Agenda - Council - 01/22/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-70- whether to voluntarily refrain from participating in a matter to avoid the appearance of impropriety so as to preserve public confidence in government. However, such officials also have a duty to act and should not be dissuaded from fulfilling their official obligations merely because of unjustifiable allegations or "conflicts of interest". Mr. LeFevere expressed no opinion on alleged "conflicts of interest" that are matters only of propriety of politics. There are however, certain circumstances sometimes referred to as conflicts of interest that do have legal consequences. Those include the doctrines of incompatible offices, the rules relating to impermissible interests in public contracts, and the common law doctrine of conflicts of interest that disqualify a public official from acting on a matter in which he or she has an interest. That law is not based on statutes, but on the common law. The question then that was before Mr. LeFevere was whether a court would declare the action of the City Council on December 11, 2001, to be invalid on the ground that Councilmember Kurak had an impermissible conflict of interest that disqualified her from acting on the matter before the Council on that date. Based on the application of the factors~?14~t'¢d~.from the Lenz (supra) case, and other factors explained, it was Mr. LeFevere's opinion ~5~rt w~dld not set aside the act of the Council of December 11, 2001, on the basis of a di.~!!~lifying co~ict of interest. Mr. LeFevere reached the opinion that the Council actions of D~:~bmber 11, ;.2.'O(}1 were not invalid by reason of a conflict of interest even if it is assumed that Co~/~t~er+..~ ~ould have a significant financial benefit from a favorable action on the appi~'~atiomi~her l~b. and. However, he did not have facts available to determine whether 1) the land;~e~ch~dge requested would significantly increase the value of the property owned by Council~mber Kri'fiik'.~husband; or 2) whether Councilmember Kurak would enjoy a significant economic ~efit from ~.~e. cision to change the permitted land uses. Mr. LeFevere also noted in his op~°n .~0t~¢'~!~i~ion was limited to the action taken on December 11, 2001 and would not ne~ai4i~ppl~.~t$ later decisions by the City Council on the proposed land use changes. Councilmember Hendriksen felt that if the d~fii~itio~!b:~he a~{~bn taken on December 1 lth was incorrectly described it could change the opinio~?He'~:i~quired¢::~'~;~ to how Mr. LeFevere was informed of the action that took place. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the information came prim~}~i~o~}:;~e meeting minutes of December 11', 2001. Mr. Goodrich reviewed the informatio~Sn¢Ihded in those minutes. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that either this had been mischaracterized or a misunderstanding of what was being done at that meeting. He thought they were creating a land use map as part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and the vote being cast was whether or not those changes were to be included as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, not simply to include the changes for a public hearing to be held on January 24, 2002. He expressed concern that Kennedy & Graven has become a defense attorney or they misunderstood what went on or he misunderstood. He questioned what the status was on any Comprehensive Plan amendment. City Attorney Goodrich replied that no Comprehensive Plan amendment has been made. He explained that the 13 proposed amendments will be discussed at a public hearing on January 24th and after that the Council will be voting on each of the amendments. City Council/January 8, 2002 Page 20 of 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I: I I I I I I