2003_0731.special_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

July 27, 2003 Page 11 One can readily say that the requirements set forth in Chapter 317A in this regard are nothing other than giving definition to the phrase ``reasonable, "' Guidance can also be found under Minn. Stat. § 466.07. Remember that under that statute a municipality is required to defend and indenmify officers and employees in claims for damages providing that the officer or employee was not guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. So, for instance, in Queen V. MinneaDolis Public School District, 481 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. App. 1992), a teacher who engaged in a sexual relationship with a student was guilty of `'malfeasance in office" and therefore had no right to indemnification. In re Olson, 300 N.W. 3 (Minn. 1941) willful neglect of duty was said to be the careless or g Y intentional failure to exercise due diligence in the performance of an official duty. All of the statutes and different ways of phrasing the issue appear to have a common element of knowledge within them. One can analogize it to the concept in the criminal lain of intent versus specific intent. One can certainly intend to do an act which is ultimately concluded to be violation of a law. But the requirement of specific intent is one that not only was the act itself intentional, but at the time of the act there was a knowledge that the act was unlawful. we think that is the distinction being drawn in the Kroschel case. we think that is the guiding distinction that we can give the Council in this case. P Elected off ials are citizen decision makers. They are not always trained in the law. In most instances they are not. There are innumerable statutes and rules that an elected officio can unwittingly step over in exercising the duties of their office. There may be and there are many people who are willing to act in those circumstances to allege impropriety on the part of elected officals. The reimbursement statute, which was not passed until 1984, helps alleviate the potentially chilling effect that can exist in charged political atmospheres that may keep citizens from seeping office because they fear that if they make a misstep they may incur the expenses that can be associated with defending themselves against charges of wrongdoing. we i be g think what s reasonable needs to looked at in light of these considerations also. In making the reimbursement decision, we believe that the Council must consider whether the charges of a criminal nature brought against the person seeping reimbursement arose out of conduct that was reasonable under the circumstances, and involving the lawful performance of the duties for the City. Even a violation of law, if unintentional, can be reasonable. The key that we see is the knowledge of the official at the time of the conduct involved. whether one looks at good faith or bad faith, willful neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, or the phrase "reasonable and lawful," all of these things have an element of knowledge e within them.