Open Meeting Law Atty General 1974 CITY OF FRIDLEY
MEMORANDUM
TO: GERALD R. DAVIS, CITY MANAGER
CITY COUNCIL
VIRGIL C. HERRICK, CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: MARVIN C. BRUNSELL, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: OPEN MEETING LAWS
DATE: MARCH 14, 1973
The attached material relating to the open meeting law was received
by the City Clerk's office on March 14, 1973.
Enclosure
NNESO
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
WARREN SPANNAUS ST. PAUL 55155
ATTORNEY GENERAL February 1, 1973
Dear Public Officials :
The meaning of the Minnesota "open meeting" law
has generated a number of questions from public officials,
private citizens and news media personnel. This statute is
short in words and general in language, and its interpretation
has therefore proceeded on a case-by-case basis.
Because of the significance of the open meeting principle
enunciated by the legislature and the public concern it creates ,
we would like to provide you with a summary of court cases and
opinions of this office which interpret the law. The summary
is intended to be of general informational use only. In most
instances of which we are aware, public bodies are complying with
the law. We hope that this general summary will be of assistance
to you and your attorney in resolving any new situation which may
occur in the future. The relevant statute is Minn. Stat. S 471.705
(1971) , which provides:
"Except as otherwise expressly provided by
law, all meetings , including executive sessions,
of the governing body of any school district
however organized, unorganized territory, county,
city, village, town or borough and of any board,
department or commission thereof, shall be open
to the public . The votes of the members of such
governing body, board, department or commission
on any action taken in a meeting herein required
to be open to the public shall be recorded in a
journal kept for that purpose, which journal shall
be open to the public. The vote of each member
shall be recorded on each appropriation of money,
except for payments of judgments, claims and
amounts fixed by statute. "
One question which has arisen is what type of gathering
of a public body constitutes a meeting which must be open. A
second question is whether notice must be given to the public of
such meetings . A third question is the place in which meetings
may be held. A fourth question is what the consequences may be •
if the open meeting principle is not followed .
1. What Type of Gathering Constitutes a Meeting?
The term "meeting" includes regular and special
meetings and executive sessions of a very broad range of
public bodies. Such bodies include not only the governing body
but also any board, department or commission thereof. 1/
"Extra sessions" of county boards are also meetings . 77
The "executive session, " which generally means a "closed" meeting,
has in effect been abolished. 3/
It has been ruled that an informal gathering of a public
body at which data were examined, arguments presented, views
exchanged and preliminary decisions made is a "meeting" which
must be open to the public. 4/ The spirit of such legislation
is said to be that under the—aemocratic process decisions must
be reached after free and open discussion, debate and clash of
opinion. The public should know not only the decisions , but also
the public officials ' reasoning and opinions thereon. 5/
Similarly, a district court has ruled that any "assemblage"
of a majority of the members of a body must be open if the topics for
discussion and eventual decision are those which would otherwise
arise at a regular meeting. 6/ The court also indicated that
strictly social get-togethers of board members are permissible pro-
vided that the members do not use the occasion to conduct business
which should be considered only at an open meeting. The Minnesota
Supreme Court is expected to hear this case on appeal in 1973 .
The open meeting law prohibits any meeting from being
closed except when "expressly provided by law. " Only a few decisions
have been made concerning this provision. Those portions of county
welfare board meetings which pertain to grants or services to specific
individuals must be closed because state regulations require that
county welfare boards maintain the confidentiality of such informa-
tion. 7/ The district court noted above has stated that there are
instances. in which school board meetings may be closed, but this
issue is expected to be in dispute in the appeal to the Supreme
Court. 8/
In addition, it has been held that the public must be
permitted to tape record, in the manner commonly done , any meeting
which is open to the public. 9/ The members of a body whose meeting
is tape recorded may not prohibit the news media from broadcasting
such records. Tape recording may be prohibited only in that situation,
if any, where it would have a significantly adverse affect on the
order of the proceeding. This rule recognizes the implicit
authority of a public body to preserve order at its meetings . 10/
2
2. Must Notice of a Meeting Be Given to the Public?
The term "open meeting" means , at the minimum, that
the public cannot be prevented from entering the meeting room
and observing the proceedings. 11/
The open meeting law does not specifically require
that notice of meetings be given and it may well be that notice
need not be given when a regularly scheduled meeting is to be
held. 12/ The public is presumed to know of the time and place
of such meetings. In the case of municipal councils, a regularly
scheduled meeting is one which is regularly scheduled pursuant to
a charter provision or ordinance, or a resolution or rule of the
council. 13/
The public must be given advance notice of other meetings
(usually called special meetings) at least where matters are to be
acted upon which have not been amply discussed at a prior public
meeting or hearing. 14/ The council or board has reasonable
discretion in determining the time and mode of giving such notice.
Notice has been held unnecessary where a follow-up
school board meeting was held in the regular meeting room after
a publicly attended meeting in the gymnasium. The court said that
the electors had "ample opportunity" to express their views at
the gymnasium meeting regarding the action in question. The
court noted that although the public was not expressly invited
to the folow-up meeting, neither was it told to stay out. 15/
A meeting held by a town board twenty minutes after
adjournment of a publicly attended meeting was, however, found
to violate the open meeting law since the first meeting was
adjourned without announcing that the board would conduct another
meeting and by the time of the second meeting most of the residents
had left the town hall. It also appears that action taken at the
second meeting was not discussed at any prior meeting. 16/
3. At Which Places May Meetings Be Held?
The place of meetings for councils , boards and commissions
is often set by statute, charter, or ordinance. In the absence of
such a provision, the public body often has some discretion about
the place to hold its meetings . It has been indicated, however,
that school boards , and perhaps other municipal bodies, must
conduct their meetings at a public place within their territorial
limits. 17/ A county board may conduct extra sessions at places
within the county other than the county seat. 18/
3
Care should be taken in selecting a meeting place
other than the one normally used. Holding a follow-up meeting
in the regular meeting room to act on matters publicly discussed
immediately prior thereto in a larger room does not generally
require an announcement to the public. 19/ A follow-up meeting
in another place may, however, require notice. 20/ In addition,
the ruling requiring notice of special meetings included the
requirement that the place as well as the time be released. 21/
4. What May Be The Consequences If The Open
Meeting Principle Is Not Followed?
Situation One: An extra session of a county board
was found to violate the open meeting law where the public had
no notice of the meeting and did not in fact attend the meeting,
and where the public had no prior opportunity to express its
views on a resolution adopted at the special session which raised
the county commissioners ' salaries . The adoption of the resolution
was therefore ruled invalid. 22/
Situation Two: A board meeting of a common school
district was held outside the limits of the school district
and therefore violated the open meeting law. 23/ At this meeting
a resolution was passed recommending that a portion of the common
school district be consolidated with an independent school district.
Subsequent procedures, involving state and county officials and an
election by voters in the affected portion of the common school
district, were duly followed. The meeting where the original
resolution was passed was not an "open" meeting, however, and
therefore the resolution was declared invalid and the attempted
consolidation was declared fatally defective.
Situation Three: A town meeting violated the open
meeting law because it was held , without public announcement,
subsequent to the adjournment of a publicly attended meeting and
because most of the residents had left the town hall . At this
subsequent meeting the town board issued a permit to construct
and operate a mobile home park. This matter apparently had not
been discussed at any "open" meeting. The issuance of the permit
was held to be invalid and the permit was declared void. 24/
This summary is not intended as a final opinion of this
office concerning any specific situation. Rather, it is meant to be
a guideline to enable resolution of many issues on the local level.
We trust that the summary will prove helpful, and would be pleased
to provide you or your attorney copies of any or all of the opinions
referred to in the summary.
Very truly yours ,
.C:./
WARREN SPANNA
Attorney Gene 1
WS/sr
FOOTNOTES
1. For example, a city planning commission is a commission
of a city and its meetings must be open to the public.
Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5 , Dec. 28, 1966 . See also Op. Atty.
Gen. 63a-5, Dec. 4, 1972 .
2. Op. Atty. Gen. 125a-14 , Sept. 8, 1970.
3. Op. Atty. Gen. 161-A-16 (b) , Nov. 20 , 1957.
4. Id.
5. Id. , and Op. Atty. Gen. 471e, Feb. 13 , 1957 . The Supreme
Court has stated that the purpose of this law "is to prohibit
actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible
for the interested public to become fully informed concerning
board decisions or to detect improper influences. " Lindahl v.
Ind. School Dist. No. 306 , 270 Minn. 164, 167, 133 N.W.2d 23 ,
26 (1965) . The provisions are also intended to afford the
public an opportunity to present its views to the body.
Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5, Jan. 11, 1972 .
6. Channel 10, Inc. v. Ind. School Dist. No. 709 , No. 127589
(6th Dist. , filed April 26 , 1972) (appeal filed in Supreme
Court Nov. 1, 1972) .
7. Op. Atty. Gen. 125-a-64, Dec. 4 , 1972 .
8. The director of the state bureau of mediation services may by
rule provide that certain negotiations , mediation sessions ,
and hearings between public employers and public employees or
their representatives shall be closed to the public. Minn.
Stat. § 179 .69 subd. 2 . The director has adopted rules pursuant
to this statute.
9. Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5 , Dec. 4 , 1972 .
10. See Lindahl v. Ind. School Dist. No. 306 , supra; Op. Atty.
Gen. 125a-14 , Sept. 8 , 1970 . See also Minn. Stat. § 412 .191
subd. 2 (1971) (village council may preserve order at its
meetings) .
11. See footnote 5 , supra.
12. In re Petition of Minneapolis Area Development Corp. ,
269 Minn. 157, 170 , 131 N.W.2d 29 , 39 (1964) ; Op. Atty. Gen.
63a-5, Jan. 11, 1972 . In the Channel 10 , Inc. case (see
footnote 6) , however, the court required the school board to
give advance notice to the news media of all meetings . .
•
•
13. Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5, Jan. 11, 1972.
14. Id. , and Lindahl v. Ind. School Dist. No. 306 , 270 Minn.
IT4, 133 N.W.2d 23 (1965) .
15. Lindahl v. Ind. School Dist. No. 306 , 270 Minn. 164 ,
133 .N.W.2d 23 (1965) .
16. Op. Atty. Gen. 441-H, Mar. 10, 1970 .
17. Quast v. Knutson, 276 Minn. 340 , 150 N.W.2d 199 (1967) ;
Ops. Atty. Gen. 471-E, Nov. 2, 1965 , and Feb. 18 , 1964 .
18. Op. Atty. Gen. 125a-14 , Sept. 8, 1970 .
19. Lindahl v. Ind. School Dist. No. 306 , 270 Minn. 164 ,
133 N.W.2d 23 (1965) ; In re Petition of Minneapolis Area
Development Corp. , 269 Minn. 157, 131 N.W.2d 29 (1964) .
20. Id.
21. Op. Atty. Gen. 63a-5, Jan. 11, 1972 .
22. Op. Atty. Gen. 125a-14 , Sept. 8, 1970.
23. Quast v. Knutson, 276 Minn. 340, 150 N.W.2d 199 (1967) .
24. Op. Atty. Gen. 441-H, March 10 , 1970 .
1