1993.04.19 RESO 1993-0005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

In this case, individual Council Members incurred legal fees for attempting to perform their duties, in good faith reliance on the advice of an expert consultant. The Court's decision clearly demonstrated that there was no intent to evade the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. This particular decision is very important as it will affect the willingness of other qualified individuals to seek office in Hugo. If capable citizens face the prospect of incurring legal fees, even when acting in good faith, and upon the advice of an expert, they may decide not to seek office. This could be damaging to the City government. Similarly, if payment is made, citizens may think their officials are simply covering for themselves. This could undermine confidence in the City government. An erosion of confidence could also be damaging to City government. b. The nature of the pecuniary interest. The pecuniary interest in this case is direct. A vote on this issue could take money from the City Treasury and put it directly into the hands of the interested Council Members. Consequently, the City Council realizes that this is not a theoretical or possible conflict of interest. Instead, it is a direct pecuniary conflict of interest. Nonetheless, the actual dollar amount involved in this case for each individual Council Member is relatively small. Each Council Member seeks reimbursement of $ 689.25 (total costs equal $3,446.45). While we all recognize that no one wishes to pay any amount of money that they need not pay, this case does not involve thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars as other similar cases sometimes do. The Council is cognizant of the fact that the dollar amounts involved in this case are not the type that would tempt the ordinary, reasonable and honest person to violate the law or their own moral conscience. C. The number of officials making the decision who are interested. In this case, 4 of the 5 City Council Members are interested in this decision. 3