HomeMy WebLinkAboutFH Inclusion and Policing Task Force Agenda Packet_12-07-16CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS
Falcon Heights Task Force
City Hall
2077 West Larpenteur Avenue
AGENDA
December 13, 2016
7:15 P.M. to 9:30 P.M.
I.Call to Order
II.Welcome from Co-Chairs
III.Review the City Council Charge
IV.Introductions of Members
V.City Attorney’s Office – Open Meeting Laws and Data Practices
VI.BREAK (5 Minutes)
VII.Task Force Member Goals
VIII. Orientation
a.City Emails
b.Group Participation Agreement
c.Stepping Stones
d.Meeting Plan and Schedules
IX.Next Meeting
X.Adjourn
BLANK PAGE
Dear Members of the Falcon Heights Task Force on Inclusion and Policing,
Thank you for volunteering to serve on this important committee. As the two co-chairs of the task
force, we are writing to introduce ourselves and to share a resources and requests to prepare for
our first meeting, which will be held Tuesday, December 13, 7:15-9:30 in City Hall.
Scheduling. Our regular meeting time will be 7:15 – 9:30 pm on Tuesdays. We will start
promptly at 7:15. Please refer to the attached list of meeting dates, and reserve those times on
your calendar.
Reviewing the Task Force’s charge and membership. Please review the charge for the Task
Force from the City Council.
Reflecting on your motivation, hopes, and concerns. In advance of the first meeting, as you
review the charge for the Task Force and prepare yourself for the work, please consider the
following questions. We will ask each task force member to share their responses when we
introduce ourselves at the first meeting.
·What calls you to participate in the Task Force?
·What are your aspirations and concerns for our work?
·What would success look like to you?
Refreshing your awareness of implicit bias and multiple interpretations. Even if you feel you
are already well aware of implicit bias and of multiple possible interpretations of events, and of
how they affect judgment, we ask you to refresh your familiarity through these materials. We
recognize that you may not have time to complete your review of all of these materials by
December 13. Do what you can in preparation for our first meeting, and consider it essential to
review all of the materials prior to our first meeting in January. They will provide a common
framework for our discussions as a group.
·Try a few of the self-assessments provided by Project Implicit. Navigate to
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html and take any two tests that interest
you. There are options relating to ability, skin tone, weapons, religion, gender, sexual
orientation, weight, and other aspects of identity. We will not ask you to share your
results, and Project Implicit promises that confidentiality is carefully protected: data are
encrypted and that no personally identifying information is collected.
·View “The Danger of a Single Story,” a TedX video talk by novelist Chimamanda Adichie.
https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story
·Read Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, by Malcolm Gladwell. This book is
available from many bookstores and libraries, or a PDF may be found online here:
http://www.course-notes.org/files/uploads/english/blink.pdf
Page 1 of 21
· “The Negro Question,” Albert Einstein’s 1946 Statement on Racism and Civil Rights,
viewable here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-negro-question-albert-einsteins-
1946-statement-on-racism-and-civil-rights/5441436
· Doll Test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkpUyB2xgTM
o Parents React: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOVwrcTzRBs
Introducing the facilitation team. Two facilitators will be assisting our task force, Ken Morris
and Kathy Quick. Sack Thongvanh will be contacting each task force member to invite you to
meet with the facilitators. The facilitators will be resources for individual members and for our
group. The purpose of the introductory meetings is to give you and the facilitators a chance to
meet each other and to help the facilitators respond to your needs and concerns.
Becoming familiar with the webpage. The city has created a webpage to assemble and archive
materials for the Task Force. Please familiarize yourself with the content there. Navigate through
the main City of Falcon Heights website, or go here:
http://www.falconheights.org/index.asp?SEC=C89B35A7-2602-4BD0-AD9A-5082BF261D15&Type=B_BASIC
Thank you again for serving on the task force. We look forward to doing this vitally important
work together.
Sincerely,
Randy Gustafson., Co-Chair
Melanie Leehy, Co-Chair
Cc: Sack Thongvanh, City Administrator
Ken Morris and Kathy Quick, Task Force Co-Facilitators
Attachments:
Co-Chair Welcome Letter
Charge of Task Force
Schedule of Task Force Meetings
Page 2 of 21
Inclusion and Policing Task Force
Charge: To articulate, affirm and operationalize our values as a community to be inclusive and
welcoming environment for residents and guests of Falcon Heights, with an emphasis on policing values,
policies and procedures.
Task Force will review and make recommendations on:
Inclusion
•Opportunities to strengthen inclusivity and recognize the importance of diversity.
Policing
•Data collection;
•Emerging and best practices on police policy, procedures, and technology focusing on use of
force and policies that help build trust;
•Police training, especially implicit bias and de-escalation training; and
•Community-based policing strategies to strengthen links with residents and guests.
Composition: A diverse group of nine (9) persons who are either: residents; owner of business or owner
of business designee and Two (2) City Council Member liaisons. Mayor recommends co-chairs from the
group and the City Council approves. The City Administrator will be the staff liaison to the Task Force.
Task Force is selected through an application process and selected by the City Council via a method
established by the City Administrator.
Role: Advisory to the City Council. The Task Force will provide recommendations to the City Council.
The Council will provide their final recommendations to the Police Chief. The City Council will request a
response from the Police Chief as needed and establish a timeline for a response.
•Action taken by the Task Force-majority rules.
•Data Practice and Open Meeting Laws Training required-Provided by the City
•Task Force will choose one member from the nine (9) as a Recorder for meeting minutes.
•Attendance requirements.
Outside Expertise: The City Council will authorize the City Administrator to hire subject matter experts
and facilitators. The Task Force will provide suggestions and recommendations to the City
Administrator.
Timeline:
•6-8 monthly meetings, or as needed.
•Taskforce recommendations to Council due no later than May 1, 2017.
•The Task Force will sunset upon delivery of recommendations to the City Council.
Page 3 of 21
BLANK PAGE
Page 4 of 21
INFORMATION BRIEF
Research Department
Minnesota House of Representatives
600 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Deborah A. Dyson, Legislative Analyst
deborah.dyson@house.mn Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law requires that meetings of governmental bodies
generally be open to the public. This information brief discusses the groups and
types of meetings covered by the open meeting law, and then reviews the
requirements of and exceptions to the law and the penalties for its violation.
Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................2
Groups and Meetings Governed by the Open Meeting Law ...................................3
Requirements of the Open Meeting Law .................................................................6
Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law ......................................................................9
Penalties .................................................................................................................13
Advice ....................................................................................................................14
Copies of this publication may be obtained by calling 651-296-6753. This document can be made available in
alternative formats for people with disabilities by calling 651-296-6753 or the Minnesota State Relay Service at
711 or 1-800-627-3529 (TTY). Many House Research Department publications are also available on the
Internet at: www.house.mn/hrd/.
Page 5 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 2
Executive Summary
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law was originally enacted in Laws 1957, chapter 773, section 1.
It is now codified in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13D. The Minnesota Supreme Court has
articulated three purposes of the open meeting law:
• To prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the
interested public to become fully informed about a public board’s decisions or to detect
improper influences
• To assure the public’s right to be informed
• To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body 1
“These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace
is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.”2 Courts interpret the law
liberally and in favor of openness.
Entities covered by the law. The law applies to state and local multimember governmental
bodies, including committees and subcommittees, and nonprofits created by political
subdivisions. A separate law applies to the legislature.
Situations where the law applies. A meeting is a “meeting” for purposes of the law when a
quorum or more of the governmental body is gathered—in person or by electronic means,
whether or not action is taken or contemplated. The open meeting law does not address whether
the governmental body must keep or publish meeting minutes, hold a meeting for a particular
purpose, or allow members of the public to address the body. For any particular governmental
body, there may be other laws or charter provisions that address those topics.
What constitutes an open meeting. A meeting is open when proper notice was given in
advance of the meeting, the public may attend and observe, and relevant materials are available
to the public.
Exceptions to the law. A meeting may be closed based on a limited attorney-client privilege,
and for the purposes of labor negotiations, employee evaluations, and discussion of security
issues and property transactions. The law does not apply to a governmental body exercising
quasi-judicial functions.
1 Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002) (en banc) (citing St. Cloud Newspapers,
Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)). While the courts consistently say that the
open meeting law is to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body, there is no general
right for members of the public to speak at a meeting. Some statutes, and perhaps some home rule charters, specify
that a hearing on a particular matter must be held at which anyone who wishes to address the public body may do so.
See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 117.0412, subd. 2.
2 Prior Lake American, 642 N.W.2d at 735.
Page 6 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 3
Violations of the law. While actions taken at a meeting held in violation of the law are still
valid, the law provides for penalties and potentially removal from office.
Where to get advice. A governmental entity can seek advice from its attorney, the Minnesota
Attorney General, or the Commissioner of Administration. An individual may seek advice from
a private attorney or the Commissioner of Administration.
Groups and Meetings Governed by the Open Meeting Law
The law applies to all levels of state and local government.
The open meeting law applies to:
• a state agency, board, commission, or department when it is required or permitted by law
to transact public business in a meeting;
• the governing body of any school district, unorganized territory, county, city, town, or
other public body;
• a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public body subject
to the law; and
• the governing body or a committee of a statewide or local public pension plan.3
“Public body” is not defined but the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “[i]n common
understanding, ‘public body’ is possibly the broadest expression for the category of
governmental entities that perform functions for the public benefit.”4
In determining whether the open meeting law applies to a particular entity, one should look at all
of the entity’s characteristics. For example, in a 1998 case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held
that because the statute authorizing creation of a municipal power agency authorized an agency
to conduct its affairs as a private corporation, it could hold closed meetings.5 The court held so
notwithstanding the statute that provides for municipal power agencies to be political
subdivisions of the state.6
3 Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 1.
4 Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 280-282 (Minn. 2004) (en
banc).
5 Southern Minn. Mun. Power Agency v. Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Minn. 1998) (en banc) (citing Minn.
Stat. § 453.54, subd. 21, and discussing the factors that distinguish a public corporation from a private corporation).
6 Minn. Stat. § 453.53, subd. 1, para. (b), cl. (1) (The agency agreement shall state: “(1) That the municipal
power agency is created and incorporated . . . as a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the state, to
exercise thereunder a part of the sovereign powers of the state;”).
Page 7 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 4
The law generally applies to nonprofit corporations created by governmental entities.
The list of groups covered by the open meeting law does not refer to nonprofit corporations
created by a governmental entity. However, the law creating a specific public nonprofit
corporation may specify that it is subject to the open meeting law.7 In addition, any corporation
created by a political subdivision before May 31, 1997, is clearly subject to the open meeting
law.8
Gatherings of less than a quorum of a public body are not subject to the law; a “meeting”
is held when the group is capable of exercising decision-making powers.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies only to a quorum or
more of members of the governing body or a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or
commission of the governing body.9 Serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum held in
order to avoid open meeting law requirements may also be found to be a violation, depending on
the facts of the case.10
A public body subject to the law should be cautious about using e-mail to communicate with
other members of the body. Although the statute does not specifically address the use of e-mail,
it is likely that the court would analyze use of e-mail in the same way as it has telephone
conversations and letters.11 That is, private communication about official business through
telephone conversations or letters by a quorum of a public body subject to the law would violate
the law. Serial communication through telephone conversations or letters by less than a quorum
with the intent to avoid a public hearing or to come to an agreement on an issue relating to
official business could also violate the law. In a 1993 case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held
that the open meeting law was not violated when two of five city council members attended
private mediation sessions related to city business. The court determined that the two council
7 E.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 62Q.03, subd. 6 (Minnesota Risk Adjustment Association); 85B.02, subd. 6 (Lake
Superior Center Authority); 116O.03, subd. 5 (Enterprise Minnesota, Inc.); 116V.01, subd. 10 (Agricultural
Utilization Research Institute); 116S.02, subds. 6 and 7 (Minnesota Business Finance, Inc.); 124D.385, subd. 4
(Minnesota Commission on National and Community Service may create a nonprofit but it is subject to the open
meeting law); and 128C.22 (State High School League).
8 Minn. Stat. § 465.719, subd. 9.
9 Moberg v. Independent School Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983) (en banc).
10 Id. at 518; see also Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291, 295 (Minn. App.
1997). On remand to the district court for a factual finding on whether the city used serial interviews to avoid the
open meeting law, the trial court found, and the court of appeals affirmed, that the serial meetings were not held to
avoid the law. Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato, No. C9-98-677, 1998 WL 865714 (Minn. App.
1998) (unpublished opinion), review denied (Minn. Feb. 24, 1999).
11 Moberg, 336 N.W.2d at 518. The Commissioner of Administration stated in a July 9, 2008, opinion that an
e-mail sent to all members of a city council by the city manager was effectively “printed material” that should be
available to members of the public and also suggested that the legislature revise the statute to recognize the use of
electronic and other types of communications. Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 08-015. A September 8, 2009,
opinion by the commissioner states that the exchange of e-mails by staff and members of the Metro Gang Strike
Force Advisory Board violated the open meeting law because it was not just a matter of a quorum receiving
information, but a quorum of the body discussing and then giving the staff person direction on the action to take.
Page 8 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 5
members did not constitute a committee or subcommittee of the council because the group was
not capable of exercising decision-making powers.12
The law applies to informational meetings.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies to all gatherings of
members of a governing body, whether or not action is taken or contemplated. This means that a
gathering of members of a public body for an informational seminar on matters currently facing
the body or that might come before the body must be conducted openly.13 However, there are
some exceptions. A 1975 attorney general opinion stated that city council attendance at a League
of Minnesota Cities training program for city officials did not violate the open meeting law if the
members did not discuss specific municipal business.14 In 2010, the statute governing the
Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council was amended to allow members of the council to travel
together to visit sites and learn about projects without it being a violation of the law as long as
the members do not decide, or agree to decide, matters under the council’s jurisdiction.15
The law does not cover chance or social gatherings.
The open meeting law does not apply to chance or social gatherings of members of a public
body.16 However, a quorum of a public body may not, as a group, discuss or receive information
on official business in any setting under the guise of a private social gathering.17
The law does not apply to certain types of advisory groups.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the open meeting law does not apply to certain
types of advisory groups.18 In that case, a presidential search advisory committee to the
University of Minnesota Board of Regents was held not to be a committee of the governing body
for purposes of the open meeting law. In reaching its holding, the court pointed out that no
regents were on the search committee and that the committee had no power to set policy or make
a final decision. It is not clear if a court would reach the same result if members of the
governing body were also on the advisory committee. Depending on the number of members of
the governing body involved and on the form or extent of the delegation of authority from the
governing body to the members, a court might consider the advisory committee to be a
committee of the governing body.
12 Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. May 28, 1993).
13 St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 1.
14 Op. Att’y Gen. 63a-5, Feb. 5, 1975.
15 Minn. Stat. § 97A.056, subd. 5, para. (b), provides “Travel to and from scheduled and publicly noticed site
visits by council members for the purposes of receiving information is not a violation of paragraph (a). Any decision
or agreement to make a decision during the travel is a violation of paragraph (a).”
16 St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc., 332 N.W.2d at 7.
17 Moberg, 336 N.W.2d at 518.
18 The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. App. 1988).
Page 9 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 6
A separate law applies to the legislature.
In 1990, the legislature passed a law separate from the open meeting law that requires all
legislative meetings be open to the public.19 The law applies to House and Senate floor sessions
and to meetings of committees, subcommittees, conference committees, and legislative
commissions. For purposes of this law, a meeting occurs when a quorum is present and action is
taken regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the group. Similarly, a meeting of the
Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources occurs when a quorum is present and
action is taken.20 Each house of the legislature must adopt rules to implement these
requirements. Remedies provided under these rules are the exclusive means of enforcing this
law.
Requirements of the Open Meeting Law
The primary requirement of the open meeting law is that meetings be open to the public.
The law also requires that votes in open meetings be recorded in a journal and that the journal be
open to the public. The vote of each member must be recorded on appropriations of money,
except for payments of judgments and claims and amounts fixed by statute.21 A straw ballot to
narrow the list of candidates for city administrator and not made public was held to be a secret
vote in violation of the open meeting law, particularly in light of the fact that the straw vote was
acted on and given the same effect as an official act.22
Open meetings must be held in a public place within the borders of the public body.23
Meetings may be held by interactive television if specified conditions are met to ensure openness
and accessibility for those who wish to attend.24 The Commissioner of Administration issued an
19 Minn. Stat. § 3.055.
20 Minn. Stat. § 116P.08, subd. 5, “(a) Meetings of the commission, committees or subcommittees of the
commission, technical advisory committees, and peer review panels must be open to the public. The commission
shall attempt to meet throughout various regions of the state during each biennium. For purposes of this subdivision,
a meeting occurs when a quorum is present and action is taken regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the
commission, a committee or subcommittee of the commission, a technical advisory committee, or a peer review
panel.
(b) For legislative members of the commission, enforcement of this subdivision is governed by section 3.055,
subdivision 2. For nonlegislative members of the commission, enforcement of this subdivision is governed by
section 13D.06, subdivisions 1 and 2.” (emphasis added).
21 Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subds. 4 and 5.
22 Mankato Free Press Co., 563 N.W.2d at 295-96. In contrast, the Commissioner of Administration issued an
advisory opinion finding that a secret straw ballot taken and its results described and discussed at the same meeting
as the ballot was not a violation. Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 10-011.
23 Quast v. Knutson, 276 Minn. 340, 341, 150 N.W.2d 199, 200 (1967) (school board meeting held 20 miles
outside the jurisdiction of the school board at a private office did not comply with open meeting law; consolidation
proceedings were fatally defective because the resolution by which the proceedings were initiated was not adopted
at a public meeting as required by law).
24 Minn. Stat. § 13D.02. See also Minn. Stat. § 471.59, subd. 2 (joint powers board for educational purposes).
Page 10 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 7
opinion in 2013 that attending a meeting using a web-based technology like Skype is like
attending by interactive TV and is allowed as long as the requirements for attending by
interactive TV are met.25
A state entity may hold meetings by telephone or other electronic means as long as specified
conditions are met to ensure openness and accessibility for those who wish to attend. In
addition, a meeting of any public body (state or local) may be conducted by telephone or other
electronic means if a health pandemic or other emergency makes meeting in person impractical
or imprudent and all of the same conditions as for other meetings held by telephone or other
electronic means are met, unless unfeasible due to the pandemic or emergency.
In general, those conditions include the following:
• All members of the body can hear one another and can hear all discussion and testimony.
• Members of the public at the regular meeting location can hear all discussion, testimony,
and votes.
• At least one member of the body (or, in the case of a health pandemic or other
emergency, the chief legal counsel or chief administrative officer) is present at the regular
meeting location. (If using interactive TV under section 13D.02—as opposed to
telephone or other electronic means—there is the additional condition that each location
be open and accessible to the public.)
• All votes are conducted by roll call.
• The public body must allow a person to monitor the meeting electronically from another
location. The body may require the person to pay for any documented additional costs
the body incurs as a result of the additional connection.
• The public body must give notice of the regular meeting location, of the fact that some
members may participate by telephone or other electronic means, and of the right of the
public to monitor the meeting from another location. In addition, the public body must
post the notice on its website at least ten days before any regular meeting.26
25 Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 13-009.
26 Minn. Stat. §§ 13D.015 (state entities); 13D.02; 13D.021 (state or local entities in the case of health
pandemic, other emergency). Various statutes for specific public bodies also allow for meetings by interactive
television, telephone, or other electronic means: Minn. Stat. §§ 13D.02, subd. 5 (school boards with audio and visual
link); 35.0661 (Board of Animal Health during restricted travel for animal health reasons); 41A.0235 (Minnesota
Agricultural and Economic Development Board); 41B.026 (Rural Finance Agency); 116L.03, subd. 8 (Minnesota
Jobs Skills Partnership Board); 116L.665, subd. 2a (Governor’s Workforce Development Council); 116M.15, subd.
5 (Urban Initiative Board); 116T.02, subd. 6 (Northern Technology Initiative, Inc.); 116U.25 (Explore Minnesota
Tourism Council); 123A.16, subd. 1 (education district boards); 129C.105 (Board of the Perpich Center for Arts
Education); 248.10 (Rehabilitation Council for the Blind); 256.482, subd. 5b (Minnesota State Council on
Disability); 256.975, subd. 2a. (Minnesota Board on Aging); 256C.28, subd. 7 (Commission of Deaf, DeafBlind
and Hard-of-Hearing Minnesotans); 268A.02, subd. 3 (State Rehabilitation Council and Statewide Independent
Living Council); 326B.32, subd. 7 (Board of Electricity); 326B.435, subd. 7 (Board of Plumbing); 462A.041
(Minnesota Housing Finance Agency).
Page 11 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 8
The law requires public bodies to give notice of their meetings.
In 1974, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that failure to give notice of a meeting is a violation
of the open meeting law.27 The court has also held that it is a violation of the open meeting law
to conduct business before the time publicly announced for a meeting.28
In 1987, the legislature spelled out the notice requirements in statute for regular, special,
emergency, and closed meetings. Public bodies must do the following:
• Keep schedules of regular meetings on file at their offices 29
• Post notice of special meetings (meetings held at a time or place different for regular
meetings) on their principal bulletin board. The public body must also either mail notice
to people who have requested such mailings, or publish notice in the official newspaper,
at least three days before the meetings 30
• Make good faith efforts to notify news media that have filed written requests (with
telephone numbers) for notice of emergency meetings (special meetings called because of
circumstances that require immediate consideration)31
The same notice requirements apply to closed meetings.32
A state agency may post its regular meeting schedule on the agency’s website or keep it on file in
the agency’s primary office. In addition, absent any other specific law governing notice by a
state agency, an agency can satisfy the notice publication requirements by publishing notice in
the State Register or posting it on the agency’s website.33
The law requires relevant materials to be publicly available.
The open meeting law requires that for open meetings, at least one copy of any printed material
prepared by the public body and distributed or available to all members of the public body also
be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public. This requirement does not apply
to materials that are classified as other than public under the Government Data Practices Act.34
27 Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 217 N.W.2d 502 (1974).
28 Merz v. Leitch, 342 N.W.2d 141, 145 (Minn. 1984) (en banc).
29 Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 1.
30 Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 2; Rupp v. Mayasich, 533 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. App. 1995) (bulletin board must
be reasonably accessible to the public). A February 3, 2004, advisory opinion by the Commissioner of
Administration stated that a public body’s actions at a special meeting are limited to those topics included in the
notice of special meeting. Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 04-004.
31 Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 3.
32 Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 5.
33 Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 6.
34 Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 6.
Page 12 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 9
Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law
A closed meeting, except one closed under the attorney-client privilege, must be electronically
recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings
must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.35
The law does not apply to state agency disciplinary hearings.
The open meeting law does not apply to any state agency, board, or commission when exercising
quasi-judicial functions involving disciplinary hearings.36
Certain meetings involving employee evaluation or discipline must be closed.
A public body must close meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges
against an individual subject to its authority.37 If the members of the public body conclude that
discipline may be warranted as a result of those charges, further meetings or hearings relating to
the charges must be open. Meetings must also be open at the request of the individual who is the
subject of the meeting.
Statutes other than the open meeting law may permit or require closed meetings for certain local
governmental bodies to conduct specific kinds of disciplinary hearings. For example, school
board hearings held to discharge or demote a teacher are private unless the affected teacher
wants a public hearing.38
A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject
to its authority.39 Before closing a meeting, the public body must identify the individual to be
evaluated. The public body must summarize the conclusions of the evaluation at its next open
meeting. An evaluation meeting must be open at the request of the subject of the meeting.
A meeting must be closed if an individual’s medical records governed by Minnesota Statutes,
sections 144.291 to 144.298, are discussed.40
A meeting may be closed to discuss labor negotiations.
The open meeting law permits a public body to hold a closed meeting to discuss strategy and
proposals for labor negotiations conducted under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act.41
35 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1.
36 Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 2.
37 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2.
38 Minn. Stat. § 122A.41, subd. 9.
39 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3.
40 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2.
41 Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd. 1.
Page 13 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 10
The statute specifies procedures for tape-recording of these meetings, and for the recordings to
become public when negotiations are completed.42 Another law permits the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Mediation Services to close negotiations and mediation sessions between public
employers and public employees. These negotiations are public meetings, unless the
commissioner closes them.43
The law permits closed meetings based on a limited attorney-client privilege.
In 1976, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that there is a limited exception, based on the
attorney-client privilege, for meetings to discuss strategy for threatened or pending litigation.44
In 1990, the legislature added the attorney-client exception to the open meeting law.45 Although
the statute is not limited, the court has since held that the scope of the exception remains limited
in relation to the open meeting law.46
The attorney-client privilege exception does not apply to a mere request for general legal advice.
Nor does it apply when a governing body seeks to discuss with its attorney the strengths and
weaknesses of a proposed legislative enactment (like a city ordinance) that may lead to future
lawsuits because that can be viewed as general legal advice. Furthermore, discussion of
proposed legislation is just the sort of discussion that should be public.47
In order to close a meeting under the attorney-client privilege exception, the governing body
must give a particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed. A general statement
that the meeting is being closed to discuss pending or threatened litigation is not sufficient.48
42 Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd. 2.
43 Minn. Stat. § 179A.14, subd. 3.
44 Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Housing & Redevelopment Auth., 310 Minn. 313, 324, 251 N.W.2d 620,
626 (1976).
45 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3.
46 Star Tribune v. Board of Ed., Special School Dist. No. 1, 507 N.W.2d 869 (Minn. App. 1993) review denied
(Minn. Dec. 22, 1993). The court of appeals did not accept the argument that the statutory exception encompassed
the full attorney-client privilege because that would result in the exception swallowing the rule in favor of open
meetings. In 2002, the Minnesota Supreme Court restated that the attorney-client privilege exception only applies
when the purposes for the exception outweigh the purposes of the open meeting law. In that case, the city council
was threatened with a lawsuit if it did not grant a request. The court found that the threat of a lawsuit did not
warrant closing the meeting. Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) (en banc). Cf. Brainerd
Daily Dispatch v. Dehen, 693 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying analysis of Star Tribune and Prior Lake
American, finding threats were sufficiently specific and imminent that confidential consultation with legal counsel
appointed by city’s insurer to discuss defense strategy or reconciliation to address a threatened lawsuit justified
closing the meeting).
47 Star Tribune, 507 N.W.2d at 872.
48 The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. App. 2004).
Page 14 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 11
A meeting may be closed to address certain security issues.
If disclosure of the information discussed would pose a danger to public safety or compromise
security procedures or responses, a meeting may be closed to:
• receive security briefings and reports,
• discuss issues related to security systems,
• discuss emergency response procedures, and
• discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services,
infrastructure, and facilities.
Before closing a meeting, the public body must refer to the facilities, systems, procedures,
services, or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting. A closed meeting must
be tape-recorded at the expense of the governing body, and the recording must be preserved for
at least four years.
Financial issues related to security matters must be discussed and all related financial decisions
must be made at an open meeting.49
A meeting may be closed to discuss certain issues relating to government property sales or
purchases.
A public body may close a meeting to:
• determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the government
entity;
• review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data; and
• develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal
property.
Before holding a closed meeting, the public body must identify on the record the particular
property that is the subject of the closed meeting. The proceedings must be tape-recorded at the
expense of the public body. The recording must be preserved for eight years after the date of the
meeting and made available to the public after all property discussed at the meeting has been
purchased or sold or the governing body has abandoned the purchase or sale. The property that
is the subject of the closed meeting must be specifically identified on the tape. A list of members
and all other persons present at the closed meeting must be made available to the public after the
closed meeting. If an action is brought claiming that public business other than discussions
allowed under this exception was transacted at a closed meeting held during the time when the
tape is not available to the public, the court would review the recording of the meeting in camera
49 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3.
Page 15 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 12
and either dismiss the action if the court finds no violation, or permit use of the recording at trial
(subject to protective orders) if the court finds there is a violation.50
An agreement reached that is based on an offer considered at a closed meeting is contingent on
approval of the public body at an open meeting. The actual purchase or sale must be approved at
an open meeting after the notice period required by statute or the governing body’s internal
procedures, and the purchase price or sale price is public data. 51
There is a narrow exception for certain meetings of public hospital boards.
Boards of public hospitals and certain health organizations may close meetings to discuss
competitive market activities and contracts.52
On-site inspections by town board members are not subject to the law.
The law does not apply to a gathering of town board members to perform on-site inspections, if
the town has no employees or other staff able to perform the inspections and the town board is
acting essentially in a staff capacity. The town board must make good faith efforts to provide
notice of the inspections to the media that have filed a written request, including a telephone
number, for notice. Notice must be by telephone or by any other method used to notify the
members of the public body.53
The law does not apply to meetings of the Commissioner of Corrections.54
The law specifies how it relates to the Government Data Practices Act.
Except as specifically provided, public meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not
public data under the Government Data Practices Act.55 Data that are not public may be
discussed at an open meeting without liability, if the matter discussed is within the public body’s
authority and if it is reasonably necessary to conduct the business before the public body.56
A portion of a meeting must be closed if the following data are discussed:
• Data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic
abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults
50 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3, referring to § 13D.03, subd. 3.
51 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3. Property appraisal data covered by this law is described in Minnesota
Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3.
52 Minn. Stat. § 144.581, subds. 4 and 5.
53 Minn. Stat. § 366.01, subd. 11.
54 Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 2. This exception does not make sense. Until 1982, the exception was for
meetings of the Corrections Board—a multimember body. A 1983 instruction directed the revisor of statutes to
change “Corrections Board” to “Commissioner of Corrections” throughout the statutes. Laws 1983, ch. 274 § 18.
55 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1.
56 Minn. Stat. §§ 13.03, subd. 11; 13.05, subd. 4; and 13D.05, subd. 1.
Page 16 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 13
• Active investigative data collected by a law enforcement agency, or internal affairs data
relating to alleged misconduct by law enforcement personnel
• Certain types of educational, health, medical, welfare, or mental health data that are not
public data 57
The legislature has addressed social media.
In 2014, the legislature added a provision relating to use of social media. “The use of social
media by members of a public body does not violate this chapter so long as the social media use
is limited to exchanges with all members of the general public. For purposes of this section, e-
mail is not considered a type of social media.”58 “Social media” is not defined.
Penalties
The open meeting law provides a civil penalty of up to $300 for intentional violation.59 A person
who is found to have intentionally violated the law in three or more legal actions involving the
same governmental body forfeits the right to serve on that body for a time equal to the term the
person was serving. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that this removal provision is
constitutional as to removal of elected officials only if the conduct constitutes malfeasance or
nonfeasance and provided that the violations occurred after the person had a reasonable amount
of time to learn the responsibilities of office.60
A public body may not pay a civil penalty on behalf of a person who violated the law. However,
a public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred by or awarded against
a member of the body in an action under the open meeting law if the member was found not
guilty of a violation.61
A court may award reasonable costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees of up to
$13,000 to any party in an action under the open meeting law. However, the following
conditions apply:
• A court may award costs and attorney fees to a defendant only if it finds that the action
was frivolous and without merit
• A court may award monetary penalties or attorney fees against a member of a public
body only if the court finds there was an intent to violate the open meeting law
57 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2.
58 Minn. Stat. § 13D.065 (added by Laws 2014, ch. 274, § 2).
59 Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 1.
60 Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3; Claude v. Collins, 518 N.W.2d 836, 843 (Minn. 1994); see also Brown v.
Cannon Falls Township, 723 N.W.2d 31, 41-44 (Minn. App. 2006) (discussing the statutory history and that since
1994 the statute has required three or more legal actions).
61 Op. Att’y Gen. 471-a, Dec. 31, 1992; Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4.
Page 17 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 14
The court must award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff if the public body was
also the subject of a prior written opinion issued by the Commissioner of Administration, and the
court finds that the opinion is directly related to the cause of action being litigated and that the
public body did not follow the opinion.62
The appropriate mechanism to enforce the open meeting law is to bring an action in district court
seeking injunctive relief or damages. The statute does not provide for a declaratory judgment
action.63
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that actions taken at a meeting held in violation of the
open meeting law are not invalid or rescindable.64
Advice
Public bodies subject to the open meeting law may seek advice on the application of the law and
how to comply with it from three sources:
• The governmental entity’s attorney
• The attorney general 65
• The Commissioner of Administration 66
An individual may seek advice from two sources:
• The individual’s attorney
• The Commissioner of Administration 67
An individual who disagrees with the manner in which members of a governing body perform
their duties under the open meeting law may request the Commissioner of Administration to give
a written opinion on the governing body’s compliance with the law.
A governing body or person requesting an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration must
pay a $200 fee if the commissioner issues an opinion.
62 Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4.
63 Rupp v. Mayasich, 561 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. App. 1997).
64 Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 176-177, 217 N.W.2d 502, 507 (Minn. 1974).
65 Under Minnesota Statutes, section 8.06, the attorney general is the attorney for all state officers and boards
or commissions created by law. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 8.07, the attorney general, on request from an
attorney for a county, city, town, public pension fund, school board, or unorganized area, gives written opinions on
matters of public importance.
66 Minn. Stat. § 13.072, subds. 1 and 2.
67 Id.; see www.ipad.state.mn.us/opinions/index.html for access to prior opinions of the Commissioner of
Administration or to find out how to request an opinion.
Page 18 of 21
House Research Department Revised: October 2014
Minnesota Open Meeting Law Page 15
The commissioner may decide not to issue an opinion. If the commissioner decides not to issue
an opinion, the commissioner must notify the requester within five days of receipt of the request.
If the commissioner decides to issue an opinion, it must be done within 20 days of the request
(with a 30-day extension possible for good cause and notice to the requester). The governing
body must be allowed to explain how it performs its duties under the law.
Opinions of the Commissioner of Administration are not binding, but a court must give the
opinions deference. However, a governing body that follows an opinion is not liable for fines,
attorney’s fees or any other penalty, or forfeiture of office.
For more information about open meetings and other issues related to the government, visit the
government operations area of our website, www.house.mn/hrd/.
Page 19 of 21
BLANK PAGE
Page 20 of 21
Falcon Heights Inclusion and Policing Task Force Meeting Dates
Note: Meeting are scheduled from 7:15 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. at City Hall – Council Chambers, 2077 W.
Larpenteur Ave, Falcon Heights, MN 55113
MEETING DATES
1.December 13, 2016
2.January 3
3.January 10
4.January 31
5.February 7
6.February 21
7.March 7
8.March 14
9.March 21
10.April 11
11.April 18
12.May 2
13.May 9 (Last Meeting –Closing Business)
Page 21 of 21