CCMin_80May28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(' U MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 28, 1980 PAGE 7 ', ~'V We have here a City Council of five and obviously 3 is a quorum. However, ATTORNEY GALVI the Attorney General, in what is described as a controversial opinion, (cont.) has said that when even two members of a City Council of five get to- gether and discuss a matter relating to City business of any substance, that constitutes a so called meeting. With that issue most municipal attorneys .(end we represent a number of agencies and cities) disagree. The second issue is deliberation. What deliberations occur when two, three, four or five councilmembers get together at a time and circum- stance which are not generally announced? Keep in mind that regularly scheduled meetings do not require any public notice. A rule of reason is applied by the courts and they look at each set of facts and each recollection of each participant and they apply a rule of reason. Basically, the issue is "are there discussions, did they deal with matters within the council's powers". If council discusses who is going to win the ball game tonight that has nothing to do with what is within the council's powers. A third test that is applied is "are they substantive matters, do they normally lead to the kinds of discussions and conclusions that result in decision making and do those discussions result in a decision that was made in a meeting which was not a public meeting which infers some re- quirement that the public have notice first. The decision making of a city council in meetings is both a subjective and objective test. Viewing the discussion we have had this evening there is a difference of opinion: (a) what occurred at the viewing of the buildings, and (b) whether there were deliberative discussions which led to a conclusion. Basically, I think, there is a difference of opinion as to what kind of information a mature city council needs in order to make a decision of this nature, and secondly what order does the decision come in. Must there be a concept of what the cost of the building would be versus what kind of information do you need as to the market for the building visavis the availability of the University to grant other properties to the Municipality, And there are points at which reasonable people's minds will differ and there will be no unity of concept. Having in mind that the purpose of the "Open Meeting Act" is to prohibit deliberative bodies - legislative bodies from making decisions without the public being privy to those discussions, not necessarily having the right to particpate in those disucussions, because each municipality handles this decision making in a different manner. There is no requirement that there be public participation or that surveys be made, but in general, each municipality approaches those decisions as they determine,based on their gollect_9f experience and judgement. Given the limited knowledge of the facts, and in the limited time available, we do not see a violation of the Minnesota Open Meeting Act. We draw on our own experience in other municipalities, our experience of advice given to other legislative and deliberative bodies. I might call to the attention of the Council, a body such as the St. Paul City Council has consistently been sending two, three and four members of its Council on fact finding missions. Committies will go, for example,