Newspaper Clipping - Newspaper Clipping Scan - Open-meeting law applies only with quorum, court rules - 7/15/1983MeetingsContinued from page 1A
report April 26, 1982, and the next
day, the board publicly read the con-
clusions and voted to reopen Arm-
strong High School in Plymouth and
Cooper High School in New Hope.
The protesting parents argued that
board members' private discussions
violated the open -meeting law; that
the manner in which the panel and
its recommendations had been used
violated notice and hearing require-
ments of the state's Schoolhouse
Closing Statute, and that because of
the violations, the board's decision
should be invalidated.
The trial court agreed with the par-
ents' allegations about the open -
meeting law — it found 14 violations
and fined each of the six people then
on the board $100 — but it refused to
invalidate the decision.
Moberg and Robb appealed, asking
not only that the decision be invali-
dated but that the board members be
fined differently and removed from
office. The open -meeting issue was
addressed at its extremes in two pre-
vious cases, the court said; in the
first case, the court decided that
"any 'scheduled' gathering of all
members of a governing body must
be noticed and open." In the second
case, the court held that "a discus-
sion between two members of a gov-
erning body about a matter pending
before the body is not a per se viola-
tion of the statute."
After those two decisions, Chief Jus-
tice Douglas Amdahl wrote in to-
day's decision, the court still had to
"determine whether the law applies
to discussions between any specific
proportion of a public body less than
the whole, but greater than two
members." District 281 board mem-
bers had talked a number of times in
attempts to persuade one another to
change their votes and break the
deadlock, and a board member had
written to three others to express
vie,vs she said she'd been reluctant
to explain fully in public.
The court said the law was "enacted
to prevent public bodies from dis-
solving into executive session on im-
portant but controversial matters,
and to ensure that the public has an
opportunity both to detect improper
influences and to present its views.
"Proceedings of the respective legis-
lative committees (that acted on the
law) also indicate that the law was
not intended to apply to informal
discussions among a few colleagues,
or to groups too small to effect a
decision on public business," the
court said.
It added: "There is a point beyond
which open discussion requirements
may serve to immobilize a body and
prevent the resolution of important
problems." In the Robbinsdale case,
"it appears that the private discus-
sions were conducted for the pur-
pose of breaking the deadlock rather
than for achieving some secret in-
tended result."
The court said that, "in formulating
a definition of 'meetings' that must
be open, the public's right to know
must be balanced against the pub-
lic's right to the effective and effi-
cient administration of public bodies.
"It is the duty of public officials to
persuade each other in an attempt to
resolve issues, and it makes little
sense to suggest that they may listen
to a group of nonmembers on impor-
tant matters but not to their col-
leagues, who may be more expert on
the subject than any other persons."
Such discussion becomes improper
"when designed to avoid public dis-
cussion altogether, to forge a major-
ity in advance of public hearings on
an issue or to hide improper influ-
ences such as the personal or pecuni-
ary interest of a public official," the
court said.
In response to the claim that serial
conversations could be used to mar-
shal votes before an issue is raised at
a public hearing, the court said: "It
does not follow that two- or three-
person conversations should be pro-
hibited, however, because officials
who are determined to act furtively
will hold such discussions anyway, or
might simply use an outsider as an
intermediary. There is a way to ille-
gally circumvent any rule that the
court might fashion, and therefore it
is important that the rule not be so
restrictive as to lose the public bene-
fit of personal discussion between
public officials while gaining little
assurance of openness."
In the Robbinsdale case, the court
found no violations; only one identi-
fied by the trial court involved a
quorum. It was a gathering in the
superintendent's office before a
board meeting at which the superin-
tendent distributed responses to
questions and answers by the fact-
finding panel and asked board mem-
bers for their reactions individually;
there was no discussion between
members.
Own -meeting law'
applies only with
quorum, court rules
By Neal Gendler Ow'PLs
Staff Writer 1--(15-33
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled
in a decision to be released today
that the state's open -meeting law
does not prevent members of public
boards from meeting in private if
there is not a quorum.
The court decided the law applies
only to "meetings of at least a quo-
rum of a governing body or its subdi-
visions at which members receive
information regarding, or discuss or
decide as a group," any official busi-
ness. The court reversed Hennepin
County District Judge Robert Schie-
felbein's finding that school board
members violated the law by holding
private discussions before voting to
close Robbinsdale High School.
The Robbinsdale District 281 School
Board was sued last year by Rob-
Ansdale parents Keith Moberg and
■ The Minnesota Supreme Court
says that the City of St. Paul
doesn't have to negotiate with the
fire fighters' union to establish a
training program for captains, but
must negotiate with the union on
some aspects of the program.
Details on Page 5A.
Joy Robb, who claimed that board
members violated the open -meeting
law during a prolonged deadlock
over which of District 281's three
high schools should be closed be-
cause of decreasing enrollment.
During the deadlock, the board vot-
ed to close all three high schools and
appointed a panel of outsiders to
decide which two would meet the
long-term needs of the district best.
The panel gave board members its
Meetings continued on page 5A