Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />3. Social gatherings <br />St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. <br />Social gatherings of city council members will not be considered a meeting <br />v. Dist. 742 Community <br />Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 <br />subject to the requirements of the open meeting law if there is not a quorum <br />(Minn. 1983). Moberg v. <br />present, or, if a quorum is present, if the quorum does not discuss, decide, <br />Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, <br />336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. <br />or receive information on official city business. The Minnesota Supreme <br />1983). Hubbard <br />Court has ruled that a conversation between two city council members over <br />Broadcasting, Inc. v. City <br />of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 <br />lunch about a land -use application did not violate the open meeting law <br />(Minn. 1982). <br />because a quorum of the council was not present. <br />4. Serial meetings <br />Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a <br />No. 281,336 N.W.2d 510 <br />(Minn. 1983). DPO 10-011. <br />quorum of a public body held serially to avoid a public meeting or to <br />DPO 06-017. <br />fashion agreement on an issue of public business may violate the open <br />meeting law. <br />Mankato Free Press v. City <br />The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual <br />of North Mankato, 563 <br />N.W.2d 291(Minn. Ct. <br />council members conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a <br />App.1997). <br />city position in one-on-one closed interviews. The district court found that <br />no "meeting" of the council had occurred because there was never a <br />quorum of the council present during the interviews. <br />However, the court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a <br />determination of whether the council members had conducted the interview <br />process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open meeting <br />law. <br />Mankato Free Press v. City <br />On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not <br />of North Mankato, No. C9- <br />98-677 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />done to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. This decision was <br />Dec. 15, 1998) <br />also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court's <br />(unpublished decision). <br />decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process with job <br />applicants should first consult their city attorney. <br />5. Training sessions <br />Compare St. Cloud <br />It is not clear whether the participation of a quorum or more of the <br />Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. <br />742 Community Schools, <br />members of a city council in a training program would be defined as a <br />332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983) <br />meeting under the open meeting law. The determining factor would likely <br />and A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, <br />1975). DPO 16-006. <br />be whether the program includes a discussion of general training <br />information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an individual city. <br />A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, <br />The attorney general has advised that a city council's participation in a non- <br />1975). DPO 16-006. <br />public training program devoted to developing skills was not a meeting <br />subject to the open meeting law. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022 <br />Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 1 Page 21 <br />