Laserfiche WebLink
Moberg r. Independent <br />Scl,. Dist. No. 281,336 <br />N.W.2d 510 (Minn. <br />1983) <br /> <br />See 1996 Update for Cio' <br />Attorneys.."Technology: <br />Potential Uses & <br />Abuses" <br /> <br />Minn. Stat. § 471.705, <br />subd. 2 <br /> <br />Minn. Stat. 471.705, <br />subd. 2; <br />Claude v. Collins, 518 <br />N.W.2d 836 {Minn. <br />1994) <br /> <br />Quast v. Knutson, 276 <br />Minn. 3-10, 150 N.W,2d <br />199 (Minn, 1967) <br /> <br />Sullivan v. Credit River <br />T}vp., 217 N.W.2d 5112 <br />IMinn. Ct. App. 19741: <br />la re Petition of D & A <br />Truck Line, [nc., 524 <br />N,W.2d 1 (Minn. App. <br />1994): L,qc Qui Parle. <br />Yellow Bank Watershed <br />Dist. v. Wollschlager, <br />1996 WI. 659321 I.",linn. <br />App. No~. 12, 19961 <br /> <br />.Minn. Stat. § 471,705, <br />subd. 2 <br /> <br />However, serial discussions that are used to deliberate matters that <br />should be dealt with at an open meeting are considered to be a violation. <br />As such. city councils and other groups to which the open meeting law <br />applies should not use letters, telephone conversations, e-mail, and <br />other such technolooy if the followina circumstances exist: <br /> <br /> A quorum of the council is involved; <br /> <br /> E-mail (or other technology) is being used to discuss or deliberate <br /> information; and <br /> <br />*' The information relates to official city business. <br /> <br />H. Intentional violations of the open meeting law <br /> <br />A public officer who intentionally violates the Open Meeting Law can <br />be fined up to S300. This fine may not be paid by the public body. In <br />addition, a court may also award reasonable costs, disbursements, and <br />attorney's fees up to S 13,000 to the person who brought the violation to <br />court. <br /> <br />After three intentional violations of the Open Meeting Lawl a public <br />official must be removed from office and may not serve in any other <br />capacity with that public body for a period of time equal to the term of <br />office thc person was se,tying. However, removal is only required if the <br />conduct constitutes malfeasance or nonfeasance. <br /> <br />The statute is not clear on whether actions taken at an improper meeting <br />would bc invalid. Thc Minnesota Supreme Court once held that an <br />attempted school district consolidation was fatally defective when the <br />initiating resolution was adopted at a meeting that was not open to the <br />public. <br /> <br />However. in more recent decisions, the Court of Appeals has refused to <br />invalidate actions taken at a improperly closed meetings because it <br />found that thc law was directory rather than mandatory. In an <br />unpublished opinion, thc court stated that, "...even a violation of the <br />open meeting I:m' will not invalidate actions taken at that meeting." <br /> <br />A public brady may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees <br />incurred t~x' (~I' aw:trcted against any of its members for an action under <br />thc Open .Meeting Law. <br /> <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br /> <br /> <br />