1999-01-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP -02 -1998 12:52 LERGLE OF MN CITIES P.09 Between these two extremes are those proceedings affecting some lots or parcels, only one of which a couneilmember owns. In such cases it is a question of fact whether the councilmember is disqualified from voting. if the councilmetrtber chooses to vote, the council must decide whether the member should be disqualified -- a decision which is subject to review in the courts if challenged. There will be many situations where the right to vote is doubtful enough that an interested couucilmember should refrain from participating. il. Condemnation went„ it Bond There is little doubt that a councilmember's ownership of land is so direct t v Cal auppmr, 24 und significant as to preclude s or pmttcl asinn.rm,zn.w. patron m a resolution to 697 (ISM) con enu the land. The Minnesota Supreme Court has not ruled directly on this question. However, it did not disqualify a county board member from participating in condemnation proceedings to establish the highway when the board member owned land adjoining the proposed highway. The court suggested that the decision might have been differ= if the owner had been entitled to damages if the highway had gone through his property. hi. Church affiliation HowW(u. florid of Ry „ a ,,, o f ,� The court held that a zoning board member who was also a member of a acu of church was not disqualified from voting on a zot variance reaueste (Minn. App. 19890 by that church. The court found that the nature of the financial interest could not have influenced the voting board member. The person's membership in the church, without evidence of a closer connection, was not a sufficiently direct interest in the outcome of the matter to justify setting aside the board's zoning action. c. Streets L Establishing streets and highways Wane bawd kr comma. lI woul fl j.- s a - . L• • u s,‘ . •i . .... .. • . :.: x . - e n . � , •.y �^o • �6 a street may be opened would not be prohibited from voting on the 697 van j 't :',w. matter- a Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a county board member who owned land adjoining a proposed county highway did not have a disqualifying interest that prevented him from voting on the establishment of the highway. The board member's interest was similar to that of the rest of the public and differed only in degree. A different decision may have been reached had the highway gone though any of the commissioner's land Official ConfIct cl Into= 25