|
The Data Practices Office is creating new paid workshops focusing on law enforcement data practices issues and redaction, and we want your help to develop realistic examples and scenarios to use as part of this training.
If you work for a law enforcement agency and are interested in helping our office, please email us at info.dpo@state.mn.us.
Open Meeting Law Webinar on January 26
The Data Practices Office will be hosting a free Open Meeting Law webinar on Thursday, January 26 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
This webinar will provide a refresher on the the requirements of the OML as well as a discussion about the top questions we've received about open meetings. Data Practices Office staff will also answer the questions you have during a live Q&A.
Registration for this free webinar is available on our website, and you can view recordings of past webinars on our YouTube Channel.
Schedule of Upcoming Workshops
Wondering when we'll be hosting more workshops? We've got you covered!
We've posted a tentative schedule of all our upcoming workshops through June 2023 on the Data Practices Office website.
Attorney Data
In Advisory Opinion 22-007, a member of the public asked whether a county attorney’s office responded appropriately to a request for data, including correspondence and non-work product materials. The county indicated that any responsive data were governed by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.393, and thus were exempt from the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The Commissioner opined that if the county attorney’s office maintained responsive government data that were not maintained by attorneys acting in their professional capacity for the entity and governed by provisions specific to attorney work pursuant to section 13.393, then it did not respond appropriately to the member of the public’s data request.
Open Meeting Law
In Advisory Opinion 22-008, a member of the public asked whether a township board of supervisors violated the Open Meeting Law when it closed a meeting to review applications to appoint a new board supervisor. The board maintained that its meeting was properly closed under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a) because it was reviewing applicant data of individuals who voluntarily placed themselves under the Board’s authority. The Commissioner opined that section 13D.05, subd. 3(a) permits public bodies to close meetings only to “evaluate the performance of individuals” rather than to discuss general personnel issues, such as hiring or appointment decisions. Therefore, the board closing its meeting to review applications violated the Open Meeting Law.
Open Meeting Law
In Advisory Opinion 22-009, a member of the public asked whether the school board of a charter school violated the Open Meeting Law when it did not record the closed portion of a meeting and whether the board provided appropriate notice of the purpose of a special meeting. The board acknowledged it failed to record the closed meeting at issue as required by the OML and described steps it would take to avoid similar situations in the future. The Commissioner opined that the board did not provide appropriate notice of the special meeting's purpose because the notice indicated the board would hold s closed session "for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the board's authority." However, the board violated the OML when it moved beyond the stated purpose of "preliminary consideration" when it also voted to impose discipline on the individual.
|
