Laserfiche WebLink
Page two <br />April 2,0,, 19189 <br />4 <br />The Attorney General responded in part, as follows* <br />91 .0 We can point to no controlling <br />Minnesota case law or ot,hier, author ity <br />relative to the legal effeilicti which <br />fa,ilure to comply with these <br />statutory re1quirements would, have <br />upon a city council's ability to <br />honor an otherwise valid agreement <br />for the complensiat ilon of a city <br />employee wbere the failure was <br />,determined to be inadvertant and not <br />in bad faiith, <br />I <br />As, previously stated, the Attorney General said: <br />111 4 a * no controlling Minnesota autbority <br />The Attorney Gen,erial, does call to <br />Sull Ivan vs a Credit River Townsh i", <br />11 <br />19174) There a t,olwn board held a <br />notice of" the mieeti a,s required <br />In that case such violatilon did ni <br />actiMI of the town boardd <br />our, attention the case of <br />-fit 217 NoWa2d 502 (Minn,, <br />C� meeting but did not give <br />by the "Open Meeting <br />w-t necessarily void the <br />Thus we can coincluidie that technIcial violations do not <br />necessar ily void council action when taken in good faith,, <br />a - <br />We can also, concil,ud,e that grevious violations of law would <br />render invalid council actions. We d,id not get an answer to <br />our quest ilon. <br />After indilcatinig there is no clear answer to our question,, <br />the Attorney Genieral rial'sed the second issue. The Attorne <br />Gen,ierial stated <br />