1993.04.19 RESO 1993-0005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

d. The need. if any. to have interested persons make the decision. e. In this case, if interested Council Members are not allowed to vote on the issue of whether or not reimbursement should be made, then no decision can be made. A decision not to allow the Council Members to vote will be a vote to say that the City Council has been legally stymied from considering this important issue. This case does not present a case wherein a quorum of the Council would remain to decide the case in the absence of those interested. In this case, if the interested Council Members abstain from voting, the issue can not be decided. their selfish interests. In this case there is a means of review available to the City Council to insure that a neutral fact finder may review this case and determine whether any decision made by the City Council is proper. Specifically, Minnesota Statute 5465.76 provides for review by the District Court of any reimbursement which this Council may vote to be made to the individual Council Members. Minnesota Statute 8465.76 does not explicitly apply to the Open Meeting Law. However, pursuant to an Attorney General opinion dated December 31, 1992, the Minnesota Attorney General's Office stated "therefore, a City may provide reimbursement for defense of City Officials against whom sanctions are sought under the Open Meeting Law pursuant to the authority and subject to conditions of 8465.7611. 4. Through an analysis of the Lenz factors above, this Council is of the firm opinion that the 4 interested members of the City Council must vote on this issue. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, and with the advice of the City Attorney, this Council makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. That the actions of each of the City Council Members in this case in attending the council meetings on February 24, 1992, and March 14, 1992, arose out of the reasonable and lawful performance of duties for the City of Hugo. The City Council 4