Minutes - Council - 01/08/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Community Development Director Frolik was unsure, but noted that information would be included in the ad, Councilmelnber Zimmerman requested that staff update the Council at the next Council meeting so they can notify public. Motion by Councilmember Hendriksen, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to declare the excess equipment as surplus and authorizing staff to advertise the items for sale in the Anoka Union. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Hendriksen, Kurak, Anderson, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Absent: Mayor Gamec. Case #9A: City Attorney Opinion City Attorney Goodrich stated that on December 11, 2001, the Council held a work session at which time City staff brought to the Council a matter for discussion, seeking direction from the Council. At the December 18 City Council meeting, the Council requested a legal opinion regarding any conflict of interest pertaining to Councilmember Kurak voting on land use issues that impact her own property. In forming the opinion he consulted with Attorney Charles LeFevere fi'om the firm of Kennedy and Graven. Mr. Goodrich reviewed Mr. LeFevere's opinion noting the following: The question presented was whether to hold a public hearing on a number of changes to the Comprehensive Plan that had been proposed either by staff or affected land owners. Two of the parcels of land affected are owned by the husband of Councilmember Kurak. Because the discussion occurred at a work session, no formal action by the City Council was taken, and no vote was taken. For the purpose of Mr. LeFevere's opinion, he assumed that if the land use designation is changed and the property is rezoned, the value of the land owned by Councilmember Kurak's husband would increase significantly. He also assumed that any financial benefit to the landowner would be shared in some measure by Councilmember Kurak. However, he noted that those were assumptions on his part and that he had no actual evidence or knowledge that those assumptions were accurate. Mr. LeFevere indicated that the term "conflict of interest" is not a legal term with a single definition.' It may be used to describe any one of a number of doctrines under which an official is, or may be, limited in his or her official activities because of position, interest or relationship outside of his or her public office. The term is also used in a non~legal sense to describe any one of a number of situations in which an official's objectivity or fairness may be called into question because of real or perceived outside influences on the official. Acting in the later circumstances may involve the appearance of impropriety in the eyes of some, but is not unlawful. Public officials are sometimes called upon to decide 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, City Council/January 8, 2002 Page 19 of 27