Laserfiche WebLink
SEP -02 -1998 12 Ft LEAGUE CF hM CITIES P.07'12 <br /> 343. s b i d be noted that the Minnesota Human Rights Act prohi.'ts <br /> Also discrimina ' employment based upon marital status. cities <br /> . „we • , • should exercise e n when making inquiries in .: marital status of <br /> wire employees or applican pp positions with • 1ty. <br /> 5. Business connections • <br /> 4.09. 430, r. <br /> 1947 Other types of business ” sts may also ohibited indirect interests <br /> even though there is •. a personal financial irate der the general <br /> law. The attom eneral said that where a housing auth • <br /> corrmikssio, was a foreman who would aid a contractor in mak bid <br /> to the ing authority, the commission member was covered by the <br /> s - tory language. <br /> 6. Land issues <br /> Since a city council must deal with land matters, it is almost inevitable <br /> that one of these decisions may affect property that is owned or used by <br /> one of its members. <br /> a. Local improvements and special assessments <br /> In n,yeoRiii A counciintember owning land to be benefitted by a local improvement is <br /> Mina• 296, 48 probably not prohibited from titionin for the voting to <br /> N.w.2.1 441(1991), und ertake it, g P <br /> L c t, or von to ado the resul - s. clef assessment. <br /> W s M dis • "' I ?" one • tnnesota • ision took a different view on county ditch <br /> N.W.24709 (1967) proceedings, it seems to have been sharply limited as a precedent by a <br /> later case. The two cases can also be distinguished on their facts. <br /> Jar• Petition The first case concerned a proposed county ditch that bypassed a county <br /> 296, 48 board member's property although an existing ditch cut through a <br /> substantial area of his property. Although the board member participated <br /> in preliminary proceedings before the board regarding the feasibility of <br /> the improvement, he did not attend the final hearing. The court vacated <br /> the county board's order since the preliminary proceedings may have had <br /> a substantial effect on later actions taken at the final hearing. The court <br /> also said that the board member should not have participated in any of the <br /> proceedings regarding the project. <br /> Lanz lernerrheel " Coon Cr The second case found that there was no disqualifying conflict of interest <br /> 279 Minn. 1, 19 when four of the five <br /> 11.W.24 ao9 (1)6.11 managers of a watershed district owned land that <br /> would be benefitted by a proposed district. This court recognized that the <br /> situation was similar to those where members of a city council assess <br /> Official Contiict of interest <br /> 23 <br />