Laserfiche WebLink
a.c. op. 9a~s (Nov. The attorney general has advised that the conflict of interest law applies to <br />13, 1969>; A.c. op. any councilmember "who is authorized to take part in any manner" in the <br />90e-6 (Jwe 15, 1988). <br />making of the contract. Simply abstainine from voting on the contract will <br />tallow the contract to be made. The attorney general reasoned that if the <br />Legislature had on y wanted to prohibit a contract with an interested officer <br />who votes on the contract, it would not have used the word "authorized." <br />A.G. Op. 90e-fi (June A literal reading of the statute might suggest that it does not apply to city <br />is, l9aa). officers who are unable to make a contract on behalf of the city. However, <br />the attorney general has given the statute a broad interpretation, which could <br />mean the statute affects more officials than just those who actually make the <br />decision to enter into the contract. As a result, it may be wise to take a <br />conservative approach regarding contracts wi any city official. <br />A.c. op. a7o(lune9, The clerk th a Standard Plan statutory city, or in a home mle charter city <br />i 9fi~). having a similar plan of government, is a member of the council but occupies <br />a peculiar position. He or she is subject to the conflict of interest stamtes and <br />may not be interested in a contract with the council. However, the council is <br />allowed to impose duties on the clerk in addition to those assigned by statute, <br />and the council may fix the clerk's compensation for those duties. <br /> 2. Exceptions and the procedures to use them <br />Minn. star S arl.aai. There are several important exceptions to the conflict of interest law on <br /> contracts. These exceptions apply to all cities, despite any other statutes or <br /> charter provisions. <br />Minn. Stet. §-071.88, Generally, an exception may only be used when approved by unanimous vote <br />su6d. I; 1989 Street of the council. In the past, it has been unclear whether this meant an <br />Imprmemem Progrom <br />e. fhnmark rmvn:mp, <br />interested officer should vote or abstain. However, a 1992 decision by the <br />483 N.W.2d 508 Minnesota Court of Appeals suggests that an interested officer should abstain <br />(Mi""' app. t 99z). from voting even when not expressly requtr- ed o of d so under the law. <br />/9a9 street The case dealt with a local improvement that was to be paid For with special <br />Improvement Program <br />v. Denmark TowntRip, assessments. Two members of the town boazd owned properties that would <br />aa3 N.w.za sos be specially assessed. The two interested boazd members abstained from <br />(Minn app 199s) voting on whether the improvement should occur. The remaining three boazd <br /> members approved the project. The township was challenged because the <br /> project had not received the required four-fifths majority vote of the board. <br /> However, the court said the two interested board members were correct not <br /> to have voted on the project since their interests disqualified them from <br /> voting. As a result, the remaining three board members' votes were sufficient <br /> to unanimously approve the project. <br />see Part lv-E- Aninterested officershould disclose his <br />Conflict ojimereat <br />cReck liaf. an a stain from voting or e i eratine on any contract in which he ~• ~tiP <br />` Illtere5[. 1 rte renl`8mner OI IOe COUnCII must I1r1anImOU51y appfOVe the <br />--- ~fc .'iT~ere are also a~onTa requuement~or same of the exceptions <br />-' t of tare discussed below. <br />i6 League of Minnesota Cities <br />