Agenda - Council Work Session - 11/10/2003

Home

Minn. Stat. ~ 471.705, subd. Id(b) Minn. Stats. §§ 471.705, subd. Id(ID); 13.03, subd. 11 Minn. Stat. § 471.705, subd. Id(a) Minn. Stat. § 471.705, subd. Id(a) Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 709, 298 Minn. 306, 215 N.W.2d 814 11974). Alsn see tliscussinn under "Serial gatherings" Mankato Free Press v. Cio' of North Mankato, File Nn: CI-96-100(136 fFifth Jud. Dist. 1996) 1. Data practices Generally, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that is not public. However, the public body MUST close any part of a meeting at which certain types of non-public data are discussed (such as active law enforcement investigative data, police internal affairs data. and certain victim, health, medical, or welfare data). If data is discussed at an open meeting when the meeting is required to be closed, it is a violation of the Open Meeting Law. Discussions of some types of no, n-public data may also be a violation of the Data Practices Act. However, some types of not-public data MAY be discussed at an open meeting without liability or penalty if the following criteria are met: The disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the council's authority; AND The disclosure is necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. Data that is discussed at an open meeting retains its original classification under the Data Practices Act. However, a record of the meeting is public, regardless of the form. It is suggested that private data that is discussed at an open meeting not be specifically detailed in the minutes. 2. Interviews The court has held that a school board must interview prospective employees for administrative positions in open sessions. The court said that the absence of a statutory exception indicated that the legislature had decided that such sessions should not be closed. The reasoning would seem to apply to city council interviews of prospective officers and employees as well, if a quorum is present. A district court judge recently found that it was not a violation of the Open Meeting Law for candidates to be serially interviewed by members of a city council at one-on-one closed interviews. In this case, five city council members were present in the same building but each was conducting separate interviews in five different rooms. Because there was no quorum present, there was no meeting. However, this decision has been appealed. Cities that are considering holding interviews of job applicants in this manner should consult their city attorneys before doing so. Meetm_es of CiLv Count:Is I I