Laserfiche WebLink
Members were required to attend the meetings. The meetings were <br />for the purpose of hiring a new City Administrator. It was part <br />of the lawful and reasonable duties of the Council Members to <br />attend those meetings. <br />2. That based upon the decision of District Court Judge <br />Gary R. Schurrer, the City Council adopts the following findings: <br />(a) The actions taken by the individual Council <br />Members were taken in good faith. <br />(b) There was no intent on the part of any of the <br />individuals involved to violate any clearly established legal <br />duties. In fact, each of the Council Members were guided in their <br />decisions by the advice of a professional consultant. That <br />consultant advised the Council Members that there was nothing <br />improper in closing the meeting on February 24, 1992. <br />(c) The Council Members acted reasonably. The <br />Council Members were engaged in normal Council Member activities. <br />They were not meeting in such a manner as would put a reasonable <br />Council Member on notice that they were violating the Open Meeting <br />Law. <br />(d) Similarly, the City Council Members were each <br />attempting to faithfully perform the duties of their offices. Each <br />had been informed that what they were doing was not only proper but <br />required for them to fulfill their duties as Council Members. A <br />City Administrator position needed to be filled. The City Council <br />is the appropriate body to appoint a person to that position. The <br />interested Council Members were attempting to faithfully perform <br />the function of hiring a new City Administrator. <br />3. There is no evidence to suggest that any member of <br />the Council intended to evade the Open Meeting Law in any way. In <br />fact, the individual Council Members sought the advice of their <br />independent consultant before agreeing to meet. The Court has <br />noted a complete lack of improper motivation and a good faith <br />reliance upon the advice of the consultant. Similarly, the members <br />informed the public that they would be holding the meeting. This <br />was not a "secret" meeting. It was only closed to the public. <br />4. The amount of legal fees sought to be reimbursed in <br />this case is reasonable given the nature of the charge and the work <br />done. The fact that the 4 Council Members agreed to be defended <br />by the same attorney has lowered the overall defense costs that <br />might have been incurred in this case. Judging from the legal fees <br />charged in the recently publicized case from the City of Afton, <br />Minnesota, this Council can only conclude that the legal fees <br />sought to be reimbursed in this case are more than reasonable. <br />5 <br />