or 
lines to the right of the URL bar at the top of your browser
Senate Committee Considers Three Open Meeting Law Bills
The bills would change requirements around remote participation, public comment periods, and meetings closed for attorney-client privilege.
The Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Committee heard three bills on March 19 that would amend the state’s Open Meeting Law. Two of the three bills were held over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill. The third bill was approved and referred to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee where it was heard on March 22.
Proposed changes to remote participation
SF 4461 (Sen. Alice Mann, DFL-Edina) would eliminate a requirement in the current Open Meeting Law which mandates that a member who is participating remotely in a meeting be in a location that is open and accessible to the public. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill.
Proposed changes to the public comment period
SF 4297 (Sen. Nicole Mitchell, DFL-Woodbury), as amended (pdf), would require that when a public body allows monitoring of a meeting from a remote location, the entire meeting must be available for remote monitoring.
Testimony on the bill focused on public comment periods. While these are optional for cities to hold, representatives from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information (MNCOGI) asserted that local government bodies are cutting the public comment period of meetings from the broadcast.
Bloomington Mayor Tim Busse testified about his city’s efforts to design City Council listening sessions separate from the regular meeting, which has improved resident engagement. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill.
Proposed changes to Open Meeting Law penalties and attorney-client closed meetings
SF 4132 (Sen. Nicole Mitchell, DFL-Woodbury) would change the penalties for violation of the Open Meeting Law and the requirements for meetings closed for attorney-client privilege.
The bill would increase the monetary penalty for violations of the Open Meeting Law, remove the cap on attorney fees for a prevailing plaintiff, and change the standard for forfeiture of office.
Current law provides that members of a public body forfeit their office if they have been found to have intentionally violated the Open Meeting Law in three legal actions, with the third violation being unrelated to prior violations. The bill would change that standard so that three or more violations would trigger forfeiture of office, even if the third violation is related to the previous two offenses and were combined in one legal action.
SF 4132 would also mandate that a meeting closed for attorney-client privilege be recorded. The public body would be required to identify on the record the legal issue or case to be discussed before closing the meeting, and a person would be able to bring a cause of action in court claiming that the public body closed a meeting improperly or discussed public business not permitted by attorney-client privilege. A judge could review the recording of the meeting on camera.
The bill was approved and re-referred to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, where it was discussed on March 22 and held over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill.
The House companion bills, HF 4554 (Rep. Bianca Virnig, DFL-Eagan), HF 4120 (Rep. Erin Koegel, DFL- Spring Lake Park), and HF 4136 (Rep. Nathan Coulter, DFL-Bloomington) have not yet been scheduled for a hearing.