To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
November 14, 2007; Minneapolis City Council
11/14/2007 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:
On October 5, 2007, IPAD received a letter, dated October 3, 2007, from Michelle Gross. In her letter, Ms. Gross asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding an issue related to a joint meeting of the Minneapolis City Council's Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee and its Health, Energy and Environment Committee (Committees) and their compliance with the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. Ms. Gross submitted the $200.00 fee required by section 13.072. On October 17, 2007, IPAD wrote to Ms. Barbara Johnson, President of the Minneapolis City Council (Council). In its letter, IPAD informed Ms. Johnson of Ms. Gross' request and gave the Council an opportunity to explain its position. The Council presented its position in a letter from its attorney, Lisa Needham, dated October 24, 2007. A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Gross is as follows. The Committees met jointly on February 15, 2006, to consider a report on the Civilian Police Review Authority's (CRA) policies and processes. Prior to the start of the meeting, Ms. Gross looked for a copy of the report and was unable to find a copy. Ms. Gross then requested a copy of the report from staff and was told the report would not be made available to the public until after it had been presented to the Committees at the meeting. In her opinion request, Ms. Gross wrote: During the course of the meeting, a PowerPoint presentation was made on the report. After the presentation, committee members began to consider a number of recommendations in the report. When it became clear that committee members would actually be voting on the content of the report, I again approached [staff] and asked to inspect the report being discussed and she reiterated that it would not be made available until later. Committee members discussed the content of the report, referring to some recommendations as A through G without specifying what those recommendations were. The public present was unable to know what was being discussed or voted on.
Issue:
Based on Ms. Gross' opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
Discussion:
The Committees are subject to the Open Meeting Law as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(4) and subdivision 1(c)(1). Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6(a) states:
In any meeting, which under subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:
In the Council's response to Ms. Gross' opinion request, Ms. Needham wrote: [Staff] indicated that she did not have copies of the report. . . . The City acknowledges that the report in question, a lengthy document addressing the CRA's performance, was not made available to individuals attending the PSRS/HEE committee meeting during the presentation of the report. However, copies were made available during the meeting immediately following the presentation. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6(a), requires any printed materials to be made available for public inspection while the governing body considers their subject matter. Even though the report was available for public inspection immediately following the presentation of the report, the Council acknowledges that the report was not made available during the actual presentation. Therefore, in the Commissioner's opinion, the Committees did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6 because the report was not available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the Committees were considering the subject matter of the report. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Gross raised is as follows:
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Dated: November 14, 2007 |
Open Meeting Law
Printed materials
