7.2. SR 01-18-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPl'ER 7 a. Interviews .1?nnknto f%ree Press r. ('in• of The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual :11'orlh Mnnknlo, ~(i3 N.1V.2d 291 (ivlinn. ct. App. 19y~i. councilmembers conducted separate interviews of candidates for a city position. The district court had found that no "meeting" of the council had occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present during the interviews. The court of appeals sent the decision back to the district court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had conducted the interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. ,i9ilnknlo free Pree's v. ('iN of the district court found that the individual interviews were not On remand \~orrh :1lnnkuu,, No. C9-9g-677 (b3inn. Ct. App. Dec. I5, 1998) , done to avoid open-meeting-law requirements, This decision was also (unpt,blishea decision>. appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process with job applicants should first consult their city attorney. b. Informational meetings sr. c:/ond;veuspnpera. /nc. Y. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that informational seminars about llisl, 7-J~ C'nrnnrunir)~Sc/rools. school-board business which the entire board attends must be noticed and 332 N.W.2d I (Minn. 1983). open to the public. As a result, it appears that any scheduled gatherinss of a quorum of a public body must have proper notice and be open, whether or -'1`hls includes meetings where members receive information that may influence later decisions, but excludes chance or social gatherings. A quorum of members of a public Go3y, owever, cannot discuss or receive in orma ion ono Icia usiness in any setting under the guise of a private ~hunru v. Kroarhel, 506 N.W.2d Under certain circumstances, it may be possible for a quorum of the council 1a (Minn. ct. App. 1993). to attend a meeting of another public body without violating the open A.c. op 63a-s 1Aa~. 2x, i,)9ev meeting law even though notice of a special council meeting is not provided. For example, when persons constituting a quorum of a city council attended a meeting of the city's planning commission, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open meeting law-not because of the councilmembers' attendance at the meeting-but because the councilmembers conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting. Based on this decision, the attorney general has advised that mere attendar>c? h.r ~~+~~*~^„ai r•n„nr•ilmembers at a meeting of a council committee, held in com li nce with the o en meetin aw ou no constitute a special council meeting requiring separate notice. The attorney general advised, owever, that the additional c"'" o'uncilmembers should not participate in committee discussions or compare sr. cfnnan~e,~~.~f~n/~er.T. It is not clear whether the participation of a city council in a trainin /nc. r. Disr. 7a2 Gonnnunirp Schno/s, 33z N.w.2d 1 (Minn. program sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities to develop various 1983) with A.G. Op. 63a-> s i s woul be defined as a meeting under the open meeting law. The tr--en. S, 1971). determining factor may be whether the program includes discussions of I specific matters relating to an in ivi ua city's business. 1 i~ 7:10 This chapter last revised 12Y2010 LEAGUE OP MINNESOTA CITIES