Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
STATE OF MINNESOTA <br />COUNTY OF WASHINGTON <br />CITY OF HUGO <br />RESOLUTION 1993-5 <br />FINDINGS OF FACTS CONCLUSIONS AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />OF THE CITY OF HUGO REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES <br />INCURRED BY INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS IN DEFENDING AN OPEN MEETING <br />LAW VIOLATION LAWSUIT <br />WHEREAS, the current Hugo City Council is comprised of <br />the following members: <br />1. Walter Stoltzman, Mayor; <br />2. Bernard Brunotte, Council Member; <br />3. Fran Miron, Council Member; <br />4. Debra Barnes; Council Member; <br />5. Jim Leroux, Council Member; and <br />WHEREAS, four of the current members of the Hugo City <br />Council were named as individual defendants in a case known as Sell <br />Publishing Company, dib/a The Times, Plaintiff, vs. City Council <br />of the City of Hugo; Walter Stoltzman; Thomas Jesinski; Bernard <br />Brunotte; Debra Barnes; and Fran Miron, Defendants. Washington <br />County District Court File No. CX -92-1447; and <br />WHEREAS, plaintiffs brought suit pursuant to Minnesota <br />Statute Section 471.705 alleging that the above-named individual <br />council members had violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law on <br />February 24, 1992, and on March 14, 1992; and <br />WHEREAS, Council Member Debra Barnes was alleged only to <br />have violated the Open Meeting Law on March 14, 1992. The other <br />council members were alleged to have violated the Open Meeting Law <br />on both February 24, and March 14, 1992; and <br />WHEREAS, by Order Granting Summary Judgment dated <br />February 5, 1993, Gary R. Schurrer, Judge of District Court, ruled <br />that a violation of the Open Meeting Law had occurred on February <br />24, 1992, but that no violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred <br />on March 14, 1992; and <br />WHEREAS, in the Memorandum attached to his Order, Judge <br />Schurrer ruled ". . . that the closed meeting on February 24, 1992, <br />does constitute a technical violation of the Minnesota Open Meeting <br />Law. Defendants, with the exception of defendant Debra Barnes, who <br />was not present on February 24, 1992, acted in good faith reliance <br />upon the advice of the consultant hired to assist them. There was <br />1 <br />