My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003_0731.special_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2003
>
2003_0731.special_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2011 9:02:57 AM
Creation date
10/21/2011 8:58:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
July 27, 2003 <br />Page <br />counsel, reimburse the city, town or county officer or <br />employee for any costs and reasonable attorneys' fees <br />incurred by the person to defend charges of a criminal nature <br />brought against the person that arose out of the reasonable <br />and lawful performance of duties for the city, town or county, <br />ubd. 2. When judge must approve. <br />If less than a quorum of the governing body is disinterested, <br />the reimbursement under subd. 1 shall be approved by a judge <br />of the district court. <br />In September of 2002, Roseville passed Ordinance No. 1269, adopting Chapter 1052 <br />of the Roseville City Code, covering indenmif cation. Code § 105-02, entitled City <br />Indemnification, paragraph 2 thereof, indicates that the City will provide defense or reimburse <br />legal fees of its appointed and elected officials in proceedings which may be related to their <br />service as City officials, including any legal action taken to enforce Chapter 105, to the same <br />extent, and in accord with the state statutory provisions applicable to nonprofit corporations. <br />Those provisions are found at Minn. Stat. Minn. Stat. § 3 17 .5 2 1. There are some exceptions <br />to indemnification set forth in Code § 105.07. It does not apply to action or conduct beyond <br />the scope of a per-son's employment or responsibility. It does not apply to any intentional acts <br />that violate criminal statutes, ordinances or regulations of the state, the federal government or <br />the city, except as allowed pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 317A.521 and 465.76. <br />Under Minn. Stat. § 317A.52 1, indemnification for nonprofit corporation officials <br />occurs in criminal proceedings if it is found that the person seeking indemnification: 1 ) acted <br />in good faith; (2) received no improper personal benefit; (3) did not have reasonable cause to <br />believe the conduct was unlawful- 4) and in the case of acts involving a director (in this case <br />that would be a Council Member) reasonably believed that the conduct was in the best interests <br />of the corporation. Under this statute, in order for indemnification to occur, there must be a <br />determination that the criteria set forth above have been satisfied. That determination is in the <br />first instance to be made by a quorum of the governing body. A determination of quorum <br />under this statute is by counting members of the governing body who are not "panties to the <br />proceeding.' Under this statute, if an adverse determination is made, the person seeking <br />reimbursement may make an application to court for a reimbursement decision. <br />There are a number of instances where Chapter 105 ignores provisions of Minn. Stat. § § 466.07, or 465.76. This may <br />give rise to a conflict: and an argument that the Code provision is void for conflicting with state law. Additionally* <br />important definitional sections of § 466.07 are missing. One could readily argue that Chapter 105 is superfluous and <br />unnecessary given the existence of Minn, stat. § § 466.07 and 465.76. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.