8.10. SR 03-21-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Open meeting law bill gets committee approval e Joel Jamllik The House Government Opera- tions Committee on Tuesday passed H.F.613 (Carruthers, DFL-Brooklyn Center) a bill which would modify the state open meeting law. As amended, the bill represents an uneasy compro- mise between the Minnesota Newspa- per Association, the Minnesota School Board Association, the Association of Minnesota Counties, and the League of Minnesota Cities. The amended bill would clarify the ability of local governments to pay for any attorneys fees or costs imposed in an open meeting lawsuit, except where the court finds that the member was guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. Other positive points include giving local units authority to close meetings to review applicants' qualifications prior to the finalist stage of hiring, prohibit- ) ing any fines or attorney fees for nonintentional violations, and capping plaintiffs' attorney fees at $7500. The negatives are that the bill would allow courts to award plaintiff's attorney fees up to $7,500 and would increase the maximum civil penalty from $100 to $300 if the court finds the violation was "intentional." Complicating matters are several open meeting law cases working their way through the court system. The court released one of the decisions the morning of the hearing (see Afton court decision, page 3). We have not yet fully analyzed the impact the recent court of appeals decision will have on the amended bill. Everyone involved in this issue will have to quickly reexamine their positions because the Senate must consider the bill by the end of the month for there to be any reasonable prospect for passage. 0 · Open meeting law legal fees subject of court ruling Tom Grundhoefer The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled this week on who is responsible for paying costs and attorneys fees in open meeting law cases. The court said the language in the League of Minne- sota Cities Insurance Trust's property/ casually coverage requires LMCIT to reimburse councilmembers for costs they have incurred in defending open meeting law cases. "It's an outrageous misreading of the coverage language," said LMCIT Administrator Peter Tritz. "Based on a clause in the 'conditions' portion of the agreement, the court concluded that because the city is legally permitted to reimburse the councilmembers for attorneys fees, the LMCIT has a 'concomitant duty' to reimburse under the coverage agreement. e March 11, 1994 "It's really tortured reasoning. The court on the one hand said that LMCIT has no duty to indemnify the council members for the $100 fine because the agreement excludes 'fines and penalties' from its definition of damages," Tritz said. "But, the court completely ignored the coverage language which says LMCIT only has a duty to defend claims or suits seeking damages. " The court filed the decision March 8, 1994 in the case Kroschel v. City of Afton and the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. LMCIT strongly disagrees with the court's decisions in this case and will immediately appeal the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court rules on the matter, the LMc.. - C.l"I'e~ !?(.,{ (/~ti'k decision of the appeals court is without force and effect. While the issue is pending, LMCIT recommends that cities not assume they will have coverage under the standard coverage agreement. But, we do recommend that trust member cities advise LMCIT claims personnel of any open meeting law suits in their cities. For those who have, or arc considering purchasing, LMCIT's new optional open meeting law defense cost coverage, the Supreme Court action on this issue will affect your city's decision on the purchase of this coverage. LMCIT will keep members informed about new developments. If you have questions, please call Pete Tritz, Tom Grundhoefer, or Doug Gronli of the LMCIT staff. 0 P 3 q. Page 5