Laserfiche WebLink
July 27, 2003 <br />Page 13 <br />occur by way of a declaratory judgment action, or a petition for writ of mandamus. Both of <br />these actions would proceed in the district court. <br />Council Member chroeder's next question was one that has not yet been answered. <br />That question was whether the Council can pass an ordinance to make payment of defense <br />costs mandatory. we interpret this question to be asking if the City can reimburse for defense <br />costs and indemnify damage claims in all cases where requested. The answer to that question <br />is quite definitely no. while there are other statutes that deal with firefighters, deputy sheriffs, <br />and other individuals, Minn. Stat. §§ 466.07 and 465.76 grant the authority for municipalities <br />to defend, indemnify and reimburse employees and officers for expenses incurred in <br />connection with certain criminal natters and certain civil natters. Each of those statutes has <br />exceptions, and requirements that must be met in order for the defense, indemnification or <br />reimbursement to be made. It is our opinion that payments outside the parameters set forth by <br />those statutes would be in conflict with Minnesota law, that they are thins quite likely to be <br />viewed as beyond the power of the City to make, and that they could be void as against public <br />policy. <br />The last question posited by Council Member Schroeder was as follows: How do we <br />ensure that a majority of the Council doesn't prevent the City from protecting and <br />indemnifying the ' members or only provide inadequate legal services? A second part of that <br />question was would there be some insurance policy that needs to be F rovided and if so ve ho <br />would the City pay for this policy? <br />Addressing the insurance aspect of the question first, the City is already a member of <br />the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. The agreement with the Trust provides <br />coverage for many types of civil claims that would be brought against officers and employees <br />that seek damages. We are not aware of any type of insurance policy that provides coverage <br />for claims of a criminal nature brought against an individual. That is a question that is perhaps <br />more appropriately addressed to an insurance agentibroker. <br />In terms of ensuring that the governing body of a municipality does not `provide <br />inadequate legal services," that question makes several assumptions which are non -legal in <br />nature. we think for the most part this concern is already addressed by the statutory <br />framework, and the facts and circumstances present in the City. First, the LIMIT generally <br />determines who will be assigned to defend the City and its employees and officers in claims <br />brought against them. Minn. Stat. § 466.07 requires full indemnification when claims seek <br />damages. Thus, even were one to claim that the LM IT lawyer had performed poorly in <br />providing services for the employee or officer, the statute requires full indemnification. III' <br />tat. § 465.76 talks only of "reimbursement." That means that the employee or officer will be <br />selecting his or her own attorney. When a person chooses their own attorney, we do nit <br />believe that the Council need concern 'itself with whether that individual is choosing a lawyer <br />