HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-10 PACKET 08.B.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING ITEM #
DATE 8/10/2011 0.
PREPARED BY City Clerk Caron Stransky
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
Consider passing an ordinance relating to procedures for calling Special Meetings of the City
Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Pass the ordinance.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from Caron Stransky. Memo from Corrine Heine.
❑ RESOLUTION:
® ORDINANCE: Draft.
❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION:
❑ OTHER:
ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS
1
City Administrator Date
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER
DocumenQ
CITY OF
MINNESOTA
COTTAGE GROVE
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Member
From: Caron Stransky, City Clerk
Date: August 3, 2011
Subject: Special Meetings
At the June 24, 2011 Special Meeting, the City staff received feedback that we did not comply
with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 412.191, subdivision 2, regarding calling special
meetings, which states as follows:
"Subd. 2. Meetings.
Regular meetings of the council shall be held at such times and places as may be
prescribed by its rules. Special meetings may be called by the mayor or by any two members
of a five- member council or three members of a seven - member council by writing filed with the
clerk who shall then mail a notice to all of the members of the time and place of meeting at
least one day before the meeting. The mayor or, in the mayor's absence, the acting mayor,
shall preside. All meetings of the council shall be open to the public. The Council may preserve
order at its meetings, compel the attendance of members, and punish nonattendance and shall
be the judge of the election and qualification of its members. The Council shall have power to
regulate its own procedure."
Cottage Grove City Code Title 1 -5 -3, subsection B pertaining to Special Meetings reads:
"Special meetings of the City Council may be called by the mayor or two (2) members
of the City Council in writing and filed with the city clerk who shall then mail a notice to all
members of the time, place, and agenda at least three (3) days before the meeting. The city
clerk shall also post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the
bulletin board at city hall. The notice shall also be mailed or otherwise delivered to each person
who has filed a written request for notice of special meetings with the City. The notice shall be
posted and mailed or delivered at least three (3) days before the date of the meeting."
In both cases, the language is not mandatory and the City is not required to strictly comply with
the statute or City Code and may establish differing policy. Additionally, the City Attorney
presented an Attorney General's opinion (attached), which indicates that the language is
directory, not mandatory, and the statute "merely sets forth a recommended procedure."
Our practice has been for the City Administrator with consent of the Mayor to provide for the
scheduling of a special meeting and then the City Administrator would make contact with all
members of the Council to determine their availability for a special meeting. After contact is
made, the special meeting is formally scheduled, the City Clerk posts the notice on the public
bulletin board, and the City Administrator's office prepares and delivers the agenda packet.
From time to time, the City Council will schedule special meetings during a regular meeting.
For example, at the first meeting of the year (January 5, 2011), the City Council approved the
2011 City Council schedule by amending the regular meeting schedule cancelling the August 3
and August 17 meetings and scheduling a regular meeting for August 10. The City Council
also scheduled special meetings to discuss the budget for July 27, August 10, and August 17
as needed.
Proposed Ordinance
The City Attorney has drafted the attached Ordinance amending Title 1 -5 -3 of the Cottage
Grove City Code relating to procedures for calling special meetings of the City Council. The
proposed ordinance would allow the mayor to direct the city administrator or city clerk in writing
(email) to schedule a special meeting or the City Administrator, with the consent of the Mayor
or two council members, may schedule a special meeting. It would also require the City Clerk
to provide notice of all special meeting in compliance with applicable law. This ordinance
reaffirms the practice we have been following in the past.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council pass the proposed Ordinance as presented.
Attachments: Memo from City Attorney
Attorney General's Office Opinion
Proposed Ordinance
re7q. Rrk . o
AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
SECTION 1 -5 -3 OF THE COTTAGE GROVE CITY CODE; RELATING TO
PROCEDURES FOR CALLING SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota,
does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Title 1, Chapter 5, Section 3, subsection B is amended to read as
follows:
B. Special Meetings: Special meetings of the city council may be called by any
of the following means:
1. the mayor may direct the city administrator or city clerk in writing to
sch edule •- . or
2 by any • (2) members of • d irect
administrator o
meeting. shall then mail a no to all members ef the time-, plaGe and agen
::
sch edule written date, time, plaGe, arld purpose of the meeting an
the bulletin board at Gity hall. The notice shall alse be mailed or
notice of sp cial vvith the G The notice shall be posted and
mailed r del a l east three (3) days before the date--of�
meeting. to schedule a special meeting; c
3. the citV administrator, with the consent of the mayor or two council
members, mav p meeting
The city clerk shall provide notice of all special meetings in compliance with
applicable law.
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and publication according to law.
Passed this day of August, 2011.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk
389744vl CAH CTl55 -I
Corrine A. Heine
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
0
CHARTERED
(612) 337 -9217 telephone
(612) 337-93 10 fax
http://"
eheinea)kennedy- graven.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council Members, City of Cottage Grove
FROM: Corrine A. Heine, City Attorney
DATE: June 30, 2011
RE: Procedural Issues Regarding Special Meetings of the Council
This is a formal memorandum that addresses the procedural questions raised by a resident, Dale
Andrews, who lives at 8430 Keats Avenue South in Cottage Grove, concerning the special
council meeting that occurred on June 24, 2011. During that meeting, Ms. Andrews claimed
that the City Council had not complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes section
412.191, subdivision 2 or the notice requirements under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Each of those issues is discussed separately below.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191.
Chapter 412 of Minnesota Statutes is a compilation of basic laws that govern the authority of
statutory cities in Minnesota, i.e., cities that have not adopted a home rule charter. The City of
Cottage Grove is a statutory city and is governed by chapter 412. Section 412.191, subdivision 2
provides as follows:
Subd. 2.Meetings.
Regular meetings of the council shall be held at such times and places
as may be prescribed by its rules. Special meetings may be called by the
mayor or by any iivo members of a five- member council or three members of
a seven - member council by writing filed with the clerk who shall then mail a
notice to all the members of the time and place of meeting at least one day
before the meeting. The mayor or, in the mayor's absence, the acting mayor,
shall preside. All meetings of the council shall be open to the public. The
council may preserve order at its meetings, compel the attendance of
members, and punish nonattendance and shall be the judge of the election
,88s22vl CAHC 155-1
and qualification of its members. The council shall have power to regulate
its own procedure.
Minn. Star. § 41.2.1.91, subd. 2 (2010)(italies denote emphasis added; bold denotes special
emphasis added). Section 1 -5 -3 B of the City Code repeats the provisions of section 412.191
with respect to the procedure for calling a special meeting.
The language in the statute is not mandatory, and the City is not required to strictly comply with
the statute. The Minnesota Attorney General has opined that the language in section 412.191
( "meetings may be called by the mayor ") is directory, not mandatory, and the statute "merely
sets forth a recommended procedure." Op. A.G. 471 -E (Jan. 22, 1957)(see Attachment 1). hi
that opinion, the Attorney General determined that failure to comply with the statute does NOT
invalidate the actions taken at the meeting. The council has the power not only to call meetings,
but it has the implied power to waive the procedures for scheduling meetings. The Attorney
General has also opined that, even when no notice of a special meeting is given under section
412.191, if all council members are present and participate, it is not material that the notice
requirements were not followed.' Op. A.G. 471 -E (Apr. 8, 1946)(see Attachment 2).
In this instance, the city administrator contacted all members of the council to determine their
availability for a special meeting. After all five members had responded, the administrator sent a
ineeting invitation to the council members, and all five accepted the meeting invitation. By
responding to those inquiries, the mayor and council effectively filed a written notice with the
city of a special meeting. In addition, the date and time of the special meeting was announced
at two successive meetings of the city council, on June 1 by Council Member Olsen, and on June
15 by Mayor Bailey, and no member of the council or the public objected to the manner in which
the meeting was being scheduled.
As an aside, from my own experience in representing cities for more than 25 years, I know that it
is common in many cities for the clerk or administrator to facilitate the process for scheduling
meetings, in much the same manner as was done in this instance. The City Council has the right
to waive strict compliance with the scheduling process in section 412.191.
Based on the cited attorney general opinions and on the facts recited above, the Council did not
violate the law in proceeding with the meeting on June 24, 2011, and the actions taken at the
meeting are not invalid.
Minnesota Statutes Section 13D.04
All cities are required to comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.04, subdivision 2 sets forth the notice requirements for special
r Please note that the Attorney General opinions were NOT interpreting the notice requirements under the Minnesota
Open Meeting Law. Chapter 412 and chapter 13D (the Open Meeting Law) are separate and independent statutes.
The Attorney General opinions cited here do not apply to the Open Meeting Law notice requirements. Although the
provisions of section 412.191, subdivision 2 may be waived, the same analysis does not apply to Open Meeting Law
notice requirements.
388522v1 CAH CT155 -1 2
meetings. A full copy of that subdivision is attached to this memo for reference (see Attachment
3), but the applicable notice provisions can be summarized as follows:
1. The City must post written notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the
meeting on the City's principal bulletin board, at least three days before the
meeting date. Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 2 (a)
2. The City must EITHER:
a. mail "or otherwise deliver" a written notice of the date, time, place and
purpose of the meeting to every person who has filed a written request for
notice of special meetings with the City; which must be done at least three
days before the meeting date, Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 2(b);
OR
b. as an alternative to mailing or delivering to such persons, publish the notice
once in the official newspaper, at least three days before the meeting, Minn.
Stat. § I3D.04, subd. 2(c).
The City satisfied the requirement under section 13D.04, subdivision 2(a) by posting the notice
of the date, time, and place of the special meeting on the City bulletin board on June 2 and again
on June 20. The June 2 posting identified the purpose as including the authorization of bids on
the Public Safety /City Hall project. The June 20 posting was the formatted meeting agenda and
included notice of additional agenda items (consideration of resolution re CTIB and
consideration of an ordinance re a veterans' memorial). An amended agenda was posted on June
21, which included more specific verbiage regarding the veterans' memorial ordinance. All of
the notices were posted at least three days in advance of the June 24 special meeting. This is the
only manner the statute requires for notifying the general public of meetings.
In speaking with three residents after the meeting, it was apparent that the residents were
confused about the requirements for providing notice, in addition to the posted bulletin board
notice. There is no requirement in the Open Meeting Law that special meeting notices must be
published. A city may choose to publish notice of a special meeting under subdivision 2(c), but
publication under that provision is an alternative or substitute for mailed notice under
subdivision 2(b). The City did not publish notice of the June 24 meeting in the newspaper, and it
was not required to do so.
The most confusion arose concerning the requirement that notice must be mailed or otherwise
delivered to every person who has filed a written request with the City to receive notice of
special meetings. Ms. Andrews asserted that she was entitled to a mailed or otherwise delivered
notice under section I1D.04, subd. 2(b) and that she had not received such a notice. Ms.
Andrews acknowledged that she had received an email sent June 2, 2011 to persons who,
through subscription on the City website, had requested updates on the Public Safety Building
project. She asserted, however, that the email notice did not satisfy the requirements of the
statute for two reasons: (1) the notice was only sent to those persons who had subscribed to the
388522vl CAH CT155 -1 3
public safety /city hall updates and was not sent to anyone on a general list; and (2) the notice was
not in a particular "template" for a meeting notice. These assertions are premised on a
misunderstanding of the facts and the law, and both of the assertions were made in error.
Some clarification is needed regarding the list that Ms. Andrews assumed existed — a list of
persons who had filed written requests with the City to receive notice of special meetings. The
city clerk provided me with the following information:
• The City has not received any written requests, in the form of letters, emails, or any other
writing, from any person, in which the person has requested notice of all special meetings
of the city council, or special. meetings on particular subjects.
• The City website provides various means for the public to request information from the
City. These include:
• the "Ask the City" link on the website home page (see Attachment 4); although
someone from the public could use this link to request notice of special meetings,
no member of the public has ever done so;
• the Facebook link on the website home page (see Attachment 4); this link does
not represent that it is used to provide meeting notices, and in fact, Facebook is
not used as the means for giving notice of regular or special council meetings;
• the Facebook link on the public safety /city hall facility page (see Attachment 5);
this link does not represent to the public that it is a means of requesting notices of
special meetings;
• the email newsletter or listsery for the public safety /city hall building project (see
Attachment 5); again, this website link does not indicate that it is a means of
requesting notices of special meetings; however, the City did post notice of the
June 24 meeting in this newsletter/] istsery on June 2, and Ms. Andrews received
the email.
• The City does not operate any other listsery or notification system other than those listed
above, and none of the notification systems listed above holds itself out as a means for
the public to request notice of regular or special meetings.
In short, Ms. Andrews was mistaken in her belief that she had requested notices of special
meetings, and she was mistaken in her belief that others had made such requests. Because no
one had made a request that complies with section I3D.04, subdivision 2(b), the City had no
obligation to give any individual notices by mail or other means. Even if the public safety email
newsletter signup was determined to be a request for meeting notices, the City gave that notice.
There is no requirement that a meeting notice follow any particular "template." The statute only
requires that the notice contain the date, time, place and purpose of the special meeting. The
notice posted in the email newsletter did that. It was not hidden or obscured in the newsletter but
was featured on the front page within a box that highlighted the notice.
The City complied with the applicable requirements of section 13D.04, subdivision 2. It gave
the notice required under paragraph 2(a), with respect to the bidding, CI'IB and veterans'
memorial agenda items. Paragraph 2(b) did not apply, because no one had requested in writing
388522v1 CAH CT155 -1 4
that they be notified of special meetings. The Council did not need to table the CTIB and
veterans' memorial items, because all required notices had been given for those agenda items, as
well as the authorization of bids agenda item.
Conclusion
The City Council substantially complied with Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subdivision 2 in scheduling
the June 24 special council meeting, and it may use a similar process to schedule meetings in the
future, absent objection by a council member.
The City Council complied with the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law by
posting notice on its official bulletin board at least three days in advance of the meeting.
Because no one has filed a request for notice of special meetings, the City was not required to
mail or publish notice of the special meeting. Even if subscribing to the newsletter or listsery for
the public safety building project was determined to be a written request for notice of special
meetings on that topic, the City provided notice of that special meeting to everyone on the
listserv.
2 Moreover, even if the meeting had been improperly noticed, violation of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law does
not invalidate the actions taken at the meeting; the remedy for violation of the act is limited to the penalties
prescribed by the law. Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 177, 217 N.W.2d 502, 507 (1974);
Petition ofl) & A Truck Line, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. App. 1994)
388522v1 CAA CF155 -1 5
'i, Lit—
twent:7-tnour howl` melnbary :!i-e Dr�sent
partl,;;ipate, action taken at meeting Is valid. MS 1953 J 412_lgl,
Subd. 2.,
Samar y P2,, 19_�7
1
471 -r,
The Hon, 'hoolook 3. Sherrlcce,
Ville-e !tttorney
V.111age of 13sudettwo
1dudo' Minnesota
tear '%l r I
In your Is i;tev of Jc n*,.-' :.Ig
f
C, T S i
L on Uovonbart 13., 1 956 the rinvor aal_2&L' a -pecial mating of
.,7illa�s 6ounoil for the purposo of disouaairq, a ohning.,e in the
f` of ®*illclgo yw. mbars came to the no a oial
awnt. All
raverr
After discussion a motion was madop secondoUand carried
to present to the voters the qtwst*.on of adopting Plan
It was for tho iDurposs of submitting the plan to the voters
V t)- I
speo a], meeting' wen calledo The - plan waa submitted and
o'sk ed by a majority of the elootorpte, It councilman now quat-
44% It .144. 1.0 tU ads 4,to, of PIEI-a IlAtl o n th So Und
Chet h e special mooting deecribod. shwle xiac held without 1;h* c-1w
:Agy I a written notieri require
d by U. 5:. 14, Subda 26
You pose the follo'�tlnc_
..'here s speoinj mootl�ig Is by the mayor ".Vithout the
ar
�,wanty-rotn� hour writ4;,3n nc`Ic�i , id n%l councilman are present and
voting favorably on the pN-opasltion °.,) the election hold Pursuant,
to the motion at tbz Mooting invalid?
'She Hong ?'.hr m ock B. S >o i`.jood
Baudette, Minnesota A 2 m Janua 22, 1957
OPINION:
Minnesota Statute 412 ®191, Subdr 2 states:
of t he notice nor required In obviously to secure the attendance of
The oommil Under SUM, 2 has ths power to determine th-W
IIPi �'.'X Y•••t. •r _ =lb
y .
An opinion of the Attorney Oonora1 dated April S, 1946, .file
471-E copy enclosed, rulcts thot althou, h uc notice of time and
Plano of special meeting tso given, if all council mmbere are present
and participate, notice roau.iramente mend not be Mato
The question hors Involved is analogous In principle to %fast
The lion. 'zhealoek i, six- !7wcc3
$audette, ta.nnosoto Anuary 22 1957
345 65 N.w. 2nd 194 (1954). It is stated at page 349 of the
innesota Keportas
aMLA
`u •_& Y ate. x a: 1,111;, J!,
ry �5. S • , i .Y� i ;a
" of tbsir Vote; or has deprived Voters of the adequate notice and
inTomation reasonably necessary to arable them to Vote 'cith e
dell berate appraisal of the iftrita rbGraby the results of ..
election are mde uncertain or Inaccurate an a free and WV
expression p 6 :. n V si supra at
taml=
a .
?flu -:s LOIM
Attorney General
ALEUT H. [J , '7.TV t
Snecial Assistant
AYEOMG7 Cknnor91