This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

Paul Boblett, editor of the Northland Press, and Nancy Vogt, editor of the Pine and Lakes Echo Journal, requested an advisory opinion regarding the Crosslake City Council’s conduct under the Open Meeting Law (OML), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. The Council’s legal counsel provide comments on its behalf.

Boblett and Vogt submitted comments and news stories providing the following summary of facts:

The articles related to what both Nancy and I believe to be an Open Meeting Law violation can be found in the June 20 edition of Northland Press … and the June 14 edition of the Echo Journal….

There is also a video … of the May 24, 2023 Special Meeting to corroborate what happened, which boils down to the Crosslake City Council discussing several items not described in the posted notice … during their May 24, 2023 Special Meeting.

Crosslake Council Lectured Regarding Open Meeting Law, Workshop Comments
By Paul Boblett, Editor

… Nelson then listed the agenda items given to her by the council prior to the May 24 workshop that included parking, future land purchase, ethics, the side by side, fire chief salary, and the Boller property.

Topics not on the agenda, but discussed by council during that meeting include the city sign, affordable housing, police scheduling, short term rentals and police, the Loon Center, short term rental ordinance, the roundabout, and motions versus tabled items. …

Crosslake council receives harsh reprimands from staff
By Nancy Vogt, Editor

… A silent city council listened as City Clerk Char Nelson pointedly told them they’d recently violated the state’s Open Meeting Law.

… She cited the council’s May 24 workshop at city hall, where council members were to give her specific agenda items to discuss. She listed those items, then said the council addressed many other topics - which she also listed - that weren’t on the agenda. …

Boblett and Vogt also submitted a copy of the Council’s notice of its May 24 special meeting as well as a link to a video recording of the Council’s meeting.

Issue:

Discussion:

In a historical review of the OML, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) that:

The Open Meeting Law serves several purposes:

(1) “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning [public bodies’] decisions or to detect improper influences”; (2) “to assure the public’s right to be informed”; and (3) “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body].” St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Cmty. Schs., 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983)(citations omitted).

The Court added in Prior Lake American that “[b]ecause the Open Meeting Law was enacted for public benefit, we construe it in favor of public access.” (See also St. Cloud Newspapers, 332 N.W.2d at 6, stating “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 governed by § 471.705.”)

Although the Legislature did not define “meeting” in the OML, the Supreme Court defined meetings subject to the law as “those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body … at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body.” Moberg v. Independent School District No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510, 518 (Minn. 1983).

A public body must provide a special meeting notice for any meeting that is not on the regular schedule of meetings on file at its primary offices. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 requires a public body to post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the special meeting on the principal bulletin board or the door of the usual meeting room at least three days before the meeting. Subdivision 2 also permits individuals to request notice of special meetings “concerning particular subjects.”

The Commissioner has previously opined that for a special meeting notice to be effective, it must provide detail about the meeting’s purpose, which is the intended object or end to be attained in a special meeting. (See Advisory Opinions 07-014, 10-013, 15-002, and 22-009). Advisory Opinion 04-004 also clarifies that when a public body holds a special meeting, its “actions are limited to those topics included in the notice of the special meeting.”

In its response to the Temporary Commissioner, the Council wrote:

The May 24, 2023 notice listed the purpose of the meeting as a Council Workshop at which issues and topics would be discussed. The May 24, 2023 special meeting was open to the public and attended by members of the public. … The public was not limited in its access to the discussions at the May 24, 2023 meeting. …

The notice also included topics which are broad in nature. The complaint from Mr. Boblett and Ms. Vogt takes a rigid view of the way the topics outlined in a meeting notice may be discussed. Here, the City appropriately identified the purpose of the special meeting in its meeting notice as a City Council workshop and then outlined broad topics. That discussion of those topics at the meeting was, of course, broader than the one-word description of the topics as outlined in the meeting notice. That is the way some discussions work--a topic is identified, and the discussion expands with thoughts, opinions, and facts about that topic. The fact that the discussion expands does not mean that the original topic identified is not still the topic of discussion. The Council appropriately identified topics for discussion in its meeting notice and then engaged in broader discussion. That broader discussion, however, still related to the topics identified in the meeting notice. …

The discussion of the roundabout focused on discussions of Crow Wing County Board meeting discussions and a past City Council meeting. Additionally, the discussion of the roundabout related to parking and the removal of parking. … The discussion of the Loon Center was anecdotal and referenced the roundabout. The Loon Center also relates to parking as the location of the Center would result in a lack of parking. …

The Council’s brief reference to short term rentals and the short-term rental ordinance referenced a subsequent meeting on May 31, 2023, and a reference to a past symposium. The discussions are anecdotal in nature. While the phrase “affordable housing” was said in the discussion of short-term rentals, but that reference was limited and not a separate topic. …

The reference to the “city sign” was limited and a simple question relative to when the sign, which was previously approved by the City Council, was going to be finished. …

The reference to police scheduling was similarly limited in nature. Mayor Nevin informed the Council he was going to speak with the Police Chief about police officer scheduling as it related to police officer safety. …

The City submits there has not been a violation of the Open Meeting Law. The posted meeting notice identified the purpose of the special meeting as a City Council workshop and outlined broad topics. The discussion by the Council was within the scope of the requirements of the law. The Council did not “transact public business,” no motions were made, and no public business occurred. The public was present for this discussion and the public’s right to full access to the discussions at the May 24, 2023 City Council meeting was not limited.

The Temporary Commissioner respectfully disagrees.

Here, all council members met during a special meeting on May 24 to discuss official business, and the special meeting notice stated the purpose of the meeting was for “reviewing grade adjustment to Boller property on CSAH 66, and discussing the following topics: parking, future land purchases, ethics issues, side by side for police department, and fire chief salary.” During the special meeting, the Council’s discussions included these specific topics.

In its comments, the Council acknowledged that its members discussed additional issues during the May 24 special meeting, including motioned versus tabled items, a planned roundabout, the Loon Center, short term rentals and a short-term rental ordinance, a city sign, and police scheduling. The Council maintained that the discussions of these issues were within the scope of the topics described in the special meeting notice’s purpose or were limited in nature.

The Temporary Commissioner recognizes that when a public body identifies a broad topic it will address as a purpose of a special meeting, members’ discussions may reasonably expand and reach several sub-issues related to the topic. However, the meeting recording reveals Council discussion of additional issues that the public body failed to include in the special meeting notice’s purpose, and many of the issues did not directly relate to or mention the appropriately noticed topics.

The Temporary Commissioner is also not persuaded that the Council did not need to include the additional issues in the special meeting notice’s purpose because discussions about these issues were limited in nature. The OML requires the Council to describe all subjects that it would address in the special meeting notice’s purpose, regardless of the scope of the members’ discussion. The Council’s failure to properly notice these topics resulted in the public not knowing which subjects the Council would address during the special meeting, and the public could not reasonably determine whether to attend the special meeting to be informed about the councilmember’s views on these topics or have access to the Council’s decision-making process.

The Council’s special meeting notice did not describe several topics that members discussed during the May 24 meeting, and the Council was obligated to wait until its next regular meeting or schedule another special meeting to discuss these additional topics. Therefore, the Council did not provide appropriate notice of its special meeting on May 24, 2023, as required by the OML.

The Temporary Commissioner has a final note on the Council’s argument that it did not “transact public business,” suggesting additional discussion outside the scope of the notice was permitted under the OML. The Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that any gathering of a quorum or more of a public body’s members to “discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body” is a meeting subject to the OML’s requirements. This definition of a meeting does not require a public body to transact public business or make and vote on motions for the OML requirements to apply.

Opinion:

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

The Crosslake City Council did not provide appropriate notice of its special meeting on May 24, 2023, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2.

Signed:

Stacie Christensen
Temporary Commissioner

September 7, 2023