Chapter 2.10
DEFENSE AND INDEMNITY OF CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Sections:
2.10.020 Limitations and reservations.
2.10.030 Administrative proceedings.
2.10.010 Action or proceeding against an officer, employee, or volunteer of local governmental entity – Payment of damages and expenses of defense.
(1) Whenever an action or proceeding for damages is brought against any past or present officer, employee, or volunteer of the city arising from acts or omissions while performing or in good faith purporting to perform his or her official duties, such officer, employee, or volunteer may request the city of Oak Harbor to authorize the defense of the action or proceeding at the city’s expense.
(a) If a request is covered by insurance, the mayor may authorize defense to the extent there is insurance. If the mayor does not authorize defense the mayor’s ruling may be appealed to the city council.
(b) If not covered by insurance or the claim is in excess of insurance, the matter shall be referred for decision to the city council.
(c) A decision by the council is not appealable.
(2) Prior to action, the city attorney shall review the matter and provide input to the city council. Such counsel may be in closed session if authorized by state law.
If the city council finds that the acts or omissions of the officer, employee, or volunteer were, while performing in good faith or purported to be in good faith, and within the scope of his or her official duties, the request shall be granted. If the city council indicates it is considering denying the claim, the officer, employee or volunteer may request to be heard on the matter. If the request is granted, the necessary expenses of defending the action or proceeding shall be paid by the city. Any monetary judgment against the officer, employee, or volunteer shall be paid on approval of the city council.
(3) The necessary expense of defending an elected officer of the city in a judicial hearing to determine the sufficiency of a recall charge as provided in RCW 29.82.023, shall be paid by the city if the officer requests such defense and approval is granted by the city council.
(4) The expenses paid by the city may include costs associated with an appeal of the decision rendered by the superior court concerning the sufficiency of the recall charge. (Ord. 1001 § 1, 1995).
2.10.020 Limitations and reservations.
The city’s undertaking and obligations under OHMC 2.10.010 are subject to these limitations and reservations:
(1) OHMC 2.10.010 does not apply to, and the city shall have no obligation to defend or indemnify with respect to, claims and litigation arising from any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious acts or omissions of officers, employees or volunteers of the city.
(2) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to modify or amend any provision of any policy of insurance wherein the city or any official, employee or volunteer thereof is the named insured. In the event of any conflict between this chapter and the provisions of any such policy of insurance, the policy provision shall be controlling; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to limit or restrict any employee’s, official’s or volunteer’s rights to full coverage pursuant to this chapter, it being the intention of this section to provide complete coverage outside and beyond insurance policies which may be in effect while not compromising the terms and conditions of such policies by any conflicting provision contained in this chapter.
(3) If a bargaining unit contract covers any of the provisions of this chapter, all individuals under such contract shall be governed by the provisions thereof, rather than by the provisions of this chapter, and where any conflict exists between the provisions of any such contract and this chapter, such contract shall control.
(4) Nothing in OHMC 2.10.010 shall preclude the city from undertaking an officer’s, employee’s or volunteer’s defense under a reservation of rights. (Ord. 1001 § 1, 1995).
2.10.030 Administrative proceedings.
In the event there is made against any city officer, employee or volunteer, any administrative charge of misconduct which may be the subject of any proceedings before any administrative tribunal of any city, state, or federal agency which may lead to the administrative imposition of a monetary penalty, the making of any recommendation regarding the city employment of the officer, employee or volunteer, or the imposition of any discipline or sanction related to a professional license, the officer, employee or volunteer shall be entitled to request that the city shall investigate and defend the officer, employee or volunteer in such administrative proceedings. The request for investigation and defense shall be made to the mayor. Thereafter, the mayor shall, after receiving a report and recommendation regarding the request from the relevant department head and the city attorney, make a determination as to whether it would be in the city’s interest and in the interest of justice for the city to provide investigation and defense for the officer, employee or volunteer in such administrative proceedings, including any judicial review of such proceedings. The decision of the mayor may be appealed to the city council by the party affected. The decision of the city council is not appealable.
If the determination is made that the city will defend in administrative proceedings the city will indemnify the officer, employee or volunteer with respect to any monetary penalty imposed. (Ord. 1001 § 1, 1995).
2.10.040 Punitive damages.
When an officer, employee or volunteer of the city has been represented in a claim or litigation or both by the city pursuant to this chapter, and a judgment is rendered against such officer, employee or volunteer for punitive damages, the officer, employee or volunteer may make a request to the city council that the city pay the award of punitive damages on behalf of the officer, employee or volunteer. Upon receiving a request made by or on behalf of a city officer, employee or volunteer that the city should pay an award of punitive damages, the city council shall receive a report and recommendation from the officer’s, employee’s or volunteer’s department head and city attorney. Following receipt of the report and recommendation of the relevant department head and city attorney, the city council shall determine whether the best interests of the city and justice will be served by payment by the city of the award for punitive damages, from which determination there shall be no appeal. (Ord. 1001 § 1, 1995).