Just what are a local government’s responsibilities when it comes to remaining transparent to the community? What government information can the public access and how does it do that? What does the Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law say about elected officials interacting with the public during their meetings? These were some of the questions addressed by two representatives of Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust (MCIT) at a presentation to the Cook County Board of Commissioners this spring. Also at the meeting were numerous county department heads and a couple of interested citizens.
MCIT Executive Director Robyn Sykes and Staff Counsel for Risk Control Jennifer Wolf, an attorney, outlined some of the basic premises of the Open Meeting Law – Chapter 13D of Minnesota Statutes – and of Minnesota’s Data Practices Act, which stipulates what information is and is not open to the public – Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes. They also went over some legislative amendments and court cases that have shaped how those laws are interpreted.
The Open Meeting Law
A “resource briefing” compiled by MCIT on the Open Meeting Law states, “Whenever members of a public body come together to conduct business, constituents – the public – must be provided with an opportunity to observe and be informed on the issues and the actions of their representatives.
“It was in this spirit that the Minnesota legislature enacted the Open Meeting Law in 1957. Since its adoption, the law has evolved through judicial interpretation and legislative amendments.
“The purpose of this law is to:
. Prohibit actions being taken at secret meetings where the public is unable to become informed about decisions of the public body or to detect improper influences; and
. Assure the public’s right to be informed.
“The Open Meeting Law applies to all meetings of the public body and, in general, meetings of its committees and subcommittees,” MCIT’s briefing goes on to say. “For the law to apply, a quorum (a majority of the members of the public body) must be present. The gathering of a quorum constitutes a meeting if ‘members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of the governing body.’” The briefing states that the Open Meeting Law also applies to committees that do not have a quorum of the governing body if the governing body has delegated its power to the committee.
The Open Meeting Law requires that the public have access to schedules of regular meetings of elected officials and that the time and place of special or emergency meetings be posted on a designated bulletin board or where the board usually meets. Individual members of the public have a right to be notified at least three days before special meetings if they have requested such notice, or in lieu of that, to access notices in that area’s official newspaper or, in the absence of an official newspaper, a qualified newspaper that distributes in that area.
The intentions of members of an elected board are important, Jennifer Wolf said. In court cases in which violations of the Open Meeting Law have been alleged, judges look at whether an elected official or board intended to circumvent the open meeting process. Elected officials cannot call or email each other to discuss an issue in order to avoid discussing it in an open meeting.
Members of the public are free to talk to all the elected officials they want to outside of a public meeting. A public employee, however, such as a county coordinator, board secretary, or county attorney, cannot facilitate a serial meeting by acting as the hub of an informational wheel and passing comments along from one governmental board member to another.
Official business conducted on personal email accounts or on personal computers is subject to the Open Meeting Law and “discoverable” in court.
Public bodies must retain meeting minutes and records of who voted which way on all motions and resolutions. They must have at least one copy of materials distributed before, at, or during meetings available for the public to review except for materials that cannot be released to the public, such as certain types of personnel information, health or educational records, or data that identifies alleged victims or reporters of certain crimes. In some cases, public bodies are required by law to close a meeting to the public.
The public’s right to comment
The PowerPoint presentation by Sykes and Wolf stated that the Open Meeting Law allows the public to be present at meetings but does not require that members of the public be afforded the opportunity to speak. Public participation may be allowed, however.
Wolf recommended that boards set parameters ahead of time before opening meetings up to comments from the public. These could include the topics the public would be allowed to comment on, the amount of time each person could speak, and the expectation that people conduct themselves courteously. Without parameters, she said, the board might leave itself open to allegations of unfairness, age or sex discrimination, or First Amendment violations.
One pitfall Sykes warned against was the possibility that a board would listen to public comments protesting the recommendations of a committee that had already held a public hearing — such as a land use planning commission — and then vote against the committee’s recommendation because of the comments they were hearing. The board could be accused of holding an illegal public hearing, she said.
Public hearings are held for the purpose of gathering information and opinions from the public. The concept of “due process,” which requires governmental bodies to afford people their legal rights, does not necessarily give people the right to be heard to the extent they wish to be heard, Wolf said. Governmental boards need to treat people fairly and consistently, however, Sykes added.
The laws have many intricacies that go beyond those discussed here. The statutes can be found on the website of the Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes at https:// www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/.
Leave a Reply