2003_0731.special_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

July 27, 2003 Page 9 every reimbursement case. The legislature certainly could be said to be deemed to have understood that those types of allegations would be present when it passed a statute that made the governing body of the municipality the decision maker on such reimbursement issues, Were "disinterested" to mean that there could not be any differences of opinion on policy issues in the governing bodies, or members seeping the same seats in municipal elections, or such other local political considerations, the statute would be emasculated and have no meaning. Thus disinterested in this sense, for the most part, means in our judgment a lacy of pecuniary interest in the outcome. Certainly the person seeking reimbursement is interested in the reimbursement decision. Therefore, if that person is a member of the body making the reimbursement decision, she must not tale part in the discussion and decisions regarding reimbursement. while certainly the Kroschel case can be said to stand for that proposition, this is nothing but an application of the common law doctrine of conflict of interest. Under the common law doctrine of conflict of interest, a public official is not p er ,itted to vote when the official has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the vote. E.T.O. Inc. V. Town of Marion, 375 I .w. d 81 (Minn. 1985). Common law conflicts of interest principles apply to circumstances where the statutory conflict of interest provisions do not. Id.; Lenz v. Coon Creek watershed District, 153 .w. d 209 (Minn. 1967). The Minnesota Supreme Court in Lenz stated five factors that are assessed in determining a common law conflict of interest. Those factors are as follows: (1) The nature of the decision to be made; (2) The nature of the pecuniary interest; (3) The number of officials making the decision who are interested; (4) The need, if any, to have the interested persons make, the decision; and (5) The other means available, if any, such as the opportunity for review, that serge to ensure that the officials will not act arbitrarily to further their selfish interests. Id., at p. 819. We think it is beyond any reasonable argument to reach any conclusion other than the official who would be seeping reimbursement is interested in the outcome and would have a common lave conflict of interest in taping part in the discussion, proceedings and/or voting. One must keep in mind the decision of Judge Dons in the criminal case. In noting that there was no criminal conduct to proceed with, the .judge did note that under the undisputed facts of the case the Mayor had a direct interest in the payment of the bill and his action in voting to pay the bill could be reasonably described as a conflict of interest. The facts are exactly the same in a situation where the Mayor is seeping reimbursement of criminal defense costs incurred by him in defending against charges wising out of the conflict of interest allegations that had been made against hind.