Laserfiche WebLink
Special City Council Minutes - 07/31/03 <br />Page 5 <br />counties, school districts and municipalities. Mr. <br />Anderson encouraged Councilmembers to base their <br />definition of "disinterested party" to be simply pecuniary <br />in nature, and not subject to political interpretation. <br />Councilmember Maschka clarified Mr. Anderson's <br />interpretation of the City Ordinance 1269 (Chapter 105) <br />and those areas in conflict with State Statute; with Mr. <br />Anderson restating his opinion and rationale upon which <br />that legal opinion was based. <br />Councilmember Maschka clarified that the City's <br />insurance carrier, the League of Minnesota Cities <br />Insurance Trust (LMCIT), by statute provided for civil <br />litigation; and tonight's discussion was only focused on <br />criminal litigation; with Mr. Anderson responding in the <br />affirmative. Mr. Anderson further clarified that Minnesota <br />State Statute § 466.07 mandates that municipalities defend <br />and indemnify their employees for damages when civilly <br />sued for performance within the scope and realm of their <br />official duties. <br />Councilmember Maschka reviewed his interpretation of <br />the procedure and tests needing to be followed by the City <br />Council as outlined by City Attorney Anderson; with Mr. <br />Anderson concurring with Councilmember Maschka's <br />interpretation. <br />Further discussion ensued between Councilmember <br />Maschka and City Attorney Anderson related to <br />intentional vs. unintentional conduct; reasonable and <br />lawful performance of duties; and reasonable costs. <br />Councilmember Maschka then reviewed several concerns <br />and questions presented to him by several in the Roseville <br />constituency that had arisen from this case and were <br />related to definition of a contract; public official <br />guidelines; with Mr. Anderson opining that the judge's <br />opinion and action had been based on standard contract <br />law. <br />