2001 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

decision, "[the commissioner's] mere presence creates the obvious appearance of impropriety and undermines the public confidence in the system "); Deretich v. Office of Admin. Hearings, 798 F.2d 1147 (8th Cir. 1986) (the state office of administrative hearings had a compelling interest "in avoiding an appearance of impropriety" and therefore was justified in placing a restriction on a hearing officer's right to associate with a law firm representing clients before other administrative hearing officers). 26. In a 1926 case, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that a state statute prohibiting public officials from having any interest in contracts they made as public officials was violated by a town supervisor who provided his personal automobile to the county at actual cost and without profit to himself. State v. Sandberg, 168 Minn. 363, 209 N.W.2d 943 (1926). The Court noted that the absence of profit did not change the meaning of the statute. According to the Court, "It is the intent of the statute [forbidding public officials from having an interest in public contracts] to forestall any question of a delicate nature and to prevent unfavorable comment on transactions which may bring the administration of public affairs in disrepute." Id. 168 Minn. 363, 209 N.W.2d at 943. See also Singewald v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 274 Minn. 556, 142 N.W.2d 739, 740 (1966) (a conflict may result in disqualification to vote even though the interested official is "motivated by a high sense of responsibility for community affairs "). 27. See, e.g., Code of Ethics for Metropolitan Council Members §§ 2, 7 (prohibiting the use of confidential information to further private interests; prohibiting participation in any matter pending before the Council if the member or the member's immediate family or business partner has a fmancial interest in the pending matter). 28. "Any individual who signs and certifies to be true a report or statement [ required under the Act ] knowing it contains false information or who knowingly omits required information is guilty of a gross misdemeanor." Minn. Stat. § 10A.10 (1998). "A person charged with a duty under sections 10A.02 to 10A.34 shall be personally liable for the penalty for failing to discharge it." Minn. Stat. § 10A.34, subd. 1 (1998). Cf City of Minneapolis v. Canterbury, 122 Minn. 301, 142 N.W. 812 (1913) (the city fire department chief who participated as a member of a subcommittee responsible for reviewing and recommending property sites suitable for city acquisition was required to pay the city excess profits derived from a city purchase in which the fire chief had an indirect fmancial interest). 29. Minn. Stat. § 10A.09, subd. 1(3) (1998). 30. Minn. Stat. § 10A.09, subd. 5 (1998). 31. Minn. Stat. § 10A.09, subd. 6 (1998). 32. The Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board may impose late filing fees after providing proper notice and "[a]n individual who fails to file a statement within seven days after a second notice is guilty of a misdemeanor." Minn. Stat. § 10A.09, subd. 7 (1998). "Any public official * * * who is required to file a statement of economic interest and fails to do so by the prescribed deadline shall be suspended without pay by the board in the manner prescribed in the contested case procedures in chapter 14. Minn. Stat. § 10A.09, subd. 8 (1998). 33. Minn. Stat. § 10A.02, subd. 12(a) (1998). 34. Minn. Stat. § 10A.02, subd. 12(c) (1998). 35. Minn. Stat. § 10A.02, subd. 12(c) (1998).