Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5 - Support for OML and Public Notice Memo MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: March 03, 2015 REGULAR ITEM # 5 Resolution No. 2015-14 AGENDA ITEM: Support for Open Meetings and Posting of Public Notice SUBMITTED BY: Adam Bell, City Clerk THROUGH: Mike Pearson, Mayor REVIEWED BY: Beckie Gumatz, Deputy Clerk SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item ..................................................................................... Staff - Report/Presentation………………………………………… ...................... Staff - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Mayor Pearson. Under state statute, local multimember governmental bodies, including committees and subcommittees created by political subdivisions are subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the resolution supporting the principles of the OML and require that all official groups conducting city business post notice of their meetings. FISCAL IMPACT: None SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to approve Resolution No. 2015-14, A Resolution Supporting Open Meetings and the Posting of Public Notice by taking the following action: “Move to approve Resolution No. 2015-14, A Resolution Supporting Open Meetings and the Posting of Public Notice.” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY / BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Minnesota Open Meeting Law was originally enacted in Laws 1957, chapter 773, section 1. It is now codified in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13D. The Minnesota Supreme Court has articulated three purposes of the open meeting law: 1) To prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed about a public board’s decisions or to detect improper influences; 2) To assure the public’s right to be informed; and 3) To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body. Prior Lake City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 5] March 03, 2015 -- page 2 -- American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002) (en banc) (citing St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)). “These purposes are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.” Courts interpret the law liberally and in favor of openness. Prior Lake American, 642 N.W.2d at 735. A meeting is open when proper notice was given in advance of the meeting, the public may attend and observe, and relevant materials are available to the public. A meeting may be closed based on a limited attorney-client privilege, and for the purposes of labor negotiations, employee evaluations, and discussion of security issues and property transactions. The open meeting law applies to the governing body of any city, town, or other public body as well as a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public body subject to the law. “Public body” is not defined but the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “[i]n common understanding, ‘public body’ is possibly the broadest expression for the category of governmental entities that perform functions for the public benefit.” Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 280-282 (Minn. 2004) (en banc). In determining whether the open meeting law applies to a particular entity, one should look at all of the entity’s characteristics. In a 1993 case involving Lake Elmo, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the open meeting law was not violated when two of five city council members attended private mediation sessions related to city business. The court determined that the two council members did not constitute a committee or subcommittee of the council because the group was not capable of exercising decision-making powers. Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied (Minn. May 28, 1993). The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the open meeting law does not apply to certain types of advisory groups. The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. App. 1988). In that case, a presidential search advisory committee to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents was held not to be a committee of the governing body for purposes of the open meeting law. In reaching its holding, the court pointed out that no regents were on the search committee and that the committee had no power to set policy or make a final decision. It is not clear if a court would reach the same result if members of the governing body were also on the advisory committee. Depending on the number of members of the governing body involved and on the form or extent of the delegation of authority from the governing body to the members, a court might consider the advisory committee to be a committee of the governing body. The law also applies to informational meetings. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies to all gatherings of members of a governing body, whether or not action is taken or contemplated. This means that a gathering of members of a public body for an informational seminar on matters currently facing the body or that might come before the body must be conducted openly. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 1. The primary requirement of the open meeting law is that meetings be open to the public. The law also requires that votes in open meetings be recorded in a journal and that the journal be open to the public. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 4. Open meetings must be held in a public place within the borders of the public body. Quast v. Knutson, 276 Minn. 340, 341, 150 N.W.2d 199, 200 (1967). City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 5] March 03, 2015 -- page 3 -- The law requires public bodies to give notice of their meetings. In 1974, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that failure to give notice of a meeting is a violation of the open meeting law. Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 217 N.W.2d 502 (1974). The court has also held that it is a violation of the open meeting law to conduct business before the time publicly announced for a meeting. Merz v. Leitch, 342 N.W.2d 141, 145 (Minn. 1984) (en banc). In 1987, the legislature spelled out the notice requirements in statute for regular, special, emergency, and closed meetings. Public bodies must do the following: Keep schedules of regular meetings on file at their offices, and post notice of special meetings (meetings held at a time or place different for regular meetings) on their principal bulletin board. The public body must also either mail notice to people who have requested such mailings, or publish notice in the official newspaper, at least three days before the meetings. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subds. 1 and 2. The same notice requirements apply to closed meetings. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 5. The City currently makes a good faith effort to comply with all statutorily required public notice requirements. This includes posting notice of the meetings of all council, commissions, boards, committees and other municipal public bodies subject to the OML. The proposed resolution would declare formal support for the spirit of the OML that the formation and determination of public policy is public business and shall be conducted at open meetings and be properly noticed to the public. The proposed resolution would also extend to city advisory and work groups, which due to the lack of any delegated authority or decision-making power are not subject to the OML, the requirement to be open to the public and publicly noticed. The reason for this extension is to promote open and transparent government, increase citizen engagement, and inform and educate the public. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015- 14, A Resolution Supporting Open Meetings and the Posting of Public Notice with the following motion: “Move to approve Resolution No. 2015-14, A Resolution Supporting Open Meetings and the Posting of Public Notice.” ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2015-14, A Resolution Supporting Open Meetings and the Posting of Public Notice