2018.05.02 PREC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

27 Serial Meetings It is important to note that the “Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a quorum of a public body held serially to avoid a public meeting or to fashion agreement on an issue of public business may violate the open meeting law. “ (p. 19-20) “The commissioner of the Department of Administration has advised that back-and-forth email communica- tions among a quorum of a public body that was subject to the open meeting law in which the members com- mented on and provided direction about official business violated open meeting law. … However, the commis- sioner also advised that ‘one-way communication between the chair and members of the public body is permis- sible… as long as no discussion or decision-making ensues.” (p. 21) Penalties “Any person who intentionally violates the open meeting law is subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty of up to $300 for a single occurrence. The public body may not pay the penalty. … The court may also award reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorney fees of up to $13,000 to any party in an action alleg- ing a violation of the open meeting law. A public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees in- curred by or awarded against any of its members.” (p. 22—23) Volunteer commissioners should do their best to be educated about and to comply with open meeting law. At the same time, they should not be overly worried about making an accidental mistake as monetary penalties or attorney fees may not “be awarded against a member of a public body unless the court finds that there was in- tent to violate the open meeting law.” (MN Statutes Section 13D.06, subd. 4). Social Media Exemption “The open meeting law was amended in 2014 to provide that “the use of social media by members of a public body does not violate the open meeting law as long as the social media use is limited to exchanges with all members of the general public.” “ (p. 21) Social media is generally understood to include social networking website like Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace as well as blogs and microblogs like Twitter. However, “it is important to remember that the use of social media ... could still be used to support other claims such as claims of defamation or of conflict of interest in decision-making.” (p. 22) Accordingly, comments “made on social media <should be> factually correct and should not comment on issues that will come before the <public body> in the future for a quasi-judicial hearing and decision, such as the consideration of whether to grant an application for a conditional use permit.” (p. 22) “It is also important to remember that serial discussions between less than a quorum of the council could vio- late the open meeting law under certain circumstances. As a result, city councils and other public bodies should take a conservative approach and should not use telephone calls, email, or other technology to communicate back and forth with other members of the public body if both of the following circumstances exist: • A quorum of the council or public body will be contacted regarding the same matter. • City business is being discussed.” (p. 22)