Loading...
6.c) Open Meeting Law Meeting Date: 04/12/2011 Agenda Item: / � (� City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: None—receive a briefing on the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Deadline/Timeline: N/A Background: • Recently there have been several questions concerning the Open Meeting Law from City Council and Planning Commission members. • City Attorney Dave Hebert will be available at the April 12 work session to answer any questions you may have. Recommendation: N/A Attachments/ • Excerpt of Chapter 7, Handbook for Minnesota Cities; "Open Materials provided: Meeting Law" • "Electronic Communications Between Council Members", League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (open meeting law) Page 1 of 1 04/07/11 . Q� � �� ��� _ / � � Ctur'rER 7 �i� "� /��G�`�' di��/C ���� B. Open meeting law 1. Purpose of the open meeting law Si.Cloud Newspapers,�n�.v. 'I'he open meeting law requires that meetings of public bodies must Dist. 742 Community Schools, enerall be O en to the ublic. It serves three vital OSeS: 332 N.W.2d 1(Minn.1983). g 3' p p p� • Prohibits actions from being taken at a secret meeting where the interested public cannot be fully informed of the decisions of public bodies or detect improper influences. • Ensures the public's right to be informed. • Gives the public an opportunity to present its views. 2. Groups governed by the open meeting law Minn.Stat.§13D.01,Suba.�; Under the Minnesota open meeting law,all city council meetings and Minn.Stat.§465.719,5uba.9. executive sessions must be open to the public,with only a few exceptions. SouthernMinnesota Municipa/ The open meeting law also requires meetings of any committee, PoxrrAgencyv Boyne,578 N.W2d 362(Minn.]998). SUbCOmrilltteC,board,deparnnent,or commission of a public body to be open to the public.The governing bodies of local public pension plans, housing and redevelopment authorities,economic development authorities, and city-created corporations are subject to the open meering law.The Minnesota Supreme Court has held,however,that the governing body of a municipal power agency,created under Minn. Stat. §§453.51-453.62,is not subject to the open meeting law because the Legislature granted these agencies authority to conduct their affairs as private corporations. 3. Gatherings governed by the open meeting law nrobe,g v.inaep.s�h.Dtsr.,vo. The open meeting law does not define the term"meeting."The Minnesota 2a�,s36 N.w2a s�o�M�. Supreme Court however has ruled that under the open meeting law, 1983);S�Cloud Newspapers, > > lnc.v.Dist.742 Commwiry meetings are gatherings where a quorum or more of the council or other s�hoors,s3z rr.w_za��ivtinn. governing body or of a committee,board,department or commission of the t9ss�. city council or other governing body are present,and at which the members intenrionally discuss,decide or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that body. As a result,the open meeting law does not generally apply in situations where less than a quorum of the council is involved.However,serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum that are held in order to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law may be found to violate the law, depending on the specific facts. HANDBooK FOR MINNESOTA CTrIES This chapter last revised 9/2010 7:9 � CHAPTER 7 a. Interviews Mankato Free Press v.City of T'he Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual North Mankato,563 N.W.2d councilmembers conducted separate interviews of candidates for a city 291 (Minn.Ct.App.1997). position. The district court had found that no"meeting"of the council had occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present during the interviews.The court of appeals sent the decision back to the district court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had conducted the interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. Mankato Free Press v.City of On remand,the district court found that the individual interviews were not North Mankato,No.C9-98-677 done to avoid open-meeting-law requirements.This decision was also (Minn.Ct App.Dec.15,1998) �w,Pub>>snea a��s�on>. appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process with job applicants should first consult their city attorney. b. Informational meetings St.Cloud Newspapers,tn�.v. 'I'he Minnesota Supreme Court has held that informational seminars about Dist. 742 Community Schools, school-board business,which the entire board attends,must be noticed and 332 N.W.2d 1(Mian.1983). open to the public. As a result,it appears that any scheduled gatherings of a quorum of a public body must have proper notice and be open,whether or not the public body takes or contemplates taking action at that gathering. This includes meetings where members receive information that may influence later decisions,but excludes chance or social gatherings.A quorum of inembers of a public body,however,cannot discuss or receive information on official business in any setting under the guise of a private social gathering. Thuma v.Kroschel,506 N.W.2d Under certain circumstances,it may be possible for a quorum of the council �a�ivt�.ct.n�.i993>. to attend a meeting of another public body without violating the open A.G.Op.63a-5(Aug.28,t996>. meeting law even though notice of a special council meeting is not provided.For example,when persons constituting a quorum of a city council attended a meeting of the city's planning commission,the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open meeting law—not because of the councilmembers' attendance at the meeting—but because the councilmembers conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting.Based on this decision,the attorney general has advised that mere attendance by additiona]councilmembers at a meeting of a council committee,held in compliance with the open meeting law,would not constitute a special council meeting requiring separate notice.T'he attorney general advised,however,that the additional councilmembers should not participate in committee discussions or deliberations absent a separate notice. Compare Sf.Cloud Newspapers, It is not clear whether the participation of a city council in a training Inc.v.Dist. 741 Commwity r0 11T1 S onsored b the Lea e of Minnesota Cities to develo V3I70US Schools,332 N.W.2d 1(Minn. p � p y � p 1983)with A.G.Op.63a-5 skills would be defined as a meeting under the open meeting law.The (Feb.5,�9�s). determining factor may be whether the program includes discussions of specific matters relating to an individual city's business. 7:]Q This chapter last revised 9/201 O LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CIIIES CHnPTER 7 c. Technology Moberg v.Indep.Sch.Dist.No. It 1S riOt Crit1I'21y C1e3T hOW tlle OpCri IrieCtlrig 13W SppI1CS t0 teC�ll101Ogy, 28�,3s6 tv.w.2a s�o(r�t�nn. such as e-mai] or tele hone calls.Althou the law does not s ecificall 1983);See LMC Infmmation p � p y M�o,Meetings of Ciry address the use of e-mail and other technology,it is possible that any form cou.,��rs, for moro int'o�ation. of communication between councilmembers or members of other public bodies could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. Electronic Communications ps a result,city councils and other public bodies should not use e-mail� Between Counci/members, telephone calls,and other technology to communicate back and forth with LMCIT risk management �,�o; ma,D o9-ozo other members of the public body when both of the following circumstances exist: • When a quorum of the council or public body will be contacted regarding the same matter. • When city businesses is being discussed. 4. Open meeting exceptions The open meering law is designed to favor public access. Therefore,the few exceprions that do exist are carefully limited to avoid abuse. Minn.Stat.§13D.05,s�ba. All closed meetings,except those closed as permitted by the attorney-client ��d�� privilege,must be electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law,the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting. Minn.Stat.§13D.01,suba.3; Before closing a meeting under any of the following exceptions,the public Minn.Stat.§13D.04,suba.s; bod must state on the record the ecific ounds that ermit the meetin ' See 71�e Free Press v Cvunty of }' � � � � p g B/ue Earth,67'7 N.W.2d 471 to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.The same notice (Minn.Ct.App.2004)(holding requirements that apply to open meetings also apply to closed meetings. that the county's statement that it was closing a meeting under the attomey-client privilege to discuss"pending litigation"did not satisfy the requirement of describing the subject to be discussed at the closed meeting). a. Labor negotiations Minn.Stat.§13D.03,suba.� The city council may,by majority vote in a public meering,decide to hold a �'�' closed meeting to consider its strategy for labor negotiations,including negotiation strategies or developments,or discussion of labor-negotiation proposals.The council must announce the time and place of the closed meeting at the public meeting. HANDBOOK FOR MAINESOTA C]TIES This chapter last revised 9/2010 7:11 CtU+PTER 7 Minn.Stat.§ 13D.03,subas.� After the closed meeting,a written record of all members of the city �d�'2' council and all other people present must be available to the public.The council must tape-record the proceedings at city expense, and preserve the tape for two years after signing the contract.The tape-recording must be available to the public after all labor contracts are signed for the current budget period. Minn.Stat.§13D.03,snba.3. If someone claims the council conducted public business other than labor negotiations at the closed meeting,a court must privately review the recording of the meeting. If the court finds the law was not violated,the action must be dismissed and the recording sealed and preserved. If the court determines a violation of the open meeting law may exist,the recording may be introduced at trial in its entirety,subject to any protective orders requested by either party and deemed appropriate by the court. b. Not-public data Minn.Stat.§]3D.05,suba.2. 'I'he general rule is that meetings cannot be closed to discuss data that are not public under the Minnesota Govemment Data Practices Act. A meeting must be closed,however,if certain not-public data is discussed. For example,any portion of a meeting must be closed if expressly required by law or if any of the following types of not-public data are discussed: • Data that would identify victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct,domestic abuse,or maltreatment of minors or wlnerable adults. • Active investigative data created by a law-enforcement agency, or internal-affairs data relating to allegations of law-enforcement- personnel misconduct. • Educational,health,medical,welfare,or mental-health data that are not public data. Minn.Stat§§144.291 -.298. • An individual's medical records governed by Minn. Stat. §§ 144.291 — 144.298. Minn.Stat.§13D.05,Suba. A closed meeting held to discuss any of the not-public data listed above ��d�• must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. Minn.Stat.§13D.05,5uba.� Other not-public data may be discussed at an open meeting without liability ro�'�`�' or penalty if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority,and it is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body.T'he public body,however, should make reasonable efforts to protect the data from disclosure.Data discussed at an open meering retains its original classification;however,a record of the meeting shall be public. 7:]2 'Ihis chapter last revised 9/2010 LEAGUE OF MINNESO'IA CITIES CHAPTER 7 c. Misconduct allegations or charges Minn.Stat.§ 13D.05,subas. A public body must close one or more meetings for"preliminary ��d�'2��. consideration"of allegations or charges of misconduct against an individual subject to its authority. If the members conclude discipline of any nature may be warranted,further meetings or hearings relating to the specific charges or allegations that are held after that conclusion is reached must be open.This type of ineeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.T'his type of ineering must be electronically recorded,and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. d. Performance evaluations Minn.Stat.§ 13D.05,suva5. A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an i�a�,s�e� ;see°Employee individual who is sub'ect to its authori The ublic bod must identi the Discipline and the Open � �' p y � Meeting Law,"Minnesola individual to be evaluated prior to closing the meeting.At its next open c�r�es, Sept.1997 for more meeting,the public body must summarize its conclusions regazding the information. evaluation.This type of ineeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. If this type of ineeting is closed,it must be electronically recorded,and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. e. Attorney-ciient privilege Minn.Stat.§13D.05,suba.s A meeting may be closed if permitted by the attorney-client privilege. ro�� Meetings between a governmental body and its attorney to discuss active or Brainerd Daily Dispatch,tz.c threatened litigation may only be closed,under the attorney-client privilege, v.Dehen,693 N.W.2d 435 (Minn.Ct.App.2005);Pnor when a balancing of the purposes served by the attomey-client privilege Lake American v.Mader,6a2 against those served by the open meeting law dictates the need for absolute N.W.2d 729(Minn.2002); Northwest Publications.�n�.v. confidentiality.T'he need for absolute confidentiality should relate to City ofSt.Paul,435 N.W.2d 64 litigarion strategy,and will usually arise only after a substantive decision (Minn.Ct.App.1989); on the underlying matter has already been made. This privilege may not be Minneapolis Star&Tribwe v. Housing and Redevelopment abused to suppress public observations of the decision-making process,and Authority in and for the City oj does not include situations where the council will be receiving general legal Minneapolis,251 N.W2d 620 opinions and advice on the strengths and wealrnesses of a proposed (Minn.1976). underlying action that may give rise to future litigation. f. Purchase or sale of real or personat property Minn.Stat.§ 13D.05,suba.s A public body may close a meeting to: (c). • Determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the public body. See Minn.Stat.§13.44,5uba.3. . Review confidential or protected nonpublic appraisal data. • Develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property. HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES This Chapter last revised 9/2010 7:13 CHnrTER 7 Minn.Stat.§13D.05,subd.3 gefore holding a closed meeting under this exception,the public body must �°�' identify on the record the particular real or personal property that is the subject of the closed meeting. The closed meeting must be tape-recorded. The recording must be preserved for eight years,and must be made available to the public after all real or personal property discussed at the meeting has been purchased or sold,or after the public body has abandoned the purchase or sale.The real or personal property that is being discussed must be identified on the tape.A list of inembers and all other persons present at the closed meeting must be made available to the public after the closed meeting.The actual purchase or sale of the real or personal property must be approved at an open meeting,and the purchase or sale price is public data. g. Security reports Minn.Stat.§13D.05,5uba.3 Meetings may be closed to receive security briefings and reports,to discuss �d�' issues related to security systems,to discuss emergency-response procedures,and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services,infrastructure,and faciliries,if disclosure of the information would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses. Financial issues related to security matters must be discussed and all related financial decisions must be made at an open meeting.Before closing a meeting under this exception,the public body must when describing the subject to be discussed,refer to the faciliries, systems,procedures,services or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting.The closed meeting must be tape-recorded,and the recording must be preserved for at least four years. 5. Penalties Minn.Stat.§13D.06,Snba.�. �y person who intentionally violates the open meeting law is subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty of up to$300 for a single Claude v.Collins,s�a tv.w.za occuirence.The public body may not pay the penalty.A court may take 836(Minn.1994). lllt0 3CC011rit S COUI1C1�ri10II7b61''S t1ITle BIld eXpe1'10llCe lri OffICe t0 deteTrillriB the amount of the civil penalty. Minn.Stat§13D.06,suba.2. �acrion to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person in any court of competent jurisdiction where the administrative office of the governing body is located. Minn.Sta�§ 13D.06,Suba.a; The court may also award reasonable costs,disbursements,and attorney See OpenMeetinglawDefense fees of u to$13 000 to an �n an action alle n a violation of the Coverage,LMCIT risk p � y p�' � g m�ag�,�c men,o,t'or open meeting law.The court may award costs and attorney fees to a infotmation about insutance defendant only if the action is found to be frivolous and without merit.A coverage for open-meeting-]aw ublic bod ma a an costs disbursements or attorne fees incurred b violations. P Y Y P Y Y > > Y Y or awarded against any of its members. '7:j 4 This chaptCf laSt revis¢d 9/2010 LEAGiJE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CHAPTER 7 Minn Stat.§13D.06,suba a. If a party prevails in a lawsuit under the open meeting law,an award of reasonable attomey fees is mandatory if the court deteimines that the public body was the subject of a prior written advisory opinion from the commissioner of the Department of Administration,and the court finds that the opinion is directly related to the lawsuit and that the public body did not act in conformity with the opinion.A court is required to give deference to the advisory opinion. Minn.Stat.§13D.06,Snba.a No monetary penalties or attomey fees may be awarded against a member �a);coan,�eir v.,yu..ay,rro. of a ublic bod unless the court finds there was intent to violate the o en C6-95-2436(Minn.Ct.App. p }' p Aug 6,1996)(unpublished meeting law. decision). Minn.Stat.§]3D.06,�ba.3 If a person is found to have intentionally violated the open meeting law in (a);aro�,�Cannon Falls �.�or more se azate actions involvin the same overnin bod that Township,723 N.W.2d 31 p g g g y� ��nn.cc.n�.zoo6>. person must forfeit any further right to serve on the governing body or in any other capacity with the public body for a period of time equa]to the term of of�ice the person was serving. Minn.Stat.§13D.06,Snba.s If a court finds a separate,thud violation that is unrelated to the previous �'�' violations,it must declare the position vacant and notify the appoinring authority or clerk of the governing body.As soon as practicable,the appointing authority or governing body shall fill the position as in the case of any other vacancy. M�.c�a�c.�c.vm,§s. Under the Minnesota Constitution,the Legislature may provide for the Jacobsen v.Nagel,2ss M�,. removal of public officials for malfeasance or nonfeasance.To constitute 300,�N.w.za s69�M�. malfeasance or nonfeasance, a public official's conduct must affect the ]959). performance of official duties and must relate to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public. Jacobsen v.Nagel,2ss M�,. °�Malfeasance"refers to evil conduct or an illegal deed."Nonfeasance"is 300,�rt.w.za s69(M�. described as ne lect or refusal wiihout sufficient excuse to erform what 1959);Claude v.Collins,51 S g � � p rr.w.2a s36�M��,.�99a�. is a public officer's legal duty to perform.More likely than not,a violation of the open meeting law would be in the nature of nonfeasance.Although good faith does not nullify an open-meeting-law violation,good faith is relevant in determining whether a violation amounts to nonfeasance. Sullivan v. Credit River Minnesota courts have generally refused to invalidate actions taken at an Township,299 Minn.170,21'7 lIri I'O CTl closed meetin . N.W.2d 502(Mi�.1974);In re p p y g D&A Truck Line,Inc.,524 N.W2d 1(Minn.Ct.App. 1994);Lac Qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed Dist.v. Wollschlager,No.C6-96-]023 (Minn.Ct.App.Nov.12,1996) (unpublished decision). HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES This chapter]ast revised 9R010 7:15 o � L,EAGUE oF CONNECTING & iNNOVATING MINNESOTA S1NCE 1913 CIT'IES RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS Electronic communication such as e-mail correspondence, instant messaging, social media, and blogs and microblogs, can be an unintentional conduit for city officials to violate the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Elected officials and city committee and board members should be aware of the following issues to avoid inadvertent violation of this law. The Open Meeting Law Under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. §13D, meetings of at least a quorum of the city council or one of its committees to discuss city business must be publicized and open to the public, subject to a few exceptions. A primary purpose of the law is to make sure information and deliberations about city business are available to the public. The law applies to any discussion about city business, not just voting or official actions, and to any gathering of a quorum of the council or committee. In most cities a quorum is three or more council or committee members. It's easy to imagine situations in which a quorum might gather—coffee at the local cafe,pre- or post-meeting discussions, a wedding reception or community celebration are all common places in which one or more council members might be present. Such a meeting would create an open meeting concern if the group discussed city business. Although not an obvious meeting, serial meetings also create an open meeting concern if city business was discussed by a quorum. To understand how a serial meeting occurs, imagine that council member A talks to council member B about a city issue, B talks to council member C about that issue, and C talks to A. Serial meetings also can occur through written correspondence, or telephone conference calls. Any of these scenarios could give rise to an open meeting law violation. Violating the law carries with it penalties including personal liability for up to $300 per occurrence and forfeiture of office for officials who intentionally violate the law three times. Reasonable costs and attorney fees also can be awarded if the court finds specific intent to violate the law. Electronic Communications and the Open Meeting Law The Minnesota Open Meeting Law has a number of tricky aspects, not the least of which results from increasing reliance on e-mail and other electronic communication between council or committee members. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situatlons. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145UNIVERSITYAVE.WEST PHONE:(�iSl)ZH�-1200 F�x:(65])281-1298 I N SU RAN C E TRU ST SL PAUl,MN 55103-Z094 TOLL FRFF�(HOO)925-��ZZ WFB:WWW.LMC.ORG Electronic communication makes a serial meeting easier by allowing council or committee members to forward messages from one person to the next,to respond to one another via blog comments, or to chat via social media vehicles such as Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. Imagine one council member e-mailing another to suggest the pros and cons of a particular city decision. The recipient forwards the e-mail to another council member, along with his or her own comments and interpretations. Even if the last council member to receive the e-mail doesn't reply to the originator or the council member who forwarded the message, the three members have still discussed city business outside a public forum. A similar situation could occur if council members respond to one another's blog, comment about city business on Facebook, or communicate via a micro-blog such as Twitter. A violation could be found where serial electronic communications are used to reach a decision. Many cities are moving toward electronic meeting packets for councils and committees, often sent via e-mail attachments. This sort of one-way distribution of information is fine in terms of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, remembering that any materials relating to the agenda items of a meeting distributed to members must also be made available to the public as well. City officials should start to get concerned,though, when one or more council members use the "reply to all" feature in e-mail to respond to the content of the meeting materials, or otherwise begin a discussion by e-mail about the packet, or discuss agenda items on social media sites. This can begin to look a lot Learn More like non-public discussion of city business. Read more about risks SU�@St1011S related to electronic One suggestion is that council members never communicate to communications between one-another using electronic means,but instead treat electronic �ouncil members,and social media such as e-mail only as a way to receive information from media and cities,from the the city clerk or administrator. League: Open Meetinp Law Defense If a council member has information to share electronically Coveraqe with the rest of the group, he or she might send it to the clerk Developinq a Computer and ask for it to be distributed from the clerk to everyone else Use Policv (electronically or in paper form). Social Media and Cities: Using the clerk as the clearinghouse for information Questions and distribution is probably a safer alternative than having council Considerations members communicate directly, although it doesn't completely These items and more are at eliminate concerns about violating the open meeting law. Even in the Resource Library of this clearinghouse concept could provide opportunity for three http://www.lmc.or� or more council members to exchange opinions about city business, so it's important that the city clerk be aware of and watch for possible issues. Finally, this model would still present problems in Standard Plan cities, where the clerk is also a member of the council. 2 If council members are engaged in direct electronic discussions, it's probably best to limit it to only two members. A "no forwarding and no copying" rule might be a good way to make sure the Minnesota Open Meeting Law isn't unintentionally violated through electronic conversation. Finally, be careful when council members participate in a listserv, chatroom, forums and social media. Because these groups may include a quorum of your council, one council member's comments will be viewed by other members. If the topic has to do with city business and other council members reply, it could prove problematic under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Again,the city might consider a"no reply" sort of rule when it comes to these resources, or perhaps have council members send ideas for postings or responses to the city clerk or administrator to manage. Remember, too, that official city committees are subject to the same open meeting requirements and should be similarly educated about correct electronic use. Regardless of precautions, there may be times when council members find themselves accused of violating the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, perhaps having unintentionally engaged in one of these sorts of conversations. One way to diffuse some concern is to immediately release copies of all electronic correspondence to anyone who wants to see it. While this doesn't negate the possible violation, it shows good faith and lack of specific intent to violate the law. Draft guidelines for electronic communications between council members Cities might decide to develop policies clarifying appropriate or preferred e-mail and electronic communications use by and between council members. Even if a city doesn't formally adopt a policy, the guidelines here might be helpful for any elected official or city board member to follow. The purpose of these draft guidelines is to suggest how members of city councils and other city committees might communicate via email and electronic means. A city should review these draft guidelines along with its normal operating procedures, consult with the city attorney and determine the best course of action. Tom Grundhoefer/Greg Van Wormer 09/09 3 Guidelines for Electronic Communications between Council Members in the City of These guidelines apply to all members of the city council and all members of council and city committees, commissions, sub-committees, etc. in the City of For purposes of these guidelines, reference to council members includes members of all other city committees and groups subject to the Open Meeting Law. Reference to the council shall include all such groups and meetings. For purposes of these guidelines, "electronic means"means email, instant messaging, chatrooms, social media, microblogs and related electronic conversation. For purposes of these guidelines, "city clerk" means the city clerk, manager, administrator or his/ her designee. These guidelines apply regardless of whether the council member is using a city-provided email address and account, his/her personal email address or account, or one provided by his/her employer; and to all social media accounts to which a council member posts. Meeting materials Electronic communication of ineeting materials should generally be conducted in a one-way communication from the city clerk to the council. • Council members may receive agenda materials,background information, and other meeting materials via email attachment or other electronic means(such as file sharing) from the city clerk. • If a council member has questions or comments about materials received, s/he should inquire via electronic means directly back to the city clerk. A council member should not copy other committee members on his/her inquiry. • If the clarification is one of value to other council members,the city clerk may send follow-up materials or information to the council. Materials relating to agenda items of a meeting must also be made available to the public at the meeting. Communication during council meetings • Council members should not communicate with one another via electronic means during a public meeting. • Council members should not communicate with any member of city staff via electronic means during a public meeting. • Council members should not communicate with the public via electronic means during a public meeting. 4 Communication outside of council meetings • Council members should generally act with caution when using electronic means to communicate with one another,being mindful of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. • If a council member wishes to share information with other members, s/he should do so through the city clerk. The council member may request the city clerk distribute materials to others. The communication should not invite response to or discussion between any council members, including replies to the person making the distribution request. This should be considered a method for providing one-way information to other members of the council. Again remember that materials relating to agenda items for city business must be provided to the public at the meeting. • If a council member wishes to address only one other member through electronic means on any topic related to city business, s/he can do so directly, but should be mindful of the following: o One-to-one communication is ideal. o The recipient of an electronic message or inquiry should reply only to the sender, should not copy others on the reply and should not forward the original communication to other council members. o The sender of an electronic message should not forward or copy the recipient's reply to any other council member. o Neither the recipient or sender should publish such correspondence on any blogs or other social media site unless it is part of an official communication of the whole of the Council, and part of the city-managed electronic communication strategy. • If a council member receives an electronic communication from any source related to city business and distributed to multiple council members (i.e. an email sent to the entire council from a member of the public; or an email sent to three council members from a local business), s/he should reply only to the sender. The reply should not be copied to all on the original distribution or forwarded to any other council member. • If a council member receives listserv distributions, electronic newsletters, or participates in electronic discussion forums, chatrooms, or on Facebook, Twitter or blogs where other council members are also likely to participate,the council member should not reply to any distribution or comment so that the reply is copied to the entire distribution group, or any part of the group that might include other council members. The council member should instead respond only to the sender of any message or inquiry. Classification and Retention of electronic communications • Regardless of whether electronic communication by a council member is taking place on a city-provided computer, home computer or other computer system, classification of information as public, private or other is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minn. Stat. Chapt. 13) and should be treated accordingly. • Council members should retain electronic communications in keeping with city policies and procedures, whether such communication takes place on a city-provided computer, home computer or other computer system. 5