FYi Newsletter - January 2021

FYi Newsletter – From the Data Practices Office at the Department of Administration


JANUARY 2021  

Upcoming Data Practices Trainings

Open Meeting Law Remote Workshop on January 13

The Data Practices Office will be hosting an Open Meeting Law remote workshop on January 13 that focuses on the requirements public bodies must meet when conducting public business, including:

  • An overview of Minnesota's Open Meeting Law requirements;
  • Discussion of common Open Meeting Law questions and issues; and
  • Practical advice on implementing the law.

This workshop will be held remotely on WebEx, and it does not require in-person attendance. The cost to attend this workshop is $125.

More information about this workshop is available on our website.

Data Practices Potpourri Webinar

The Data Practices Office will be offering a free lunchtime Data Practices Potpourri webinar on Tuesday, January 26 at noon. This installment will include a discussion of the top questions our office received throughout January as well as a question and answer session.

More information about this free webinar is available on our website, and you can view recordings of past webinars on our YouTube Channel.


Data Practices Office Updates

Data Practices Office Offering Remote Workshops

The Data Practices Office is scheduling online workshops that allow our office to deliver trainings remotely. The workshops are multi-hour, in-depth trainings, and participants will be required to pay a registration fee. These workshops are held entirely online and do not require any in-person attendance.

We will post the remote trainings on our Workshops and Trainings page on the Data Practices Office website when they are scheduled. Our office will also provide updates through our Data Practices Office email alerts when registration is available for a new workshop.

Our office is not holding any in-person workshops or trainings as a precautionary safety measure related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, you can find several video resources and past webinars about data practices and open meeting topics on the Data Practices Office YouTube channel.


Advisory Opinion Updates

Open Meeting Law

In Advisory Opinion 21-001, a member of the public asked whether the conduct of the West Lakeland Township Board of Supervisors complied with the Open Meeting Law. The member of the public identified four separate issues related to requirements for maintaining a journal of votes, special meeting notices, members' materials, and discussions at special meetings. The Commissioner opined that the Board was not complying with the law because it did not keep a separate journal of votes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subd. 4. The Commissioner opined that the Board did not comply with the law when it changed the location of a meeting without providing the three-day notice required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04. The Commissioner could not determine whether the Board complied with the requirements to provide one copy of the members' materials at a meeting because there was a factual dispute. Finally, the Commissioner could not determine whether the Board had a discussion outside of the noticed purpose of a special meeting because there was a factual dispute as to whether the item the Board discussed was related to the stated purpose.


Case Law Updates

Lanoux, et al., v. Huber, et al., A20-0266 (Minn. App., Oct. 19, 2020) (unpublished)

A group of former city council members brought an Open Meeting Law action against the current mayor, city council members, planning commission members, and the city administrator, alleging the current officials had held special meetings to discuss business without properly noticing the public and had improperly used consent agendas to approve business items at meetings.

A district court granted summary judgment in favor of the current officials, finding that there was no evidence of an OML violation nor had the former officials identified any law the current council violated when using a consent agenda. The district court then awarded attorney fees to the current officials after finding "that [appellants'] claims, history, and discovery practices demonstrate that an award of attorney fees and costs is appropriate."

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court's decision to award attorney fees to the current officials. The appellate court noted that the OML permits a court to award attorney fees if it determines an action is "frivolous and without merit." However, the Court of Appeals found that the district court had not made sufficient factual findings for review that would permit a determination of whether an attorney fees award was an abuse of the lower court's discretion. The Court of Appeals directed the lower court to review the entire record that preceded the summary-judgment hearing to make findings as to whether the former officials' claims were frivolous or without merit.