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