Team-building exercises and the Open Meeting Law
In Advisory Opinion
16-006, a school board asked whether it might meet in private facilitated
discussions designed to, among other goals, “improve trust, relationships,
communications, and collaborative problem solving” among board members, without
violating the Open Meeting Law.
The Commissioner determined that as long as the board
avoided even incidental discussions specific to matters within its official
duties or powers, a quorum of the board could participate in those sessions
because the board was not “gathering to discuss, decide, or receive information
as a group relating to ‘the official business’ of the governing body.”
In late 2014, Appellant, through counsel, directed data
requests to a records manager at the Anoka Police Department and an attorney at
a law firm which regularly contracted with the City of Anoka for legal
services. Neither the staff that received the request or the attorney were
identified on the City’s data practices policy as the Responsible Authority or
data practices designee. Appellant’s request(s) for data went unanswered until
June 2015, when Appellant requested the data from the designee identified in
the City’s policy, after which Appellant received the data in a timely manner.
Appellant sued the City of Anoka, Anoka County, the City of
Coon Rapids, the attorney, and the attorney’s law firm for violation of the
Data Practices Act for failing to provide data or provide a reason for its
denial, as required in §§ 13.03-04. After Appellant voluntarily dismissed
several parties from his Complaint, the district court dismissed the
complaint(s) against the attorney and law firm and granted summary judgment in
favor of the City of Anoka.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling and held
that under § 13.03, subd. 3 and § 13.04, subd. 3, a person seeking data from a
government entity must make his/her request to the government entity’s
responsible authority or applicable designee before claiming a violation of the
Act for failure to provide data or failure to provide a reason for denial. The
court also rejected appellant’s argument that the City violated the Act based
on common-law apparent authority principles because there was no evidence that
the City intended for other staffers or private contractors to act as
Responsible Authority or designee. As the court stated: “The [Act] has its
complexities, but nothing in sections 13.03 and 13.04 is ambiguous concerning
to whom one must make a data request. They plainly require that data requests
be made to a responsible authority or designee.”
Registration information will be available on IPAD’s website
in the coming weeks.
Law Enforcement Data Workshop – April
26, 2017 (9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.)
This full-day workshop provides an overview of law enforcement
data in Minnesota. Because this is an in-depth, specialized workshop, IPAD
recommends that attendees without prior data practices experience first attend
IPAD’s Intro workshop.
Personnel Data Workshop – May 24, 2017
(9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.)
This full-day workshop provides an
overview of personnel data in Minnesota. Because this is an in-depth, specialized
workshop, IPAD recommends that attendees without prior data practices
experience first attend IPAD’s Intro workshop.
|
|