Laserfiche WebLink
July 27, 2003 <br />Page 14 <br />who will provide "adequate" or `inadequate "' legal services.. As the decision is trade by the <br />employee and/or official, the responsibility for that decision rests with there. <br />As to the remaining portion of this last question, the only portion of it we can address in <br />a legal fashion would be whether the Council can take some action which will bind this <br />Council and future Councils in such a way that under all instances officials are indemnified <br />when criminal charges are brought against them. we focus on the criminal area because in the <br />civil area the membership in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust and the existence <br />of Minn. Stat. § 466.07 provide appropriate methods of indemnifying and protecting <br />employees and officers from civil claims. For the most part, we do not believe that the Council <br />is even involved in those matters. <br />We see no legitimate legal manner in which the Council can set forth rules which will <br />determine how a member of the Council votes on the issue of reimbursement for criminal <br />defense charges in the future. In each ease Council members will decide the issue based on <br />whether they believe the statutory standard for reimbursement is met. Elected officials use <br />their discretion and judgment to voting on matters of public business put before them. In our <br />opinion, there is no proper way to by rule or ordinance attempt to control the manner in which <br />such judgment and discretion is exercised. Nor is there any way of controlling the actions of <br />the majority of the members of the Council in exercising their discretion on future issues that <br />come before the Council. Minn. Stat. § 465.76 requires that each member of a council weigh <br />the facts of an issue and reach their own decision. It also requires that by majority vote the <br />council decide when to apply the statute. Statutes operate under the premises that a majority of <br />the council will defend, indemnify or make reimbursement when they, in their opinion, believe <br />N. to be appropriate and in the public interest. Under circumstances where there is a belief that <br />the statute has been violated, appropriate judicial remedies are already available under the law. <br />CONCLUSION <br />We understand that this is a lengthy opinion. Therefore, to recap, we believe that the <br />procedure to follow in a request for reimbursement of criminal defense costs must be that set <br />forth under Minn. Stat. § 465.76. The decision is one that must be made by the four members <br />of the Council who do not have an interest in this matter. Consideration of reimbursement <br />occurs after there has been a written request. There must be submitted an itemized and <br />detailed billing statement in order for the governing body to determine that the amount sought <br />in reimbursement represents reasonable fees. The Mayor should not take part in any of the <br />discussion process or decision- making process relating to the reimbursement claim. Council <br />Member Dough, who we understand is deemed to be the acting Mayor in the Mayor's absence, <br />should chair the Council during any discussion and voting of the reimbursement issue. The <br />standard for determining reimbursement is one of what is reasonable under the facts and <br />circumstances. That depends upon the totality of the circumstances. It will also depend upon <br />