Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> :r,.:.~' -- -... .- . ---~- ._~~_..!._",~ <br /> 3490 laiugtm! Avuue North <br /> St. Paul, MN 5512e.aou <br /> League of Minnesota Cities (612) 490-5600 <br /> OPEN MEETING LAW DEFENSE COST RBtKBORSEMENT COVERAGE <br /> NOW AVAILABLE <br /> BeginnIng November 15, 1993, LMCIT is offering an new Open <br /> Meeting Law Defense Cost coverage. This optional coverage will <br /> reimburse city officials for 80% of the legal costs they incur <br /> to defend themselves if they are charged with violating the Open <br /> Meeting Law. <br /> This new coverage is quite different from anything LMCIT (or <br /> anyone else, for that matter) has done before. We'll try in <br /> this memo to answer some of the questions that will come up when <br /> city officials are deciding whether this coverage makes sense <br /> for their city. <br /> I. Why is this ~.e4ed1 DO.s~'t our existing LMCIT ooverage <br /> apply to Open Meeting Law claims1 <br /> . Generally, no. The LMCIT liability coverage is designed to <br /> respond to claims for damages. The Open Meeting Law doesn't <br /> provide for damages; it provides for a $100 civil penalty, and <br /> loss of office for repeated violations. Fines and penalties are <br /> not "damages" for purposes of the liability coverage, and LMCIT <br /> therefor generally has no duty to get involved in defending Open <br /> Meeting Law charges under the liability coverage. <br /> The only exception is if the Open Meeting Law charge is combined <br /> with a claim for damages that is covered under the liability <br /> coverage. For instance, if an employee brought a wrongful <br /> termination action against a city, the employee might also <br /> charge that there was a violation of the open meeting law as <br /> part of the termination process. In that case, LMCIT would be <br /> responsible for defending the entire litigation - the Open <br /> Meeting Law charge as well as the covered liability claim. But <br /> an Open Meeting Law charge by itself is not a claim for damages, <br /> and the LMCIT liability coverage would therefor not respond. <br /> II. Why provide coverage for this type of exposure1 <br /> One of LMCIT's member cities asked the Trust Board to consider <br /> adding this kind of coverage. The request grew out of an <br /> . instance in which several council members incurred very <br /> substantial legal bills defending themselves against an Open <br /> Meeting Law charge. <br /> ~O'd POO'ON 05:31 P6 5~ qa.:l 9896-061i-319:l31 S3IIIJ NN .:10 3n9~3l <br />