Agenda - Council - 03/26/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

:1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Bill March 20, 1991 Page No. 3 A preliminary issue that must first be addressed is whether the initial interviews for the City Administrator position would be considered a "meeting" for the purposes of the Open Meeting Law. For quite some time public bodies were of the opinion that even where two or more members of a governing body "deliberated" or "discussed" certain matters at a social gathering they were subject to the Open Meeting Law. In Moberg vs. Independent School District No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983) and Hubbard Broadcastinq, Inc. vs. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982), social encounters or gatherings were held not to constitute meetings for the purposes of the Open Meeting Law. In Moberg, the Supreme Court held that "meetings" subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of a governing body, or a quorum of a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission thereof, at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body. Id. at 518. This holding would exempt a gathering wherein less than a quorum of a committee or subcommittee conducted an interview from being classified as a "meeting" subject to the requirements of the Opening Meeting Law. This approach would eliminate any concerns that the public body may have had regarding the open meeting requirements. Of somewhat more concern, however, due to the significant liability that may result from a violation of the Data Practices Act, is the concern for keeping private data on individuals from being disclosed. In this regard, to the extent that the Government Data Practices Act conflicts with the Open Meeting Law, the Data Practices Act has been held to take precedence in order that portions of discussions or material constituting private data remain that way. McDivitt vs. Tilson, 453 N.W.2d 53 (Minn. App. 1990) review denied. The McDivitt decision follows the Supreme Court's holding in Annandale Advocate vs. city of Annandale, 435 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 1989) where the court fashioned an express exception to overcome the Data Practices presumption of openness. The court stated that it was not unreasonable to require that a government body ascertain a classification of data before discussing it at a public meeting and then close that portion of a meeting wherein private data was to be discussed. Even if a portion of a meeting were to be closed, it is still advisable to tape the meeting, put the notice in the record, advise members of the governing body of the basis for the closed meeting, as well as advising them to limit the discussion to issues pertaining only to those reasons for closure. It is also recommended that the start time on the tape and the ending time for