CC_Minutes_2003_0728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

July 27, 2003 Page 14 who will provide "adequate" or "inadequate" legal services. As the decision is made by the employee and/or official, the responsibility for that decision rests with them. As to the remaining portion of this last question, the only portion of it we can address in a legal fashion would be whether the Council can take some action which will bind this Council and future Councils in such a way that under all instances officials are indemnified when criminal charges are brought against them. We focus on the criminal area because in the civil area the membership in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust and the existence of Minn. Stat. S 466.07 provide appropriate methods of indemnifying and protecting employees and officers from civil claims. For the most part, we do not believe that the Council is even involved in those matters. We see no legitimate legal manner in which the Council can set forth rules which will determine how a member of the Council votes on the issue of reimbursement for criminal defense charges in the future. In each case Council members will decide the issue based on whether they believe the statutory standard for reimbursement is met. Elected officials use their discretion and judgment in voting on matters of public business put before them. In our opinion, there is no proper way to by rule or ordinance attempt to control the manner in which such judgment and discretion is exercised. Nor is there any way of controlling the actions of the majority of the members of the Council in exercising their discretion on future issues that come before the Council. Minn. Stat. S 465.76 requires that each member of a council weigh the facts of an issue and reach their own decision. It also requires that by majority vote the council decide when to apply the statute. Statutes operate under the premises that a majority of the council will defend, indemnify or make reimbursement when they, in their opinion, believe it to be appropriate and in the public interest. Under circumstances where there is a belief that the statute has been violated, appropriate judicial remedies are already available under the law. CONCLUSION We understand that this is a lengthy opinion. Therefore, to recap, we believe that the procedure to follow in a request for reimbursement of criminal defense costs must be that set forth under Minn. Stat. S 465.76. The decision is one that must be made by the four members of the Council who do not have an interest in this matter. Consideration of reimbursement occurs after there has been a written request. There must be submitted an itemized and detailed billing statement in order for the governing body to determine that the amount sought in reimbursement represents reasonable fees. The Mayor should not take part in any of the discussion process or decision-making process relating to the reimbursement claim. Council Member Kough, who we understand is deemed to be the acting Mayor in the Mayor's absence, should chair the Council during any discussion and voting of the reimbursement issue. The standard for determining reimbursement is one of what is reasonable under the facts and circumstances. That depends upon the totality of the circumstances. It will also depend upon