02-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat, § 131.05, subd. 1(b). Minn. Stat. § 131105, subd. 1(c). Channel 10, Inc. v. /ndep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 215 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1974). See section 11-G —6- Serial meetings. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, No. C1-96- 100036 (Fifth Jud. Dist. 1996). Mankato Free Press v. City of North Monkato, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). A4arkato Free Press v. City of Nord Mankato. No. C9-98- 677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished decision). However, not -public data may generally be discussed at an open meeting without liability or penalty if both of the following criteria are met: The disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority. The disclosure is necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. Data that is discussed at an open meeting retains its original classification under the MGDPA. However, a record of the meeting is public, regardless of the form. It is suggested that not -public data that is discussed at an open meeting not be specifically detailed in the minutes. 2. Interviews The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a school board must interview prospective employees for administrative positions in open sessions. The court said that the absence of a statutory exception to the open meeting law for interviews indicated that the legislature had decided that such sessions should not be closed. The reasoning would seem to apply to city council interviews of prospective officers and employees as well, if a quorum is present. In 1996, a district court found that it was not a violation of the open meeting law for candidates to be serially interviewed by members of a city council in one-on-one closed interviews. In this case, five city councilmembers were present in the same building but each was conducting separate interviews in five different rooms. Because there was no quorum present in any of the rooms, the court found there was no meeting. The decision, however, was appealed. In 1997, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case back to the district court for a factual determination on whether the city used the one-on-one interview process in order to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. On remand, the district court found that the private interviews were not conducted for the purpose of avoiding public hearings. The case was again appealed. In an unpublished decision, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The conclusion that can be drawn from this decision appears to be that if serial meetings involving less than a quorum of a public body are held for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the open meeting law, it will constitute a violation of the law. Cities that are considering holding private interviews with job applicants should first consult their city attorney. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 16