Agenda - Council - 04/08/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Another relevant factor listed in the case is whether or not other means are available, such as an opportunity for review, In that case the Court took into account the fact that the statutes permitted anyone aggrieved by a decision of thc board of managers to appeal to the state water resources board which could try the issue de novo. The Court has referred to the same factor in one subsequent decision made in an appeal to the courts from a town board decision to establish a town road. (Township Boars £alce F'alle,v ~. Lewis, Minn., 234 N.W. 2d 815, 1975.) In upholding the town board decision against an allegation of conflict of interest, the Court said that the availability of appeal to the district court in proceedings such as the one befora the Court will adequately protect occupants of the affected land from any possible prejudice. Effect of DisqualifTing Interest on Action Taken Uniike the situation involving'the ~naking of c contract, the fact that one member of the govern- ing body which must take a non-contract action has a disqualifying interest does not affect the result if the requisite majority without the in- terested official takes the action. The weight of judicial authority is clearly to this effect though there ace a few cases to the contrary. On the other hand, any ordinance, resolution, motion, contract, or other action for which a disqualified member -14- votes is void where the vote of the member is necessary to make up the number of votes required to take the action. (C.J.5., Municipal Corporations, Sec. 402, p. 761 .) Council members having a disqualifying interest in a matter are generally excluded in counting a quorum. Woodward ~. City o£ ~alce- ]Teld, 236 Mich. 417, 210 N.W. 322 (1926); State (Winans) ~. Crane, 36 N.J.L. 394 (1873}; Coles ~. W~lI~amsburgho 10 Wend (N,Y.) 659 (1833); Oconto County Super~,isors ~. Hall. 47 Wis. 208, 2 N.W. 291 (1879); see also Jones ~. ~orrison, 31 Minn. 140~' 16 N.W. 854 (1893), applying the same quorum rule to private corpora- tions. Thus in any 5-member council of.a statutory city ot home rule city in which a majority of ali members is not required for the passage of motions or resolutions,, three members who are. not .dis- qualified from voting constitute a quorum of whom any two would be a majority and by their affirmative vote could adopt the resolution or motion. (A.G. Op. 396g-16, LMC 130d, Oct. 15, 1957.) in adopting ordinances, for which a maj- ority of all members is required for adoption in statutory cities (M.S. 412.191, Subd. 4), three members, not including the interested member, must approve. Ail four non-interested members of a five-member council must approve a zoning o~dinance since the planning law requires a 4/5 vote of all the members in such cases. OCP 6.5-41 Rev:OP:glb ~,-77