My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01-08-2009 Charter Packet
LinoLakes
>
Charter
>
Packets
>
1981 - 2021 Packets
>
2009 Packets
>
01-08-2009 Charter Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2022 11:45:50 AM
Creation date
9/1/2017 2:27:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Charter Commission
Charter Meeting Type
Regular
Charter Document Type
Packets
Supplemental fields
Date
1/8/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
169
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Investigative Report <br />November 12, 2008 <br />Page 4 <br />to be a violation. Additionally, members of the council should be aware that simply <br />removing themselves from a quorum (without objecting to what is occurring) may not shield <br />them from liability. <br />Good faith or lack of harm is not a defense to an action for violation of the Open Meeting <br />Law. Moreover, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that attendance at a meeting is <br />also not required. In a recent case, the Court found a member to have violated the Open <br />Meeting Law, finding that a member was instrumental in arranging the meeting, was aware <br />of the meeting, and simply did not attend. The Court noted that the member did not indicate <br />that his non-attendance was out of concern that the meeting might violate the Open Meeting <br />Law. Under the Court's reasoning, had the facts supported an opinion that the Lino Lakes <br />Council conducted a meeting in violation of the Open Meeting Law by remaining in the <br />council chambers beyond the vote to adjourn, all five members could be subject to a penalty. <br />The two council members that left the chambers first are not excused or immune from <br />liability solely based on their removal from the council chambers, particularly if they had <br />knowledge that a meeting in violation of the Open Meeting Law was taking place. In fact, <br />neither of them asserted nor in any way declared that they were leaving in order to avoid an <br />Open Meeting Law violation. <br />I have concluded that under the present facts and circumstances a violation has not occurred; <br />however, my opinion should not be comfort to those who wish to continue the practice of <br />holding conversations in the council chambers following the motion to adjourn. Under <br />Robert's Rules of Order, an affirmative vote on a motion to adjourn terminates a meeting. <br />Having acted to terminate the business before the council, the members of the council should <br />appropriately leave as soon as practical and keep any private conversations in a non -quorum <br />forum. <br />Respee.ill - <br />chael <br />GDrlt <br />E-mail: do <br />Direct (952) 953-8820 <br />eversonsheldon.com <br />APPLICABLE STATUTES AND CASE LAW <br />1. Morn. Stat. 13D.01 <br />2. Minn. Stat 13D.04 <br />3. Moberg v. ISD No. 281, 336 NW2d 510 (1983) <br />4. Thuma v. Kroschel, 506 NW2d 14 (Minn. App. 1993) <br />5. Brown v. Cannon Falls Township, 723 NW2d 31 (Minn. App. 2006) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.