Laserfiche WebLink
Cxnrrax 7 <br /> a. Interviews <br />"°°t°'°''~P1 "rz.rr " c,r, °f The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual <br />:ti rqh MnnAxrM, 563 N. W.2d <br />zrn tM1tinn ct .app. iv~m <br />councilmembers conducted separate interviews of candidates for a city <br /> position. The district court had Found that no "meeting" of the council had <br /> occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present during <br /> the interviews. The court of appeals sent the decision back to the district <br /> court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had conducted the <br /> interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open <br /> meeting law. <br />nn,,,An,rr Tree r',r„ ~ cii> ~~ On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not <br />:tlnnlr :L/an/mm_ Nu. C9-9a-fi]7 <br />~Mn,n. ct. npp ne<. ts, ieea) <br />done to avoid open-meeting-law requirements. This decision was also <br />tunpumisned aecision> appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision. <br /> Cities that want to use this type of interview process with job applicants <br /> should first consult their city attorney. <br />b. Informational meetings <br />sr. cro~~;ve,r~sl>a~e.,. /nc. v. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that informational seminazs about <br />Dial i{; ('°nmruniq•Sehn°IS, <br />s,z N w za i iMion lass) school-board business, which the entire board attends, must be noticed and <br />open to the public. As a result, it appears that any scheduled atherin s~ <br />quorum of a public body must have proper notice an be open, whether or <br />influence later decisions, but excludes chance or social <br />quorum of members of a public o y, owever, cannot <br />m orma wn ono tcta usmess m any setting under th <br />may <br />i~- <br />rhunw ~. n..,,<<he/, sob N.w.za Under certain circumstances, it may be possible for a quorum of the council <br />w IMm~ a app. res3>. to attend a meeting of another public body without violating the open <br />"~' o° "'"-'t''°E 'a' ~~""" meeting law even though notice of a special council meeting is not <br />provided. For example, when persons constituting a quorum of a city <br />council attended a meeting of the city's planning commission, the <br />Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open <br />meeting law-not because of the councilmembers' attendance at the <br />meeting-but because the councilmembers conducted public business in <br />conjunction with that meeting. Based on this decision, the attorney general <br />has advised that mere attendancelw °~'~~*^^°' ~^~)ncilmembers at a <br />meeting of a council committee held in compliance with the open meetine <br />notice. The attorney general advised, however, that the additional <br />councilmembers should not participate in committee discussions or <br />compare sr. a<„rn:ver~ «rnr,~s. It is not clear whether the participation of a city council in a tra_ fining _ <br />Inc r. Ui.n. 7{? l:nnnnurri0~ <br />sin:>°r,, ssz N w.2a t (Minn. <br />program sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities to develop various <br />teas) ~;rn n c op 63aa s t s wou be defined as a meeting under the open meeting law. The <br />rren. s. ie]st. determining factor may be whether the program includes discussions of <br /> specific matters relating to an to tvt ua city's business. <br />T10 This chapter last revised 122010 Leneue or MMNESOre CrrrE$ <br />