CC_Minutes_2003_0728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

July 27, 2003 Page 13 occur by way of a declaratory judgment action, or a petition for writ of mandamus. Both of these actions would proceed in the district court. Council Member Schroeder's next question was one that has not yet been answered. That question was whether the Council can pass an ordinance to make payment of defense costs mandatory. We interpret this question to be asking if the City can reimburse for defense costs and indemnify damage claims in all cases where requested. The answer to that question is quite definitely no. While there are other statutes that deal with firefighters, deputy sheriffs, and other individuals, Minn. Stat. SS 466.07 and 465.76 grant the authority for municipalities to defend, indemnify and reimburse employees and officers for expenses incurred in connection with certain criminal matters and certain civil matters. Each of those statutes has exceptions, and requirements that must be met in order for the defense, indemnification or reimbursement to be made. It is our opinion that payments outside the parameters set forth by those statutes would be in conflict with Minnesota law, that they are thus quite likely to be viewed as beyond the power of the City to make, and that they could be void as against public policy. The last question posited by Council Member Schroeder was as follows: How do we ensure that a majority of the Council doesn't prevent the City from protecting and indemnifying the members or only provide inadequate legal services? A second part of that question was would there be some insurance policy that needs to be provided, and if so, how would the City pay for this policy? Addressing the insurance aspect of the question first, the City is already a member of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. The agreement with the Trust provides coverage for many types of civil claims that would be brought against officers and employees that seek damages. We are not aware of any type of insurance policy that provides coverage for claims of a criminal nature brought against an individual. That is a question that is perhaps more appropriately addressed to an insurance agent/broker. In terms of ensuring that the governing body of a municipality does not "provide inadequate legal services," that question makes several assumptions which are non-legal in nature. We think for the most part this concern is already addressed by the statutory framework, and the facts and circumstances present in the City. First, the LMCIT generally determines who will be assigned to defend the City and its employees and officers in claims brought against them. Minn. Stat. S 466.07 requires full indemnification when claims seek damages. Thus, even were one to claim that the LMCIT lawyer had performed poorly in providing services for the employee or officer, the statute requires full indemnification. Minn. Stat. S 465.76 talks only of "reimbursement." That means that the employee or officer will be selecting his or her own attorney. When a person chooses their own attorney, we do not believe that the Council need concern itself with whether that individual is choosing a lawyer