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

Home

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 grounds 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 listed from the Lenz (supra) case, and other factors explained, it was Mr. LeFevem's opinion a court would not set aside the act of the Council of December 11, 2001, on the basis of a disqualifying conflict of interest. Mr. LeFevere reached the opinion that the Council actions of December 11, 2001, were not invalid by reason of a conflict of interest even if it is assumed that Councilmember Kurak would have a significant financial benefit from a favorable action on the application of her husband. However, he did not have facts available to determine whether 1) the land use change requested would significantly increase the value of the property owned by Councilmember Kurak's husband; or 2) whether Councilmember Kurak would enjoy a significant economic benefit from a decision to change the permitted land uses. Mr. LeFevere also noted in his opinion that the opinion was limited to the action taken on December 11,2001, and would not necessarily apply to later decisions by the City Council on the proposed land use changes. Councilmember Hendriksen felt that if the definition of the action taken on December 11 was incorrectly described, it could change the opinion. He inquired as to how Mr. LeFevere was informed of the action that took place. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the information came primarily from the meeting minutes of December 11,2001. Mr. Goodrich reviewed the information included in those minutes. Councihnember 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 24 and, after that, the Council will be voting on each of the amendments. Councilnuember Hendriksen inquired if the City Attorney's statement is that those 13 amendments had not been incorporated into a draft of the Comprehensive Plan that will be subject to the public hearing. City Council/January 8, 2002 Page 20 of 27