Agenda - Council Work Session - 11/10/2003

Home

Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. Ci0' of Afion, 323 N.W.2d 757 dMinn. 1982) A.G. Op. 63a-5, Aug. 28, 1996 Moberg v. Independent Sch. Dist. 28I, 336 N.W.2d 51{I (Minn. 1983). Also see sections entitled "Interviews" and "Technology trouble" A.G. Op. 63a-5, Feb. 5, 1975 Moberg v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 281,336 N.W.2d 511) {Minn. 1983). Also see discussion under "Serial gatherings" In a 1982 decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a conversation between two councilmembers over lunch regarding an application for a special use permit did not violate the Open Meeting Law because a quorum was not present. A committee meeting at which additional councilmembers attended as audience members, resulting in a quorum of councilmembers in attendance was found not to violate the Open Meeting Law. Because public notice had already been given for the committee meeting, additional separate notice of a special council meeting was not required, as long as the additional councilmembers did not participate in the discussion or deliberations. However, if the additional councilmembers had participated, notice of a special council meeting may have been required. 6. Serial gatherings The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a quorum held serially to avoid public hearings or to fashion agreement on an issue may violate the open meeting law. In short, this type of situation is a circumvention of the statute. As such, councilmembers should avoid this type of practice. 7. Training sessions The Attorney General has found that a city council's participation in a non-public training program devoted to developing skills is not covered by the Open Meeting Law. However, the opinion also stated that if there were to be any discussions of city business by the attending members, either outside the training session or during it, it could be seen as a violation of the statute. 8. Technology trouble The Open Meeting Law does not address situations that may occur'as a result of telephone calls, letters, e-mail or similar technology. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the Open Meeting Law did not apply to letters or to telephone conversations between fewer than a quorum. While it is possible that a similar decision might be reached concerning the use of e-mail and other forms of technology, it should be stressed that a violation of the law would be likely ifa quorum of members were involved. Meetings of City Councils 13