02-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 153 N.W.2d 209 (1967). Gonsalves v. City of Dairy Valley, 71 Cal. Rptr. 255 (Cal. 0. App. 1968). Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 153 N.W.2d 209(1967). Township Bd. of Lake Valley Township v. Lewis, 305 Minn. 488, 234 N.W.2d 815 (1975). In general, when an act of a council is quasi-judicial, no member who has a personal interest may take part. Some would argue that the member's participation makes the decision voidable, even if his or her vote was not necessary. The bias of one councilmember could make a city council's decision arbitrary. When there is a disqualifying personal interest, the action is not necessarily void. In contrast to the rules regarding conflict of interest in contract situations, the official action may be valid if the required number of non -interested council members approved the action. 1. Disqualifying interest—factors The Minnesota Supreme Court has utilized several factors when determining whether a disqualifying interests exists: • The nature of the decision. • The nature of the financial decision. • The number of interested officials. • The need for the interested officials to make the decision. • Other means available, such as the opportunity for review. When an administrative body has a duty to act on a matter and is the only entity capable of acting, the fact that members may have had a personal interest in the result may not disqualify them from performing their duties. A very relevant factor is whether other means are available to ensure city officials will not act arbitrarily or in furtherance of self -interests. In one case, the court took into account the fact that a decision by a board of managers could be appealed to the state water resources board. In another case, the court said that the ability to appeal to the district court would adequately protect owners from any possible prejudice. 2. Common concerns a. Self -judgment On the theory that no person should be the judge of his or her own case, courts have generally held that an officer may not participate in proceedings where he or she is the subject. As a result, councilmembers are probably prohibited from judging themselves on an offense in which the majority of the council participated. Likewise, determination of a councilmember's residency may be one such issue from which an interested officer should abstain. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 10/17/2014 Official Conflict of Interest Page 17