My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2003_0728
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2003
>
CC_Minutes_2003_0728
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:35:55 AM
Creation date
4/4/2006 1:02:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/28/2003
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
<br />July 27, 2003 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Thereafter, it was asserted that the Mayor had improperly taken part in the decision to <br />pay attorney Niemi's invoice for legal services provided to him. The law firm of Meslow & <br />Olson reviewed the matter and criminally charged the Mayor with violating Minn. Stat. <br />SS 471.87 and 609.43(2). The Complaint alleged that Mayor Kysylyczyn took part in a <br />decision to pay Niemi's invoice for legal services provided to him; that the Mayor had a <br />personal financial interest in the payment of the invoice as the individual who incurred the <br />legal expense; that the Mayor was advised by more than one person that he should not vote on <br />the issue of paying the attorney's invoice because of a potential conflict of interest; and that the <br />Mayor voted to pay the invoice, knowing it was forbidden by law to be done in his capacity as <br />a public official. The case was venued in Ramsey County District Court. It was heard by <br />Judge Marybeth Dorn. <br /> <br />On March 24,2003, the Judge issued an Order dismissing the Complaint. Essentially <br />Judge Dorn ruled that Minn. Stat. S 471.87, which prohibits a public officer from having a <br />personal financial interest or benefiting from a sale, lease or contract, did not apply to the facts <br />and circumstances of this case because there was not contract with the City. <br /> <br />As to the charge for a violation of Minn. Stat. S 609.43(2), alleging that the Mayor did <br />an act knowing it was in excess of lawful authority or knowing it was forbidden by law to be <br />done in the Mayor's capacity, the court ruled that there was no criminal law shown by the state <br />establishing that the Mayor's vote was forbidden by law. An assertion that the Mayor was <br />advised of the potential conflict of interest in the vote was deemed insufficient to support a <br />criminal charge where the particular act is not otherwise defined and! or identified as being <br />unlawful. Judge Dorn did opine that under common law, non-criminal concepts, the Mayor <br />had a pecuniary interest sufficient to describe his vote to pay the bill as a conflict of interest. <br /> <br />Questions now arise as to whether, under what circumstances and standards, and by <br />what procedure, reimbursement of the legal defense costs and fees incurred by the Mayor for <br />the defense of the criminal case against him can be dealt with. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS <br /> <br />A. Reimbursement of Criminal Defense Costs <br /> <br />Minn. Stat. S 465.76 addresses the circumstances under which a city may pay for an <br />officer or employee's criminal defense expenses. The statute reads as follows: <br /> <br />Subd. 1. If lawfully doing duty. <br /> <br />If reimbursement is requested by the officer of employee, the <br />governing body of a home rule charter or statutory city, a <br />town or a county may, after consultation with its legal <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.