09-28-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I.MCU IJOAKU UF DlRKC'iOKS I e Ft* VC re c«)ntlnue<l that the conflict o f AuKUst 26, 1092 j f 11 c r e s t policy statement adopted by conflict of interest it IS somewhat of an been just q handful have ruled that even the ho.ir<l general IV deals with tlnit type of , and is consistent with the law. although over simplification of the la»». There have of cases i fi Minnesota in winch the c u r t s tlu)uah there is nothing in the statutes, the couita will step in and say it is improper for a hoard member to have vote<l. At the outset I can say sot a where the courts have qualified when o member has In other words, everything I I am not aware of any ca ;e in Minne- ruled that someone ought to be dis- an interest which is not |*ecuniary. have found in case law has indicated that that interest has to be pecuniary. It has to be of finan cial or economic benefit to the hoard member for disqualification to occur. In cases where there is not a pecuniary interest, any alleged conflict could be a matter of ethics or propriety of the act. but would not be illeeal conflict of interest. Lelevere continued that there ore three cases that he would call to the Board’s attention that he thinks miaht tell how a court might have viewed such a conflict of interest. In one case a city council acted on a vai i.ance a|>pl ication for i cfiuicli. <uie of the council members was a contributing membe»- of that church. It w’os for an ordinary expansion of the church’s pitysical plant. The court concluded that there was nothing improper about that, at least in the legal sense. That action was not a basis for decision and the court took no action. They that there was no reason mere membership in the sufficient to justify overturning the decision overturning the simply concludeii organ i 7 4tl ion was of the city council. Froliahly the leading case, the one that in citevi most^olCon. was Lenz vs. the Coon Creek ttatersbed District, in rtp”. The Minnesota Supreme Court laid out some standards to consider In deciding whether there was imf»ropor conflict. Reading from this case tells where the court was coming from. This language has been cited. I think, in every case since this case, as guidance to the courts in deciding if c»>nflict exists. "The puipose behind the creat ion i^f a rule which would disqualify public officials from i»ailicif>aling in proceed ings in a decision making capacity when they have a direct interest in its ouico».'’e is to ensure their decision will not be an arbitrary reflection of their own selfish inter est. there is n»»t a general rule as to whether *iich an interest will disqualify an official. Each case must be decided on the basie of the particular factors present. Aiming l lie factors to he cunsideieJ in making the deltrmioa- t I on are: 1) 1hg nature of the decision being made 2t The nature of the pecuniary interest The number of the ullicialt making the de«iei.»n.