Agenda Packets - 2023/07/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: DPO 07-025. A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). DPO 07-025. Thuma v. Kroschel, 506 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). DPO 16-005. A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). In contrast, the commissioner has advised that a city's Free Speech Working Group, consisting of citizens and city officials appointed by the city to meet to develop and review strategies for addressing free -speech concerns relating to a political convention, was not subject to the open meeting law. The advisory opinion noted that the group did not have decision -making authority. It is common for city councils to appoint individual council members to act as liaisons between the council and particular council committees or other government entities. 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. If a city is unsure whether a meeting of a committee, board, or other city entity is subject to the open meeting law, it should consult its city attorney or consider seeking an advisory opinion from the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration. Notice for a special meeting of the city council may be needed if a quorum of the council will be present at a committee meeting and will be participating 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 the council members simply attended the meeting but because the council members conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting. Based on this decision, the attorney general has advised that mere attendance by council members 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 cautioned, however, that the additional council members should not participate in committee discussions or deliberations absent a separate special -meeting notice of a city council meeting. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 1 Page 20