My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
04-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:02 AM
Creation date
8/25/2025 12:59:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
4/25/1988
Retention Effective Date
8/25/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
439
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
-2- <br />SUBDIVISION 2. <br />"Any person who violates subdivision 1 shall be sub- <br />ject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in <br />an amount not to exceed $100 for a single occurrence. ..... <br />Upon a third violation by the same person connected with the <br />smae governing body, such person shall forfeit an5t further right <br />to serve on such governing body or in any other capacity with <br />such public body fvr a period of time equal to the terin of office <br />such person was then serving. ...9.911 <br />TH" SUPREME COi1RT OF MINNESOTA, ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1976, DSTEH- <br />MINED THAT THE MINNESOTA OPEN MEETING LAW IS NOT INCONSIBTE14T 'WITH <br />THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE AIJu THE TWO CONCEPTS ARE CAPABLE OF <br />COMPATIBLE AND CONCURRENT OPERATION, ASSUMING THAT THE PUBLIC <br />OFFICIERS AND ATTORNEYS DO NOT ABUSE THEIR TRUST BY EXT1:NDING THE <br />PRIVILEGE AS A MERE CONDUIT TO SUPPRESS PUBLIC OBSERVATION OF THE <br />DECI&ION MAKING PROCESS. <br />THL; ATTORNEY -CLIENT EXCEPTION TO MINNESOTA OPEN iri ZI'ING LAW <br />WILL ALMOST NEVER EXTR14D TO MERE REQUEST FOR GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE OIi <br />OPINION BY PUBLIC BODY IN I'TS CAPACITY 1S PU1LID AGENCY. <br />IN FACT, JUSTICE SCOTT .�TATED THAT "Public hoard members, <br />sworn to uphold the law, may not e.rbitrarily or unnecessarily <br />inflato confidentiality for the purpose of derlating the spread <br />of the p blic meeting law. Neither the attorney's presence <br />nor the Pppenstance of some kind of lawsuit may serve as the <br />pretext for secret consultations whose revelation will not <br />injure the public interest. To attempt a generalization <br />embracing the occasions for genuine confidentiality wouaLd <br />be rash. ...•. <br />IN LIGHT OF THE PARAMETERS SET FORTH IN THE 14I:4NESOTA OPEN <br />MEETING LAW, I IN:>IST AND DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY DISCLOSE ALL <br />INI'ORMATION TO THE PUBLIC REGARDING YOUR DISCUSSIONS, IBOTES, AND <br />AUTHOdIZA'I'ION OP EXPENDITURES ,.F PUBLIC FUNDS FOH THE INVESTIGATION <br />OF ANNEXING T:IE CUM;AUNITY OF' LONG LAKE INTO THE CITY OF ORONO, AND <br />HERETO FORWARD, PROVIDE THE PUBLIC dITH STATUTORY ADVANCE NOTICE OF <br />*bi0 RE* <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.