Q: Greetings and Salutations, Ask Us Guy:
Why are legislative committee meetings in St. Paul open to the public, but the working group meetings in a special session are allowed to be held behind closed doors? Special sessions have become commonplace in this state (15 of the previous 25 legislative sessions, and occasionally more than one in a year), and it feels like there is a benefit to lawmakers to run out the clock, allowing them to meet behind closed doors. Doesn’t the public have a right to present their views, be informed, or observe undue influence?
Thanks,
A: Ask Us Guy had the opportunity for a few years to report on Minnesota legislative sessions, including special sessions called when the work didn’t get done by the constitutional deadline for adjournment. While that was a duty that ended a dozen or so years ago, he still remembers most of the rules. The Minnesota Legislature must abide by the provisions of the state’s open meeting laws, just like city councils, county boards and school boards and various committees created by those boards. While there are exceptions where closed sessions can be held for certain types of discussions — such as pending litigation, employee discipline and security issues — meetings of elected officials generally have to be open to the public.
A separate Minnesota law covers the Legislature, but the rules are largely the same. Sessions of the House and Senate and their various committees are presumed to be open to the public, and that includes conference committees made up of a few appointed senators and representatives who negotiate end-of-session compromise legislation that merges the provisions of bills passed by the Senate and the House.
“For purposes of this section, a meeting occurs when a quorum is present and action is taken regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the body,” Minnesota Statute 3.055 states.
The “working groups” referenced by the reader involve a few select representatives of the state House and Senate who are assigned by legislative leaders to hammer out a compromise on contested issues or budgets during a special session. So those groups can be created in a way that intentionally ensures there is not a quorum of any committee present.
Or the working groups can meet in a way where no “action is taken regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the body.”
That loophole can be exercised because, officially, those groups aren’t making final decisions. They develop potential compromises that are then presented in formal meetings when quorums of members are present and the public is invited to watch.
Some or all of the working group meetings can be open to the public and the news media at the discretion of working group members, but there is no law requiring that they be open. And a decision can be made at any time, when discussions become tense or sensitive, to meet privately.
If something sleazy happens in a closed meeting of the working group, such as the “undue influence” the reader worries about, the public might never know if the members all decide to zip their lips.
Theoretically, if the compromise plan created by the working group was not in the public interest, citizens could still pressure their representatives to reject the plans once they are presented in the later open meeting before the entire House and Senate for formal adoption.
And if Minnesotans dislike the closed-door portion of the process, they could elect representatives who are willing to amend the open meeting law to ensure negotiating sessions among lawmakers are not conducted in secret.