Loading...
INFORMATION #2 09-27-1999 . . . INFORMATION FROM THE DESK OF... TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: September 23, 1999 CITY CLERK SANDY PEINE 441-4906 SUBJECT: Open Meeting Law The Mayor requested staff to research the open meeting law. Specifically, the issue of whether a special meeting of the council must be called if a quorum is present for social functions. Attached are excerpts from the Minnesota League Handbook regarding this topic. As you can see, the Open Meeting Law does not define the term "meeting." It seems that the interpretation of the Supreme Court suggests that a social gathering of the council is not considered an open meeting unless the council intentionally discusses, decides, or receives information as a group on official business. Whether the council wants to call a special meeting for social events is entirely up to the council. I would suggest however, that if there is the slightest chance that discussion could take place among the council regarding official city business, that a meeting be called. ) ) '~) Moberg v.lndependent Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (MinD. 1983); St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 , Community Schs.. 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). i ' '",." Mankato Free Press Co. v: City ,.:' of North Mankato" 563 N. W. 2d 291 (MinD. 1997). CHAPrER 7 The Open Meeting Law does not defme the term "meeting." The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, has ruled die Open Meeting Law applies to gatherings where a quorum or more of the members of the council, committee, board, department, or commission are present, and at which the members intentionally discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that body. The law does not cover letters, e-mail, and telephone conversations among less than a quorum of the councilmembers. But the law does prohibit the use of telephone conversations, e~mail, or letters in a decision-making process among a '. quo.~m()f. meJllbers de~ig~.ed to ~void an open meeting. . It isa violation of the Data Practices Act to avoid a public meeting by having each member of the city council interview fmalists for a job , separately and then taking a straw vote to narrow the list of fmalists. .. ~': .~. : ''-': Decisions made this way deny the public an opportunity to observe the '" "/' '~ecision-makmg proCess, to know the council members' stance on issues. . ',. . '",. an~,to..~ fully informed about th~ ~o~~il's actions. \,. _. i., The Minnesota Supreme Court also decided that informational seminars about school board business. which the entire board attends. must be public ~, ", ,,_ ;...and open. Thus. any scheduled gatherings of a governing body must have. . l ..' . . '." ""'. .' ~ , ... " proper notice an~ be open. whether, or not the body takes or contemplates .... . " taking action. This includes meetings where members receive information ',' that may influence later decisions. but excludes chance or social gatherings. A quorum of members cannot discuss or receive information on official business in any setting under the guise of a private social gathering. .t',' :' St. Cloud NewsPaPers, Inc. v.' City of A,{ton, 332 N.W.2d 1 (MinD. 1983). ',. ,,"1 Hubbard Broadcasting v. City of Afton, 321 N.W.2d 395 (MinD. 1982); A.G. Op. 471-E (May 23,1978). Compare St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1 (MinD. 1983) with A.G. Op. 63-A-5 (Feb.5,1975). . ~ ~ i The Supreme Court has warned that even though gatherings of less than a quorum do not constitute meetings under the law. serial gatherings of less than a quorum may be a violation of the statute depending on the individual case. It is not clear from the Court's recent rulings whether the participation of a city council in a League of Minnesota Cities sponsored training program to develop various skills constitutes as a meeting under the Open Meeting Law. The result may depend on whether or not the program includes discussions of particular matters 'within the council.s official duties or powers. . ;147 . . . A.G. Op. 63-A-5, Jun. 13,1957 A.G. Op. 10-b, Jul. 3, 1975 , ,'-, A.G.Op. 10-b, Jul. 3, 1975; A.G. Op. 63a-5, Aug.28,1996 A.G. Op.63a-5, Aug. 28, 1996; Sov~reign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1993) A.G. Op. 471-1:, May 23, 1978 St. Cloud N~pap~TS, Inc. v. District 742 Community Sch., 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983) Mob~rr v. Ind~p~ndmt Sch. Dist. No. 281,336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983) 12 ~'\1 .,~~}. 3. Executive sessions The Attorney General has found ihat an executive session of a city council where the public's attendance was prohibited until after the discussion and deliberations of the council was a violation of the Open Meeting Law. 4. Committees and liaisons The Attorney General has found that citizens' advisory panels that are appointed by a governing body are also subject to the open meeting law. Many city councils create committees to make recommendations to the council. Commonly, such committees will be responsible for doing research in a particular area and submitting a recommendation to the council for its approval. Such committees are usually advisory, and the council is still responsible for making the final decision. The Attorney General haS found that a citizens' advisory panel that was appointed by a governing body was subject to the Open Meeting Law. . :. However, a more recent opinion determined that if a committee or department has no authority to make a decision, it would not be subject to the Open Meeting Law. . City councils routinely appoint individual councilmembers to act as Q)' liaisons between the council and particular committees. These types of meetings may also be subject to the Open Meeting Law if the committee contains a quorum or more of the council or has decision-making authority. In addition, there may be notice needed for a special council meeting if a quorum of the council will be present at the meeting and participating in the discussion. The Attorney General found that a private discussion between one councilmember and one HRA member was not a violation of the Open Meeting Law because a quorum of neither body was present. 5. Chance or social gatherings Chance or social gatherings of a quorum are not considered meetings ~der the Open Meeting Law and are therefore exempt from it. However, a quorum may not, as a group, discuss or receive information on official business in any setting under the guise ofa social gathering. ~ League of Minnesota Cities , ;.)'~' .. "~j ~~~. ~) 1':'; j~ '~;'\.' ~., .'-'., ~ In a 1982 decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a ....... conversation between two councilmembers over lunch regarding an application for a special use pe~i~ did not violate the Open Meeting i>.. ,'Law because a quorum was not present... . Hubbard Broadcasting, " Inc. v. CiJ] of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982).: '; ':., " . ." - - . # ,. A.G. Op. 6:3a.5,;Aug. 28; · ,,'.'" '~A'c~~~i~te'~ meetin;g~t whi~h '~dditional cou~~ilmembers attended as 1996 audience members, resulting in a quorum of councilmembers in "" . . attendance wasfound not to violate the Open Meeting Law. Because ;;:" ~";~; ~...,~.. ';' V:?,.: public notice had ali-didy been given for the committee meeting, additional separate notice of a' special council meeting was not required, . . " ' , '. as long as the additional councilmembers did not participate in the . discussion or deliberations. However, if the additionalcouncilmembers had participated, notice of a special council'meeting may have been r r~. quire~. : ." ',' : .... " ','!"t. , !..,:~~'~":';:r ;;-. ',~~,' .,~;_,.l.~ ;._'J :.:', ;: 1...." .;...:..... i:~.:'. :I<~ } .. " ;"J.'!";~~' ~:. h , .6. Serial gatherings '" ' ;':';_~";.:{.;i;-'Hf).;\.:" ~'~',.~.I::,.J ~;r-~ ('.::.-C;',,~..~'f '-;':l.;'.-/:()f.;'''.,;-,'!!l.J....~':,';t''..;~;-:.:...::. ~I.'" ;..,,~. .~\;; . .~.~ ~~i~-;,"" :,' Mo~t~ 1I.lndtptnd~nl"..:. { ..'. The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less. than a Sch. DuL 281, 336 .. l' 11 . . .' ~ h' .. 'N.W.2d SID (Minn;'! L; .> ','. quorum he d sena y to avoid publIc heanngs or to las Ion agreement , ,1983). ~see.sect~~~;..~: c.:',' ,on an issue 'may violate the'open meeting law: In short, this type of entitled Interviews ..' .' .' . f h . A h '1 and "Technology. situation IS a circumvention 0 t e statute. s suc ,counCI members trouble~, ~ ..1."'. should aV,oid thistype of practice. :;:: ".":..~ L.~. ;;...l ~} ;~,;'~/~ t :.,<~..: ~l:;., ~" ~.t' ~ ..~~ - . ,:.' . "',~ ,,: ;;.: ~:~ ,,~:.,,: . :.7. Training sessions, .:...'; ;-.-~ , ; .,~.~<', ,",' . , .\ =-.',-"1" Y'..', :.:.'; I ;...~. . '. , . A.G. op. 63a-5, Feb. 5, 1975 ".: .... c.,_' . ;. The'Attorney General has found that a city council's participation in a non-public training program devoted to developing skills is not covered by the Open Meeting Law. However, the opinion also stated that if there were to be any discussions of city business by the attending members, either outside the training session or during it, it could be seen as a violation of the statute. iT Moberg II. Indtptndent Sch. Disl. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d SID (Minn. 1983). Also see discussion under "Serial gatherings" 8. Technology trouble The Open Meeting Law does not address situations that may 'occur as a result of telephone calls, letters, e-mail or similar technology. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the Open Meeting Law did not apply to letters or to telephone conversations between fewer than a quorum. While it is possible that a similar decision might be reached concerning the use of e-mail and other forms of technology, it should be stressed that a violation of the law would be likely if a quorum of members were involved. ., ! .f". , Meetings of Cit).. Councils ".:, ,. 13 .