My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-25-2015 Council Packet
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
02-25-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2015 9:34:46 AM
Creation date
2/23/2015 9:29:26 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
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
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />Minn. Stat. § 471.88. <br />Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 1. <br />1989 Street Improvement <br />Program v. Denmark <br />Township, 483 N.W.2d 508 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. 1992). <br />Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 2. <br />Minn. Stat. ch. 118A. <br />Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 3. <br />Minn. Stat. § 331 A.04. <br />2. Exceptions and procedures <br />There are several important exceptions that apply to all cities. In these <br />circumstances, a city may move forward with the matter if the interested <br />officer discloses his or her interest at the earliest stage and abstains from <br />voting or deliberating on any contract in which he or she has an interest. <br />Generally, an exception may only be used by a city when approved by <br />unanimous vote of the remaining councilmembers. There are also <br />additional requirements for some of the exceptions that are discussed <br />below. <br />A 1992 decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals suggests that <br />interested officers should abstain from voting even when not expressly <br />required to do so under the law. In that case, a township was challenged <br />because an improvement project had not received the required four-fifths <br />majority vote of the town board (two members whose properties would be <br />assessed abstained). The court said the two interested board members were <br />correct to abstain since their interests disqualified them from voting. As a <br />result, the remaining three board members' unanimous vote was sufficient. <br />A city council may enter into the following contracts if the proper <br />procedure is followed, even though the contract may impact the interests <br />of one of its officers. <br />a. Bank or savings association <br />The city council may designate a bank or savings association that a city <br />officer has an interest in as an authorized depository for public funds and <br />as a source of borrowing. No restriction applies to the designation of a <br />depository or the deposit of public funds if the funds are protected in <br />accordance with state law. <br />Procedure: <br />• The officer discloses his or her interest in the bank or savings <br />association (this should occur when the bank or savings association is <br />first designated or when the official is first elected or appointed, <br />whichever is later). The disclosure is recorded in the meeting minutes <br />and serves as notice of such interest for each successive transaction. <br />• The interested officer abstains from voting on the matter. <br />• The council approves the designation by unanimous vote. <br />b. Official newspaper <br />The city council may designate as the official newspaper (or publish <br />official matters in) a newspaper in which a city officer has an interest. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 <br />Official Conflict of Interest <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.