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 7 <br /> <br />with an Attorney General Opinion that noted that if a violation was found to have occurred, <br />then the official could not be found to have acted out of the reasonable and lawful performance <br />of public duties. In specifically disagreeing, the Court of Appeals noted that although the City <br />of Afton officials in that case had been found to have violated the Open Meeting Law, the <br />violation was unintentional. In such a circumstance, the conduct was found to be within the <br />"reasonable and lawful performance of public duties." The court stated: <br /> <br />The violation was simply an unfortunate misstep - a stumble - while <br />the appellants went about the performance of legitimate public <br />services. We conclude that the city may provide reimbursement <br />pursuant to ~ 465.76. <br /> <br />Id. at p. 356. <br /> <br />The court did note that the question of whether the statute would allow payment of <br />defense costs if the Open Meeting Law violation were willful or intentional was not meant to <br />be addressed by its decision. What we can take from this is that it is not enough to show that <br />an official took some action which might be deemed to violate some criminal statute, or some <br />statute of a "criminal nature" such as the Open Meeting Law. As long as the conduct is <br />unintentional it can be said to arise out of the reasonable and lawful performance of duties of <br />the city. Only if it were intentional might there be an issue. Intentional in this sense would <br />seem to require proof of a knowing and willful violation of a law of a criminal nature. <br /> <br />1. Request for Reimbursement <br /> <br />To start off the process, the person seeking reimbursement should make a request. That <br />request should be made in writing. By having the request made in writing, there is no doubt as <br />to what is being sought, and under what circumstances and conditions. The request can set <br />forth why the person seeking reimbursement believes it qualifies for payment. <br /> <br />Because reimbursement is only for costs and "reasonable attorney's fees," the written <br />request for reimbursement should be accompanied by, or shortly followed by, a detailed and <br />itemized statement of the attorney who performed the services for the person seeking <br />reimbursement. This allows the City, in consultation with its attorney, to determine whether <br />the charges are reasonable. The Council will need to know the hourly charges, the date that <br />services were performed, the services performed, and the amount of time spent on those <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.