CCP 04-19-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to the level ofc1ear violations of law. With regard to the effect of the report on other communities, the report has no binding effect, although observations made in the report should be given careful eonsideration. . It should also be mentioned that the findings in the report rely heavily on advisory opinions issued by the Attorney General's office, Opinions of the State Attorney General are not binding on cities, but are given careful consideration by the courts. Minn. Stat. S 8,07 and Village of Blaine v. Independent Sehool District 12, 272 Minn. 343, 353 138 N.W.2d, 32,39-40 (1965), Many of the "questionable" expenditures made by Brooklyn Park involved an evaluation of whether the particular expenditure served a valid "publie purpose." The courts have recognized that the determination of what is a valid public purpose is an evolving concept and that great deference will be given to a local governing body's decision that a particular expenditure is for a public purpose, R.E. Short Co, v, City of Minneapolis, 269 N.W.2d, 331 (Minn. 1978). Aeeordingly, the determination of publie purpose involves a subjective determination that may vary from eommunity to community; and as such, the OSA's findings in Brooklyn Park, and many of the Attorney General's Opinions upon which the report relies, are instructive but not binding on Brooklyn Park or other cities. Nevertheless, the League is well aware that any deeision to depart from recommendations made by the State Auditor or the Attorney General ought not be taken lightly, given the potentially sensitive nature of the decision, Any such deeision should be earefully considered and based on justifiable reasons. In reviewing the OSA's findings in Brooklyn Park, we have identified the following general areas to which this memo will address comments: . I, Spending on employee recognition events. 2. Spending on employee soeial events, such as summer picnies or holiday parties. 3. Spending for employee meals and/or foods as part of employee meetings, 4. Spending on Chamber of Commerce dues, Before getting into any ofthese specifie expenditure types, it is useful to review the test for evaluating the validity of any city expenditure. The test is two-fold: first, there must be a publie purpose for the expenditure; and second, there must be specific or implied authority for the expenditure found in statute or a city's charter. A comment about each of these two tests may be helpful. Public purpose The Minnesota Supreme Court has emphasized that public purpose is an evolving eoneept that should be interpreted liberally to effectively deal with the wide-ranging changes transforming society. The eourt has also stated "We have also reeognized that public purpose should be broadly construed to comport with the changing eonditions of modem life," R.E, Short Co, v, City of Minneapolis. 269 N.W.2d at 337 (citing City of Pipestone v. Madsen, 287 Minn, 155, 210 N.W.2d 298 (1973)).lt is significant that the court has accorded great deference to a local governing body's determination that an expenditure is for a publie purpose, The Court has said that a strong presumption exists that publie officials are acting appropriately when making . 2