Laserfiche WebLink
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 />