by Dennis Dalman
editor@thenewsleaders.com
Did the Sartell City Council violate the Minnesota Open Meeting Law when it met May 9 to discuss the possible purchase of the township’s portion of the Sartell-LeSauk Government Center?
The center is the building along Fourth Avenue S. that contains the fire department, the police department, LeSauk Town Hall and Sartell Public Works.
Attorney Mark Anfinson of Minneapolis, an expert on the open-meeting law, says the council’s discussion at that meeting might have gone beyond the provisions of the law. Sartell Administrator Mary Degiovanni said the council was in compliance with the law because the issue of whether or not to purchase the LeSauk Town Hall portion required the discussion of various contingencies that could relate to purchasing or not purchasing.
Anfinson, a private attorney, also serves as a long-time legal advisor on open-meeting issues for the Minnesota Newspaper Association.
The government center building is owned by the city (60 percent of it) and LeSauk Township (40 percent of it).
The open-meeting law states council meetings can be closed to the public to discuss property sales, appraisals and appraisal data.
The council in its closed session did discuss the appraised value of the township portion of the center. But the council also discussed options of relocating the police and fire departments somewhere else by building them in a potential partnership with an armory. If that is done, perhaps the Public Works Department could use all of that space in the current government center.
Anfinson said those topics probably should not have been discussed during a closed meeting by the council.
However, Degiovanni said the discussions were essential as part of the closed meeting in order to weigh any pros or cons in acquiring the government center solely for the city.
“During the closed meeting the city council discussed protected non-public appraisal data,” Degiovanni said. “Additionally, the council discussed and considered our negotiations strategy, including potential purchase price and factors/options essential to determining whether to stay in negotiations, close negotiations or extend a purchase offer/counter offer. Following the meeting it was announced the council had determined to continue negotiations with LeSauk Township regarding the purchase of this property. Price and potential offer/counter offer strategy was not disclosed.”
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law states all government and public agency meetings must be open to the public, with some exceptions. One of those exceptions (in Chapter 13D of the law) can justify holding a meeting in closed session. Such an exception is when a governmental entity, in this case a city council, wants “to determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the government entity, to review confidential or protected non-public appraisal data and to develop or consider offers or counter-offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property.”
A violation of a provision of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law is subject to a civil penalty of up to $300, but the violation has to have been intentional. The mechanism to enforce the open-meeting law is for someone to seek action against the alleged violator in district court.
Attorney Mark Anfinson
