Facts and Procedural History:

Rick Tallman asked for an advisory opinion regarding Rockville City Council (Council) members’ conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Council declined to provide comments.

Mr. Tallman provided the following summary of the issues.

The Rockville city council held a Special council meeting on 2/11/19 which was posted using the agenda as the Public Notice (see the attached 02.11.19_Agenda). It has been the common practice in Rockville for at least a few years to use the meeting agenda as the official Public Notice of meetings….

…

The city administrator requested additions to the agenda specifically - Item 6a) RTU 2019 Street Project Item and 6b) 2019 COLA Adjustment. The COLA increase for city staff was a very important topic to those in attendance at the December 2018 council meeting as can be viewed in the online recording of the meeting… There was not any public notice for this Special Council Meeting regarding the additions to the agenda that were added as required by MN 13D.04, subd. 2 (see the attached 2.11.19 minutes showing the additions to the agenda). 

Mr. Tallman also wrote that the February 13, 2019, regular meeting agenda listed approval of minutes from previous Council meetings, including the February 11, 2019, special meeting. The Council members had copies of the draft minutes at the meeting, but the Council did not make a copy available in the public packet of members’ materials

Issues:

Discussion:

Issue 1 : Did the Rockville City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, at the February 11, 2019, special meeting?

For any meeting that is not on the regular schedule of meetings, the OML requires that public bodies provide notice at least three days before the meeting and that the notice include the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.) That subdivision also allows an individual to request to be notified of special meetings concerning one or more specific subjects. (See Section 13D.04, subd. 2(d).)

Mr. Tallman stated that the Council’s practice is to post the special meeting agenda as the notice required by section 13D.04, subd. 2. The agenda for the February 11, 2019, meeting included the date, time, and place. For “purpose,” the agenda listed seven items:

1. Call to Order Roll Call
2. Roll Call – (Silence Electronic Devices)
3. Additions/Approval of Agenda
4. Ordinance Review
5. City Fee Schedule
6. Other
7. Adjourn 

Mr. Tallman subsequently obtained a copy of the February 11 meeting minutes:

The minutes of the meeting show actually 3 additions -#1 Item 6 a) 2019 Street Project Resolution 2019-08 which was another addition was also acted on passing unanimously. #2 Item 6 b) 2019 Cola - which was acted on and passed by a 3 to 1 vote. The 3rd item under item 6 b) Three new RTU Committee members which was not even on the agenda as an addition or approved as an addition was also acted on passing unanimously.

While a public body may add (or remove) topics from consideration at a regular meeting (where the notice required does not include listing the “purpose,” see section 13D.04, subdivision 1), it cannot do so at a special meeting. Special meeting notice must identify the purpose and the public body must limit the discussion to that purpose. If the public body does not limit its discussion to the topics stated in its notice, it cannot fulfill its obligation to provide notice to those members of the public who request notice of special meetings concerning specific topics. ( See also Advisory Opinions 04-004, 04-057, 07-024, and 10-013. )

Because the notice of the February 11, 2019, special meeting, did not adequately describe the “purpose,” the Council did not comply with section 13D.04, subd. 2.

Issue 2 : Did the Rockville City Council comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, at the February 13, 2019, regular meeting?

The OML requires that at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items that are distributed at or before the meeting to all members of the governing body or are available to all members in the meeting room, “shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter.” (See section 13D.01, subd. 6.)

The agenda for the February 13, 2019, regular meeting includes, “Approval of the Rockville City Council Minutes of January 9, January 28 and February 11, 2019.” Mr. Tallman stated that the public packet did not include the draft minutes for the February 11, 2019, meeting:

I showed the Public copy to both the city attorney and the city administrator after the meeting pointing out that the minutes were not in the public packet. I also had people in attendance of that meeting verify that the 2/11/19 minutes were not in the public copy, nor were they in the online council packet available to the public. A council member had told me that the 2/11/19 minutes were emailed to the councilors from city staff the day before on Tuesday 2/12/19. That would indicate the minutes were available to the council but not the public as is required. 

The Council did not provide a public copy of the February 11, 2019, draft meeting minutes at the February 13, 2019, meeting. Therefore, the Council did not comply with section 13D.01, subd. 6. (See also Advisory Opinions 08-015 and 17-006.)

The Minnesota Supreme Court stated that the OML “will be liberally construed in order to protect the public's right to full access to the decision making process of public bodies.” St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn.1983). And that the purposes behind the law “are deeply rooted in the fundamental proposition that a well-informed populace is essential to the vitality of our democratic form of government.” (Footnote omitted.) Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002). Here, the Council discussed and acted on three items that it failed to identify in its special meeting notice and subsequently, approved minutes from that meeting that clearly identified the Council’s action, without providing a copy to the public as required under the OML. In these circumstances, the Council met neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. 

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:

1. The Rockville City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2, at the February 11, 2019, special meeting because it did not provide adequate notice of the purpose of the meeting.
2. The Rockville City Council did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6, at the February 13, 2019, regular meeting, because it did not make a complete public packet of members’ materials available in the meeting room while it considered the subject matter.

Signed:

Alice Roberts-Davis
Commissioner

April 9, 2019