Laserfiche WebLink
LMCD BOARD OF niRKCTORfi August 26, 1962 <br />4) 'I'he M(L*e:l to have interesle<l persons make I lie ilecision <br />5) The otlicr means available, if any, such ns the opportu­ <br />nity for review that serves to ensure that the <br />officials will not act arbitarily to serve further <br />their selfish interest." <br />That case involved a decision by a Watershed District to <br />construct a major ditch improvement. Some of the official.s owned <br />a considerable amount of real estate in the di.strict which would <br />be substantially benefited by the proposed improvement. Never­ <br />theless. a court found that under those circumstances and apply­ <br />ing that standard of review, there was not a sufficient need for <br />the court to create a rule disqualifying those officials from <br />acting. Even though they had an interest in that case, the court <br />substantial property would not disqualify them from acting. <br />There were some factors there that may have Influenced the court. <br />The court was not very helpful in explainine which f.iciois were <br />mo.st important. One of the factors, however, was that in order <br />for the project to go forward there was a need for the manavers <br />to make a decision. There would not have been enoueh raanacers <br />lell to make a decision it they had been reciuired to be disquali­ <br />fied. It is quite clear that in that balnncine analysis, it is <br />quite possible for someone to have a f a i r I >' substafitial pecuniary <br />interest and .still not be d i .squa I i I i ed under Minnesota law. <br />A more recent .Supreme Court case of I9.S5 was a case in which <br />a liquor license renewal was denied. One of the councilmeml»ers <br />had a piece of pro|ierty across the .street from the liquor estab­ <br />lishment. That counc i I member had stated as a matter of public <br />record that the firesence of the liquor es t ab I i shmii t diminished <br />the value of his property by $100,000. The .Sufiremc Court held <br />that his participation in that process was a direct, obvious and <br />flagrant conflict of interest, disqualify inc that party from <br />liquor license application for th.at estab- <br />ho owned that property a <br />any <br />As <br />future <br />long as <br />acting on <br />I ishment. <br />exist . <br />feEcvere s.nid in <br />an appIt ca tion before <br />per so, <br />V o t i n u . <br />conflict would <br />a club that h.as <br />is not enoueli. <br />summary that membership in <br />this !)ody, in his opinion <br />if that is the only factor, to disqualifv someone from <br />It is not II legal conflict of interest. However, there <br />may be circumstances in any given case where a person could have <br />a direct interest, a pecuniary interest, which would leHiili in <br />lh«*l person being disqualified. Vou can take as an example a <br />yacht club, a non-profit organilaiion. whicn has ten members. If <br />the license is ei.inted Ih.st allows the club to bni'c ten slips, •$ <br />offe'S considerable economic value. If the license is not eranl- <br />ed. the members would have on Iv one iberefoie. thr ia»ue <br />to the individual boarti member is fairly direct and fairlv obei- <br />out and results in a fatrlv large ec»»noMic beM'iii. In ibnt <br />case, it IS not the siere membership in the club which raises I Iie» <br />conflict ol intereal. flie finding that that person a pecttniarg <br />interest in havine that application granted is suffi­ <br />cient iy direct that il Is fair to state I ha I I heir judcaeni mmf <br />lie clouded in acting fairly on the api»l real'•’a.