|
<br />
<br />,
<br />;.)'~'
<br />..
<br />
<br />"~j
<br />
<br />~~~.
<br />~)
<br />
<br />1':'; j~ '~;'\.' ~., .'-'., ~
<br />
<br />In a 1982 decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a
<br />....... conversation between two councilmembers over lunch regarding an
<br />application for a special use pe~i~ did not violate the Open Meeting
<br />i>.. ,'Law because a quorum was not present...
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Hubbard Broadcasting, "
<br />Inc. v. CiJ] of Afton, 323
<br />N.W.2d 757 (Minn.
<br />1982).: '; ':., "
<br />
<br />. ." - - . # ,.
<br />
<br />A.G. Op. 6:3a.5,;Aug. 28; · ,,'.'" '~A'c~~~i~te'~ meetin;g~t whi~h '~dditional cou~~ilmembers attended as
<br />1996
<br />audience members, resulting in a quorum of councilmembers in
<br />"" . . attendance wasfound not to violate the Open Meeting Law. Because
<br />;;:" ~";~; ~...,~.. ';' V:?,.: public notice had ali-didy been given for the committee meeting,
<br />additional separate notice of a' special council meeting was not required,
<br />. . " ' , '. as long as the additional councilmembers did not participate in the
<br />. discussion or deliberations. However, if the additionalcouncilmembers
<br />had participated, notice of a special council'meeting may have been
<br />r r~. quire~. : ." ',' : .... "
<br />','!"t. , !..,:~~'~":';:r ;;-. ',~~,' .,~;_,.l.~ ;._'J :.:', ;: 1...." .;...:..... i:~.:'. :I<~ } .. " ;"J.'!";~~' ~:.
<br />
<br />h , .6. Serial gatherings '" '
<br />;':';_~";.:{.;i;-'Hf).;\.:" ~'~',.~.I::,.J ~;r-~ ('.::.-C;',,~..~'f '-;':l.;'.-/:()f.;'''.,;-,'!!l.J....~':,';t''..;~;-:.:...::. ~I.'" ;..,,~. .~\;; . .~.~ ~~i~-;,""
<br />:,' Mo~t~ 1I.lndtptnd~nl"..:. { ..'. The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less. than a
<br />Sch. DuL 281, 336 .. l' 11 . . .' ~ h'
<br />.. 'N.W.2d SID (Minn;'! L; .> ','. quorum he d sena y to avoid publIc heanngs or to las Ion agreement
<br />, ,1983). ~see.sect~~~;..~: c.:',' ,on an issue 'may violate the'open meeting law: In short, this type of
<br />entitled Interviews ..' .' .' . f h . A h '1
<br />and "Technology. situation IS a circumvention 0 t e statute. s suc ,counCI members
<br />trouble~, ~ ..1."'. should aV,oid thistype of practice.
<br />:;:: ".":..~ L.~. ;;...l ~} ;~,;'~/~ t :.,<~..: ~l:;., ~" ~.t' ~ ..~~ - . ,:.' . "',~
<br />,,: ;;.: ~:~ ,,~:.,,: . :.7. Training sessions, .:...';
<br />
<br />;-.-~ , ;
<br />
<br />.,~.~<',
<br />
<br />,",' .
<br />,
<br />
<br />.\ =-.',-"1"
<br />
<br />Y'..', :.:.';
<br />
<br />I ;...~.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />'. , .
<br />A.G. op. 63a-5, Feb. 5,
<br />1975
<br />
<br />".: ....
<br />c.,_' . ;.
<br />
<br />The'Attorney General has found that a city council's participation in a
<br />non-public training program devoted to developing skills is not covered
<br />by the Open Meeting Law. However, the opinion also stated that if
<br />there were to be any discussions of city business by the attending
<br />members, either outside the training session or during it, it could be
<br />seen as a violation of the statute.
<br />
<br />iT
<br />
<br />Moberg II. Indtptndent
<br />Sch. Disl. No. 281, 336
<br />N.W.2d SID (Minn.
<br />1983). Also see
<br />discussion under "Serial
<br />gatherings"
<br />
<br />8. Technology trouble
<br />
<br />The Open Meeting Law does not address situations that may 'occur as a
<br />result of telephone calls, letters, e-mail or similar technology. The
<br />Minnesota Supreme Court found that the Open Meeting Law did not
<br />apply to letters or to telephone conversations between fewer than a
<br />quorum. While it is possible that a similar decision might be reached
<br />concerning the use of e-mail and other forms of technology, it should be
<br />stressed that a violation of the law would be likely if a quorum of
<br />members were involved.
<br />
<br />.,
<br />
<br />! .f".
<br />
<br />, Meetings of Cit).. Councils ".:, ,.
<br />
<br />13
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
|