Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />The commissioner of the Department of Administration has likewise <br />advised that a school board's participation in a non-public team -building <br />session to "improve trust, relationships, communications, and collaborative <br />problem solving among Board members," was not a meeting subject to the <br />open meeting law if the members are not "gathering to discuss, decide, or <br />receive information as a group relating to `the official business' of the <br />governing body." <br />However, the opinion also advised that if there were to be any discussion of <br />specific official business by the attending members, either outside or during <br />training sessions, it could be a violation of the open meeting law. <br />6. Telephone, email, and social media <br />Moberg v. rnaep. sch. Dist. <br />It is possible that communication through telephone calls, email, or other <br />No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 <br />(Minn. 1983). DPO 17-005 <br />technology could violate the open meeting law. The Minnesota Supreme <br />(advising communication <br />Court has indicated that communication through letters and telephone calls <br />through a letter violated the <br />open meeting law). <br />could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. Best <br />practice to share information with the entire council is to send it to city staff <br />and have them distribute it. If a council member needs to email the entire <br />council, they should use blind carbon copy (BCC) to add recipients to avoid <br />accidental use of reply all which may constitute the initiation of a <br />discussion among a quorum of the public body. <br />DPO 09-020. DPO 14-015. <br />The commissioner of the Department of Administration has advised that <br />back -and -forth email communications among a quorum of a public body <br />that was subject to the open meeting law in which the members commented <br />on and provided direction about official business violated the open meeting <br />law. <br />However, the commissioner also advised that "one-way communication <br />between the chair and members of a public body is permissible, such as <br />when the chair or staff sends meeting materials via email to all board <br />members, as long as no discussion or decision -making ensues." <br />O'Keefe v. Carter, No. <br />In contrast, an unpublished decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals <br />Al2-0811 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />Dec. 31, 2012) <br />concluded that email communications are not subject to the open meeting <br />(unpublished decision). <br />law because they are written communications and are not a "meeting" for <br />purposes of the open meeting law. <br />The decision also noted that even if email communications are subject to <br />the open meeting law, the substance of the emails in question did not <br />contain the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited <br />"meeting" to have occurred. The court of appeals noted that the substance <br />of the email messages was not important and controversial; instead, the <br />email communications discussed a relatively straightforward operational <br />matter. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 8/30/2022 <br />Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 1 Page 22 <br />