01-08-2009 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Investigative Report November 12, 2008 Page 3 council members to exit the building, the Complainant alleged that he observed three council members apparently engaged and listening to the remarks of one staff person. The Complainant expressed concern that the discussion may in fact have continued following his exiting the building. The Complainant has raised the issue of whether what he observed was an illegal meeting, that is, a violation of the Open Meeting Law. The answer to the issue starts with a determination of whether a meeting has occurred. There is no doubt that the Lino Lakes City Council gathered as a quorum on July 28, 2008; commencing as a regular meeting at 6:30. The meeting was duly noted, held in the council chambers and open to the public. While the business being conducted ended with the vote on the motion to adjourn, the meeting of the council continued until such time as there was less than a quorum of the council members together. The meeting ended with the departure of the third council member from the chambers, approximately ten minutes after the vote to adjourn. The mere fact that the meeting continued after the vote for adjournment does not automatically constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law. There is no statute addressing a post adjournment gathering and there is no Minnesota case law or law from other jurisdictions directly on point. The determination as to whether there was a violation on July 28th lies in the purpose behind the Open Meeting Law. As noted earlier, the primary purpose is to prevent private meetings from occurring where the public cannot have access to or observe the deliberations of the city council. On July 28th, the continuation of the meeting for several minutes following the vote of adjournment did not frustrate the principal purpose behind the Open Meeting Law. The public was duly aware of the meeting that was to occur on the 28th beginning at 6:30. There was no expression or expectation that the meeting would terminate at a given time. The meeting was fully open to the public and no effort was made to either restrict or prohibit the public from either attending or remaining in the council chambers following the vote for adjournment In addition, the council members took no steps to hold private conversations or as a quorum to remove themselves to a different location. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that there was no violation of the Open Meeting Law. Because I have determined that no violation occurred, it is not necessary to opine whether what the Complainant heard or saw actually occurred. The outcome remains the same regardless of the truth of the Complainant's observation. CAUTION My opinion solely relates to the specific facts herein and should not be interpreted as support for future activities which could lead to an Open Meeting Law violation. Continuation of discussion in the council chambers following a motion to adjourn should not be condoned. Each council member should be concerned as to the possibility of a violation as the penalty is personal. Every effort should be made as a council member to depart from an existing quorum so as to avoid a meeting from continuing, which in other circumstances may prove