CC_Minutes_2003_0728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

July 27, 2003 Page 3 Thereafter, it was asserted that the Mayor had improperly taken part in the decision to pay attorney Niemi's invoice for legal services provided to him. The law firm of Meslow & Olson reviewed the matter and criminally charged the Mayor with violating Minn. Stat. SS 471.87 and 609.43(2). The Complaint alleged that Mayor Kysylyczyn took part in a decision to pay Niemi's invoice for legal services provided to him; that the Mayor had a personal financial interest in the payment of the invoice as the individual who incurred the legal expense; that the Mayor was advised by more than one person that he should not vote on the issue of paying the attorney's invoice because of a potential conflict of interest; and that the Mayor voted to pay the invoice, knowing it was forbidden by law to be done in his capacity as a public official. The case was venued in Ramsey County District Court. It was heard by Judge Marybeth Dorn. On March 24,2003, the Judge issued an Order dismissing the Complaint. Essentially Judge Dorn ruled that Minn. Stat. S 471.87, which prohibits a public officer from having a personal financial interest or benefiting from a sale, lease or contract, did not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case because there was not contract with the City. As to the charge for a violation of Minn. Stat. S 609.43(2), alleging that the Mayor did an act knowing it was in excess of lawful authority or knowing it was forbidden by law to be done in the Mayor's capacity, the court ruled that there was no criminal law shown by the state establishing that the Mayor's vote was forbidden by law. An assertion that the Mayor was advised of the potential conflict of interest in the vote was deemed insufficient to support a criminal charge where the particular act is not otherwise defined and! or identified as being unlawful. Judge Dorn did opine that under common law, non-criminal concepts, the Mayor had a pecuniary interest sufficient to describe his vote to pay the bill as a conflict of interest. Questions now arise as to whether, under what circumstances and standards, and by what procedure, reimbursement of the legal defense costs and fees incurred by the Mayor for the defense of the criminal case against him can be dealt with. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS A. Reimbursement of Criminal Defense Costs Minn. Stat. S 465.76 addresses the circumstances under which a city may pay for an officer or employee's criminal defense expenses. The statute reads as follows: Subd. 1. If lawfully doing duty. If reimbursement is requested by the officer of employee, the governing body of a home rule charter or statutory city, a town or a county may, after consultation with its legal