Laserfiche WebLink
no intent or improper motivation on the part of any of the <br />defendants in closing the council meeting. However, good faith is <br />not a defense to a violation of the Open Meeting Law. The Court <br />may consider the parties' good faith when considering the penalty <br />to be imposed pursuant to Minn. Stat. §471.705 Subd. 2. Because <br />of the parties' lack of improper motivation and a good faith <br />reliance upon the advice of their consultant, the Court feels a <br />minimal fine is an appropriate penalty for the technical violation <br />of this statute . . . . . . there is no evidence to suggest that <br />any member of the Council intended to evade the Open Meeting Law <br />• and <br />WHEREAS, in his Order, Judge Schurrer completely <br />exonerated Council Member Debra Barnes from any wrongdoing; and <br />WHEREAS, each of the individual Council Members did incur <br />attorneys fees in defending against said Open Meeting Law violation <br />lawsuit. <br />NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hugo, upon <br />the Motion of Council Member Jim Leroux and the second of Council <br />Member Debra Barnes, and the unanimous vote of all members of the <br />City Council, do hereby authorize and approve of the following: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT <br />1. That 4 of the 5 current members of the Hugo City <br />Council would have a personal interest in any decision as to <br />whether or not Council Members should be reimbursed for their <br />attorneys fees. <br />2. That the general rule in Minnesota is that Council <br />Members who are interested in an issue which must be decided by the <br />body upon which they serve, may not take part in that decision. <br />3. That the Minnesota Supreme Court has set out a five <br />factor test in the case of Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, <br />153 N.W. 2d, 209 (Minnesota 1967). That the Lenz test is designed <br />to allow a public body to determine when interested members of that <br />body may still make a decision, this Council determines that those <br />factors apply to this case as follows: <br />a. The nature of the decision being made. <br />The nature of this issue is an important one for the <br />City of Hugo. This case touches upon important <br />public policy issues. It is important, therefore, <br />for the City Council to address it at this point in <br />time. Paramount in the Council's determination of <br />this issue is the "chilling effect" that this type <br />of lawsuit might have upon future Council Members <br />if it is not decided. <br />F <br />