12/01/2008 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Investigative Report November 12, 2008 Page 4 to be a violation. Additionally, members of the council should be aware that simply removing themselves from a quorum (without objecting to what is occurring) may not shield them from liability. Good faith or lack of harm is not a defense to an action for violation of the Open Meeting Law. Moreover, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that attendance at a meeting is also not required. In a recent case, the Court found a member to have violated the Open Meeting Law, finding that a member was instrumental in arranging the meeting, was aware of the meeting, and simply did not attend. The Court noted that the member did not indicate that his non - attendance was out of concern that the meeting might violate the Open Meeting Law. Under the Court's reasoning, had the facts supported an opinion that the Lino Lakes Council conducted a meeting in violation of the Open Meeting Law by remaining in the council chambers beyond the vote to adjoum, all five members could be subject to a penalty. The two council members that left the chambers first are not excused or immune from liability solely based on their removal from the council chambers, particularly if they had knowledge that a meeting in violation of the Open Meeting Law was taking place. In fact, neither of them asserted nor in any way declared that they were leaving in order to avoid an Open Meeting Law violation. I have concluded that under the present facts and circumstances a violation has not occurred; however, my opinion should not be comfort to those who wish to continue the practice of holding conversations in the council chambers following the motion to adjourn. Under Robert's Rules of Order, an affirmative vote on a motion to adjourn terminates a meeting. Having acted to terminate the business before the council, the members of the council should appropriately leave as soon as practical and keep any private conversations in a non - quorum forum. c ` tted, chael -444trarippe. GD /j It E -mail: dour h, m s seversonsheldon.com Direct: (952) 953 -8820 Respec STATUTES AND CASE LAW 1. Minn. Stat. 13D.01 2. Minn. Stat. 13D.04 3. Moberg v. ISD No. 281, 336 NW2d 510 (1983) 4. Thuma v. Kroschel, 506 NW2d 14 (Minn. App. 1993) 5. Brown v. Cannon Falls Township, 723 NW2d 31 (Minn. App. 2006) • • •