02-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 5. Minn. Stat. § 471.345. LMC information memo, Competitive Bidding Requirements in Cites. Minn. Stat. § 410.191. Minn. Stat. §412.02, subd. la. Section V, Compatibility of offices. "Compatibility of Offices," House Information Brief (July 2012). Letvick v. Glazier, 116 Mich. 493, 74 N.W. 717 (1898). Section IV -B, Non- contrncatal situations. Minn. Stat. § 519.05. Minn. Stat. § 412.311. A.G. Op. (June 28, 1928). A.G. Op. 90-C-5 (July 30, 1940). A.G. Op. 90-b (Apr. 5, 1955). A.G. Op. (Dec. 9, 1976) (informal letter opinion). b. Elected officials and city employment The League is often asked if an elected city official can also be employed by the city. There is an exception to the conflict of interest law that allows a contract to be made with an interested official if the contract is not required to be competitively bid. This exception appears to permit a city to hire an elected official as an employee, since contracts for professional services and employment are not required to be competitively bid. However, there are several issues that must be considered to determine whether this is permissible in any specific situation. (1) Full-time employment Neither the mayor nor any city councilmember may also be a "full-time, permanent" city employee. Full-time, permanent employment is defined by the city's employment policy. (2) Part-time employment For part-time employment, it must be determined if the two positions are incompatible. If the positions are incompatible, an individual may not serve in both positions at the same time. c. Contracts with family members The conflict of interest laws do not directly address conflicts that may arise out of family relationships. The courts of other states generally have held that family relationship alone has no disqualifying effect on the making of a contract. There must generally be proof that a councilmember has a financial interest in the contract. Non -contractual situations are similar. Under existing law, spouses are responsible for each other's necessities. A contract with the councilmember's spouse in a statutory city may violate the law if the councilmember has a direct or indirect interest in it. The attorney general has construed the law broadly to hold such contracts invalid. If the money earned under the contract is used to support the family, the councilmember derives some benefit. In this type of situation, the attorney general has held that there is an indirect interest in the contract. However, in more recent opinions, the attorney general has taken the position that each case turns on its individual facts. If a spouse who contracts with the city uses the earnings from the contract individually and not to support the family, the contract probably would not be invalid simply because the spouse is a councilmember. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 14