My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003_0811_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2003
>
2003_0811_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2011 9:47:16 AM
Creation date
10/21/2011 9:27:07 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
209
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
Special City Council Minutes — 07/31103 <br />DRAFF Minutes - Page 3 <br />Chapter § 317A.521 related to Indenmification; and an <br />State of Minnesota Attorney General opinion dated <br />December 5, 2003 on a related matter regarding definition <br />of contracts, conflict of interest, and a definition of <br />pecuniary interest. <br />Mr. Anderson reviewed this documentation individually <br />and respectively; and encouraged Council focus on <br />Minnesota State Statute, Chapter §465.76 for the matter <br />before the Councihnembers. <br />Mr. Anderson reviewed several portions of the City's <br />Code 105, particularly in Section 105.02, applicable to this <br />meeting's focus, opining that there may be portions that <br />appeared to be in conflict with State Statute, and <br />recommended future direction to his office to review this <br />Code to determine which sections mirrored or conflicted <br />State Statute. Mr. Anderson opined that one area of note <br />was the "Laws of Conflict" doctrine that rendered certain <br />municipal laws invalid when not reconcilable with <br />Minnesota State Statute (i.e., Minnesota Statutes §§ <br />465.76 and 317.A21 related to non -profit corporations and <br />their decision - making authority). Mr. Anderson strongly <br />cautioned the Council to act on Minnesota State Statute § <br />465.76 and its provisions regarding their discretionary <br />powers and approval of reimbursement. <br />City Attorney Anderson concluded with a summary of the <br />legal opinion and recommended procedure to follow in a <br />request for reimbursement of criminal defense costs, as yet <br />forth under Minnesota Statue § 4b5.76. Mr. Anderson <br />advised that the decision needed to be made by four (4) <br />Councilmembers who did not have an interest in the <br />ratter. <br />Mr. Anderson further advised that reimbursement would <br />be considered following receipt of a written request, with <br />submission of an itemized and detailed billing statement in <br />order for the governing body to determine that the amount <br />sought in reimbursement represents reasonable fees. Mr. <br />Anderson cautioned that Mayor Kysylyczyn should not <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.