�+����,w��s�law�oam�peint+�risststream.��?s��lit�dcal�r�a�ion�tp�e�ri�=���5� 8.._ �� [ �� ���
<br />
|