Agenda - Council - 02/08/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

public bodies must be open to the public. This presumption of openness serves three vital purposes: it prohibits actions from being taken at secret meetings, to assure the public's right to be fully informed, and to afford the public an opportunity to present views to the public body. The League of Minnesota Cities supports the Open Meeting Law, and recognizes the important role it plays in maintaining the public trust and the accountability of elected officials. The Open Meeting Law must, however, balance the need for public information and the need to protect privacy rights and certain negotiation strategies to protect the use of public resources. Currently, there are seven exceptions to the open meeting laws that authorize the closure of meeting to the public. Under these exceptions, some meetings may be closed at the discretion of the governing body and some must be closed. Three challenges exist with current law. The first concern is the hiring process for management level positions. While existing law allows a governing body to close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual subject to its authority, the statute doesn't grant the same level of privacy for the city council and prospective applicants. The statute should allow a governing body to close a meeting to interview applicants for employment if there is a quorum present; and, to allow a governing body to close a meeting to discuss the terms of an employment agreement to offer to a candidate to whom a job offer has been extended. This would be consistent with the existing authority for the governing body to close a meeting to discuss labor negotiations strategy. Allowing a closed meeting so that a council can discuss the results of an interview process for a management -level position will allow council members to express opinions or ask questions they may 125 have concerns about discussing in a public meeting, and preserves the integrity of the interview process of subsequent candidates. The second concern with existing law is the inability for public bodies to conduct strategic negotiations. Current law allows the public body to close a meeting to discuss the purchase or sale of property and labor negotiations but does not allow the public body to close a meeting to discuss negotiation strategies for an agreement with private parties, non-profit organizations, and/or public entities. The ability for public bodies to close meetings in these situations provides public bodies the opportunity to form strategies in the best financial interest of the community, which is consistent with the importance of negotiation regarding purchase or sale of property and labor contracts. The third concern is how to include city councilmembers wanting to remotely participate in city council meetings as may be needed. While cities want elected officials to participate in city decision - making to their fullest extent, it is also important to protect the public's right to see how government makes decisions. Currently under the interactive television exception to the Open Meeting Law in Minn. Stat. § 13D.02, subd. 1, city councilmembers can remotely participate in city council meetings if they meet certain requirements: (1) all councilmembers, wherever their physical location, can hear and see one another and can hear and see all discussion and testimony presented; (2) members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear and see all discussion and testimony and all votes of the members of the body; (3) at least one member of the city council is physically present at the regular meeting location; and (4) each location at which a city councilmember is present is open and