My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 09/25/1990
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1990
>
Agenda - Council - 09/25/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2025 11:01:41 AM
Creation date
12/9/2003 9:15:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
09/25/1990
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
237
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Publications Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 435 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. App. <br /> <br />1989) review denied March 29, 1989. In Northwest Publications, <br />the St. Paul city council held a closed meeting to discuss <br />threatened litigation over proposed ordinances regarding nude <br /> <br />dancing. Litigation over this matter was a "virtual certainty." <br />The Court of Appeals held that this meeting should have been open <br />because there was no actual litigation. The Court of Appeals <br />stated that the attorney-client privilege was not available when <br />a governing body seeks to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of <br />a proposed enactment which may give rise to future litigation.2! <br /> <br /> Dicta in the Northwest Publications decision also stated that <br />even if litigation is pending, the public body must demonstrate <br />that the need for confidentiality outweighs the right of the public <br />to have access to public affairs. The test to be applied is <br />whether "the balancing of the conflicting public policies dictates <br />the need for absolute confidentiality." Northwest Publications, <br />435 N.W.2d at 67. Based on this test, it will be difficult to <br />defend some challenges to closed meetings where the attorney- <br />client privilege is alleged as the reason for closing the meeting. <br />One defense would be to argue that the recent statutory change <br />allowing a public body to close meetings if it is permitted by the <br />attorney-client privilege changed the law and permits the public <br />body to close its meetings when meeting with its attorney. However <br />this argument runs counter to the presumption of openness applied <br />when construing the Open Meeting Law. <br /> <br /> 21 Northwest Publications, 435 N.W.2d at 67. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.