My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1993.04.19 RESO 1993-0005
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
1993 CC Resolutions
>
1993.04.19 RESO 1993-0005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2017 2:03:44 PM
Creation date
1/14/2015 1:56:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Resolutions
Meeting Date
4/19/1993
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In this case, individual Council Members incurred <br />legal fees for attempting to perform their duties, <br />in good faith reliance on the advice of an expert <br />consultant. The Court's decision clearly <br />demonstrated that there was no intent to evade the <br />requirements of the Open Meeting Law. This <br />particular decision is very important as it will <br />affect the willingness of other qualified <br />individuals to seek office in Hugo. If capable <br />citizens face the prospect of incurring legal fees, <br />even when acting in good faith, and upon the advice <br />of an expert, they may decide not to seek office. <br />This could be damaging to the City government. <br />Similarly, if payment is made, citizens may think <br />their officials are simply covering for themselves. <br />This could undermine confidence in the City <br />government. An erosion of confidence could also be <br />damaging to City government. <br />b. The nature of the pecuniary interest. <br />The pecuniary interest in this case is direct. A <br />vote on this issue could take money from the City <br />Treasury and put it directly into the hands of the <br />interested Council Members. Consequently, the City <br />Council realizes that this is not a theoretical or <br />possible conflict of interest. Instead, it is a <br />direct pecuniary conflict of interest. <br />Nonetheless, the actual dollar amount involved in <br />this case for each individual Council Member is <br />relatively small. Each Council Member seeks <br />reimbursement of $ 689.25 (total costs equal <br />$3,446.45). While we all recognize that no one <br />wishes to pay any amount of money that they need not <br />pay, this case does not involve thousands (or tens <br />of thousands) of dollars as other similar cases <br />sometimes do. The Council is cognizant of the fact <br />that the dollar amounts involved in this case are <br />not the type that would tempt the ordinary, <br />reasonable and honest person to violate the law or <br />their own moral conscience. <br />C. The number of officials making the decision who are <br />interested. <br />In this case, 4 of the 5 City Council Members are <br />interested in this decision. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.