Laserfiche WebLink
Page two <br />April 20F 191&1 <br />'The Attorney Gienierial responded ini part as follows: <br />te a <br />can point to no controlling <br />miannesota casie law or other authority <br />rela,t live to thie legal ef fect. which <br />failure to 4 <br />clolmpil,y with thei,se <br />sta,tutoiry requirements would have <br />upon a, clity council's aty to <br />honor an other'wi,se valid algrileement <br />for, the compensation of a city <br />employee where the fiailurie was <br />determined tol be i,nadvert,ant and not <br />in, bad faith <br />As previously sitated., the Attorney General said., <br />A *IN,. no, control! ing Minnesota lauthority il, 10 "1 It* <br />The Atitiorney General doles call tiol <br />Sullivan vS4 Credit River Town <br />) a, f& a <br />9 4 e oar <br />Thre a tolwn bd hi4 <br />noitice of', the meliet,ing as riequireld <br />In that ciasie such violation did m. <br />zicition of the town bloard.,, <br />our attention the case of <br />217 NW*2d 502 (Minn., <br />meeting but did not give <br />biy the "Open Meeting Law.` <br />i-mt, neciessarily void the <br />Thus we can coinclu,d,e tihat technical, violations do not <br />necesisaril,y volid council, action when, taken 'in good faith, <br />We, can also conclude that grevious, violations of law would <br />render invalid council actions. We did not get an answer t <br />our qu,esti,oin, I <br />p <br />After, indi,clating therie is no clea,r answer to our question, <br />the Attoirney Genierial raised the second, issue. The Attorney <br />General stated: <br />