Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />the public to present their views.3 <br /> <br /> Generally, the Open Meeting Law must be construed in favor of <br />public access.4 The public body must use a balancing test to <br />determine whether this presumption applies in a specific situation. <br />The public body must balance the "public's right to be informed" <br />and its "right to the effective and efficient administration of <br />public bodies.''5 Furtherance of efficient administration is not an <br />adequate defense if procedures foreclose public discussion <br />altogether, effectively permit the final decision to be made in <br />private or conceal improper influences.6 <br /> <br /> The most common issues addressing the Open Meeting Law relate <br />to voting, the need to provide the public with materials used at <br />the meeting and the exceptions to the Open Meeting Law. This last <br />area, exceptions to the Open Meeting Law, has been especially <br />troublesome for public bodies as they address the sometime <br />conflicting demands of the Government Data Practices Act, the need <br />for confidentiality in creating strategy for labor negotiations and <br />the need for confidentiality in addressing various issues related <br />to litigation. <br /> <br /> 3 <br /> <br />Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983). <br /> 4 Id. <br /> <br /> 5 Moberq v. Ind. School Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510, <br />(Minn. 1983). <br /> <br /> 6 Id. <br /> <br />St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community <br /> <br />517 <br /> <br /> <br />