My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-14-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
02-14-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2023 12:59:23 PM
Creation date
12/8/2023 12:52:28 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
362
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
League of Minnesota Cities <br />3490 Leziogton Avenue Korth. <br />StP8ul.MN5512&^ <br />(612)490^ <br />OPEN MEETING LAW DEFENSE COST REIMBURSEMENT COVERAGE <br />NOW AVAILABLE <br />Beginning November 15, 1993, LMCIT is offering an new Open <br />Meeting Law Defense Cost coverage. This optional coverage will <br />reimburse city officials for 80% of the legal costs they incur <br />to defend themselves if they are charged with violating the Open <br />Meeting Law. <br />This new coverage is quite different from anything LMCIT (or <br />anyone else, for that matter) has done before. We'll try in <br />this memo to answer some of the questions that will come up when <br />city officials are deciding whether this coverage makes sense <br />for their city. <br />I. Why is this needed? Doesn't oxir existing LMCIT coverage <br />apply to Open Meeting Law claims? <br />Generally, no. The LMCIT liability coverage is designed to <br />respond to claims for damages. The Open Meeting Law doesn't <br />pj^ovide for damages/ it provides for a $100 civil penalty, and <br />loss of office for repeated violations. Fines and penalties are <br />not "damages" for purposes of the liability coverage, and LMCIT <br />therefor generally has no duty to get involved in defending Open <br />Meeting Law charges under the liability coverage. <br />The only exception is if the Open Meeting Law charge is co^ined <br />with a claim for damages that is covered under the liability <br />coverage. For instance, if an employee brought a wrongful <br />termination action against a city, the employee might also <br />charge that there was a violation of the open meeting as part of <br />the termination process. In that case, piCIT would be <br />responsible for defending the entire 7.^^® f?®”. <br />Meeting Law charge as well as the covered liability claim, <br />an open Meeting Law charge by itge.jf is not a claim for damages, <br />and the LMCIT liability coverage would therefor not respond. <br />II, why provide coverage for this type of exposure? <br />one of LMCIT's member cities asked the Trust Board to consider <br />adding this kind of coverage. The <br />instance in which several council members incurred very <br />sSbs?antial legal bills defending themselves against an Open <br />Meeting Law charge.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.