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 10 <br /> <br />In a situation where an elected official seeks reimbursement for criminal defense costs <br />incurred by him, it is thus clear that that elected official should not take part in any voting on <br />the matter. Additionally, that official should not even participate in the process leading to that <br />decision. See attached Attorney General Opinion dated December 5,2002. When the official <br />controls the conduct of the meeting at which such a decision is discussed and! or made, that <br />official should turn over the control of the proceedings to someone else. The failure to do so <br />could give rise to an argument of conflict of interest, lead to an appearance of impropriety, and <br />arguments that the manner in which the official governed the proceedings did not allow for <br />reasonable and proper consideration of the issues. <br /> <br />In this case, it is therefore our opinion that the Council should decide any <br />reimbursement issue. If the Mayor seeks to have the City reimburse him for the costs and <br />reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the Mayor in defending the charges brought against him <br />under Minn. Stat. ~ 471.87 and Minn. Stat. ~ 609.43(2), the Mayor should submit an itemized <br />statement from the attorney that shows all attorney's fees and costs incurred. The Mayor <br />should not take part in the decision or the discussion process. The Council Member who is <br />deemed to be the Acting Mayor in the Mayor's absence should conduct that portion of the <br />meeting in which the discussion occurs.8 <br /> <br />4. Standard for Determining Reimbursement <br /> <br />Minn. Stat. ~ 465.76 indicates that a municipality may pay for an officer's criminal <br />defense costs when the charges arise out of conduct that can be said to be the "reasonable and <br />lawful performance of duties" for the municipality. Only one case decided under that statute <br />gives direct guidance on the issue. As noted earlier, Kroschel indicated that the unintentional <br />violation of a criminal statute, or statute of a criminal nature, could be found to be arising out <br />of the reasonable and lawful performance of the duties of the city. In that case it involved <br />allegations of a violation of the Open Meeting Law. Certainly taking part in meetings, and <br />making decisions as to whether meetings are opened or closed, is part of the performance of <br />the duties of an official of a city. <br /> <br />The issue really becomes one of what is reasonable under the facts and circumstances <br />surrounding the question. This may not really differ whether one were to look at Minn. Stat. <br />~ 465.76, Minn. Stat. ~ 466.07, or Minn. Stat. ~ 317A.521. Remember that under 317A.521, <br />the nonprofit corporation has to determine that the officer acted in good faith, did not receive <br />any improper personal benefit, did not have reasonable cause to believe that the conduct was <br />unlawful, and reasonably believed that the conduct was in the best interests of the corporation. <br /> <br />8 In the first instance, it would be our opinion and advice that the Mayor declare himself to have a conflict on this issue due <br />to his pecuniary interest in the outcome. In the event that the Mayor, or any other official under similar circumstances, <br />were to fail to do so, then it is for the municipality to decide in the first instance whether the disqualifying conflict of <br />interest is present. In multiple Attorney General Opinions, the Attorney General's Office for the State of Minnesota has <br />stated this to be the procedure which is followed. See,~, Op. Att'y Gen. 90e-5 (Feb. 25, 1954). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.