2003_0731.special_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

July 27, 2003 Page In order to adequately consider the issues associated with reimbursement for criminal defense expenses, we will examine a number of statutes. Some that come into play are Minn. tat. § 465.76 § 466.07, § 3177.521, and City Code Provision § 105. These statutes and provisions will be referenced on a number of occasions throughout this letter, and we have attached copies for your ease of reference. We have also attached one Attorney General Opinion. Our goal is to set forth some background facts, identify issues that we think exist, set forth the procedure that I think should be followed by an individual requesting reimbursement by the Council, and answer specific questions that have been posited to us. N ;TWA T -. 44 Iffel "QI J In March, 2001 , there was an ethics complaint against Mayor I ysylyc yn. Ultimately the complaint was found to be unsubstantiated. Legal expenses were incurred by the Mayor in the defense against that complaint. These amounted to $8,532 for legal services from attorney Keith A. Niemi. On June 17, 20021 the matter of paying this expense came before the Council. It was included on the Consent Agenda, item L contained seven purchases /contracts to be approved. Within that was the payment to attorney iemi. Item M on the Consent Agenda was identified p � y g as approving the payment of bills. Approximately 3 :11: 09 into the Council meeting of June 17, 2002, (reference to Webcast time)' the Council began consideration of the Consent Agenda. Items B and M were removed from the Consent Agenda. Item 1111 was removed by Council Member Masch a. On a 5 -0 vote, remainder of the Consent Agenda was approved by the Council. Approximately 15 minutes after the approval of the Consent Agenda, Mayor I ysylyc yn recognized Council Member Maschka, who had removed item M from the Consent Agenda, to begin discussion of item M. Council Member Maschka stated that it was actually item L that he had intended to remove. Mayor Iysylyczyn noted item L had already been approved and then inquired as to what issue Council Member Maschka had with item L. Discussion ensured. During the ensuing discussion, Council Member Klausing noted that under the City's Ethic Code, Mayor I ysylyczyn should not participate in the vote approving the payment because the Mayor had a financial interest in the matter. Mayor I ysylyczyn thee, moved for approval of item M, which was approved by a -2 vote. hater, Council Member Klausing moved to reconsider item L. The Mayor stated that the issue was over and adjourned the meeting. l The agenda =terials and Welacast of the June 17, 2002 Council meeting have been fully reviewed.