Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />'here appear to ja no canes relative to interp_e_ation o` t::s <br />provision, however, t.iare are several Attorney General's o?irions <br />that discuss the relationship of menders of hospital boards, schoo: <br />boar", wclfara board. and volunteer fire doparLments and thecr <br />spoasas w:io had some _ype o. contractual relationsh-:l vith thr <br />ro_evant public body. Whet:,ar or not the public official volurtari_v <br />had a oorsonal financial interost or personally bene:ited finaneia:.. <br />from the contract or relationship was a question of f:,ct to be <br />resolved by the public body. <br />Another factor to be considered is whether or not the contract.... <br />spouse had already bean appointed or had the contract in question <br />before the public official ::as appointed or elr:ctod to his or hor <br />office. It appears in that case teat as long as theru was no ?erao.— <br />financial interest or a personal benefit to the public official, tien <br />t:lere is no prohibition, however, t:lat during the time the public <br />official serves on t'ne purl-c body any renewal, oxtt•nsion or aodifir.- <br />tion of tine contractual relationship between the public body and flue <br />contracting spouse nest be approved by unanimous vote of the governing <br />body. Therefore, in the case of a city, that public official cou16 <br />ct TT. -,It <br />extensionof modification ofythe �contract. <br />'lours truly, <br />Richard Meyers <br />Mounds View City Attorney <br />RM/ew <br />