02-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). See also Minnesota Daily v. Univ. of Minn., 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). Thum v. Kroschel, 506 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 fluty. Sch., 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). Hubbard Broadcasting. Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982). City councils routinely appoint individual councilmembers to act as liaisons between the council and particular committees. These types of groups may be subject to the open meeting law and a notice of a committee meeting may be required. The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where the mayor and one other member of a city council attended a series of mediation sessions regarding an annexation dispute that were not open to the public. The court of appeals held that the open meeting law did not apply to these meetings concluding "that a gathering of public officials is not a `committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission' subject to the open meeting law unless the group is capable of exercising decision-making powers of the governing body." The court of appeals also noted that the capacity to act on behalf of the governing body is presumed where members of the group comprise a quorum of the body and could also arise where there has been a delegation of power from the governing body to the group. In addition, a separate notice for a special city council meeting may also be required if a quorum of the council will be present at the meeting and will participate in the discussion. For example, when a quorum of a city council attended a meeting of the city's planning commission, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open meeting law, not because of the councilmembers' attendance at the meeting, but because the councilmembers conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting. Based on that decision, the attorney general has advised that mere attendance by additional councilmembers at a meeting of a council committee held in compliance with the open meeting law would not constitute a special city council meeting requiring separate notice. The attorney general warned, however, that the additional councilmembers should not participate in committee discussions or deliberations absent a separate notice of a special city council meeting. 5. Chance or social gatherings Chance or social gathering of city councilmembers will not be considered a meeting subject to the open meeting law as long as there is not a quorum present, or, if a quorum is present, as long as the quorum does not discuss, decide, or receive information about official city business. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a conversation between two councilmembers over lunch regarding an application for a special -use permit did not violate the open meeting law because a quorum was not present. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 11/14/2014 Meetings of City Councils Page 18