|
�
<br />�
<br />Not Reported in N,W.2d
<br />Not Reported in N.W.2d, 1998 WiM 865714 (Miru�.App.}, 27 Media L. Reo. 1669
<br />(Cite as: Not Reported in IV,W,2d)
<br />position and (2) the results of a strpw vote to narrow
<br />the list of ��1i5t5. This court also remanded the
<br />case to the district court to determine the factual
<br />issue of whether the respondents' interview
<br />procedure was implemented for purposes of
<br />avoiding public hearings or fashioning agreement
<br />on an issue. Mankato Free Press Co. v_ Cify of
<br />North Manlurto, 563 N.W.2d 291, 295
<br />(Minn.App.1997) (Mankato Free Press 1 ). On
<br />remand, the district court determined that the
<br />private interviews werc not conducted for purposes
<br />of avoiding public bearings. This appeal followed.
<br />DECISION
<br />L For Purposes of Avoiding Public Meetings
<br />*2 Here, because this court determined that the
<br />issue of whether respondents held private interviews
<br />for the purpose of avoiding public meetings was a
<br />factual issue that was improperly decided by
<br />summary judgment, the issue that was determined
<br />on remand was a question of fact. This court will
<br />not reverse a factual finding unless clearly
<br />erroneous. Minn. R Civ. P. 52.01.
<br />The Open Meeting Law provides, with few
<br />exceptions that:
<br />all meetings, including execu*ive sess*ons, of ***
<br />the governing bady of any * ciry * * and of any
<br />committee, subcommittee, board, deparnnent o*
<br />commissioner thereof, shall be open to the public
<br />*s
<br />Minn.Stat. � 471.705, subd. 1(1996). The purpose
<br />of the law is to:
<br />prohibit secret meetings that make it impossible for
<br />the public to become fully informed, (2) assure the
<br />public's right to inforn�ation, and (3) give the public
<br />an opporLunity to express its views.
<br />Mankato Free Press Ca. v. City of North Mankato,
<br />563 N.W.Zd 291, 294 (Mic�n.App.I997) (Mankato
<br />in
<br />Free Press I). The Open Meeting Law is to be "
<br />broadly construed in favor of the public." Men v.
<br />Leitch. 342 N.W.2d 141, 145 (Minn.19$4), The
<br />Page 2 of 4
<br />Page 2
<br />supreme court has clarified the definirion of "
<br />meetings" subject to the purview of the statute,
<br />stating that they arethose gatherings of a quonun or
<br />more members of a the goverrung body, or a
<br />quorum of a*** board �' *'" thereof, at which
<br />members discuss, decide or receive information as a
<br />group on issues relating to the official business of
<br />that goverrung hody.
<br />Moberg v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336
<br />�.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn.1983). The "quorum zule,"
<br />as it has been termed, may, as the supreme court
<br />itself admitted, "be circumvented by serial
<br />fac�to-face or telephone conversations." Id. The
<br />supreme court clarified, however:Of course, serial
<br />meetings in groups of less than a quomm for
<br />purposes of avoiding public hearings or fashioning
<br />agreement on an issue may also be found to be a
<br />violation of the statute depending upon the facts of
<br />the individual case.
<br />Id. This court, in reviewing the district couxt'&
<br />decision in Mankato Free Press I, stated that the
<br />effect of respondents' private interviews "is
<br />arguably at odds with the purpose of the Open
<br />Meeting Law." 563 N.W.2d at 295. However, it
<br />deternuned that Moberg deimes a violation of the
<br />law "only if the process was designed to avoid
<br />public hearings." Id. Therefore, this court remanded
<br />the case for the factual determinationof whether the
<br />private interviews were conducted for purposes of
<br />avoiding public hearings or fashioning agreement
<br />on an issue. Id.
<br />*3 Appellant argues that the district court
<br />erroneously determined that the private interviews
<br />were not conducted for purposes of avoiding public
<br />hearings. It asserts that respondents specifically
<br />chose the process in order to avoid public hearings.
<br />Appellant refers to the fact that the interviews were
<br />planned and coordinated interviews, as opposed to
<br />spontaneous conversations. Appellant also points to
<br />respondents' testimony that they believed that
<br />private meetings would better foster more candid
<br />responses from applicants, and that the Open
<br />Meeting Law would not hxve permitted the private
<br />interviews if a quon�rn of the ciry council had been
<br />present. Therefore, appellant argues, respondents
<br />conducted one-on-one interviews for the sole
<br />� 2006 Thornson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
<br />�
<br />hii�s'��,+��b?,�r��sRl��r,eo:rrfprintlpri�rC9�em.a,sp�x?su-5p1�1�desliri�s��n�a�&�ri�E�i���5S8... :�.� ] ?��O�J�
<br />
|