|
I4,03 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 4
<br />of the transactions of the corporate meeting-" The appointment o
<br />one to keep the records, made by the presiding officer without objec-
<br />tion, may be considered an appointment by the meeting. 12 where
<br />the selectmen of a town, without express authority, appointed
<br />temporary clerk, who acted without objection, ion, his record of the
<br />transactions of the meeting was held valid on the de Facto princi-
<br />ple.'
<br />' Massaebusett , At rney-General
<br />v. Crocker, 138 Mass 214.
<br />s Montana. Butte Y. Nevin, 46 Mont
<br />380, 128 P 600 (clerk).
<br />New York. In re Village of Haver -
<br />straw, 132 11 i c 42, 229 NTYS 357 (village
<br />clerk).
<br />3 Illinois. Atwood v. Otter, 296 1 170,
<br />129 NE 573; People v. Carr, 231111502,
<br />83 NE 269; Hepier v. People, 226111275,
<br />o NE 759.
<br />* Vermont. Lei gt n v. Blodgett, 26
<br />t 216.
<br />5 Connecticut. Bartlett v. Kinsl , ,1
<br />Conn 327.
<br />Maine. Kellar v. Savage, 17 Me 444.
<br />Massachusetts, Stebbins v. Merritt,
<br />Io Cush 27.
<br />' Nein York. Stanley v. Board of Ap-
<br />peals of Village of Pierpont, 168 Mise
<br />797, 5 NYS2d 956.
<br />' Iowa. Sean v. Indianola, 142 Iowa
<br />7313 121 NW 547 (deputy clerk).
<br />a Arkansas. Lackey v. Fayetteville
<br />Water Co., 80 Ark 108, 96 SW 622.
<br />8 Maine Kellar v. Savage, 17 Me 444.
<br />Ohio, State v. Fouts, 103 Ohio St 345,
<br />132 NE 729.
<br />10 Michigan. People v. Ihnken, 129
<br />Mich 466, 89 NW 72.
<br />1'Vermont Hickok v. Shelburne, 41
<br />t 409, Hutchinson v. Pratt, 11 Vt 402.
<br />12 Oregon. State v. McKee, 20 Care
<br />120, 25 P 292; State v. Smith (Ore), 25 P
<br />389.
<br />13 Massachusetts. Attorney -General
<br />. Crocker, 138 Mass 214, 219.
<br />IL SUFFICIENCY
<br />14.03. Showing required.
<br />The municipal record, to be complete, should show all of the
<br />til o material respecting the corporate �, r� t r trr c -
<br />tion arTd that all of the mandatoEy charter j2rovisions have been
<br />fo
<br />llowed ia. For example, where bills are required to �
<br />rea certain aura r of times before passage, the record should
<br />how that this has been done .2 However-, the -6ew has been expressed
<br />that a council need not, as a prerequisite to taking action, compile
<br />a e �identiar�� record through formal proceedings. It i free t base
<br />iLs actions on information. and arguments that come to it from any
<br />source.' An incomplete record or the absence ofa record may reader
<br />ineffectual the action taken or ur rte to have been taken- A
<br />record is suf ' ent, however, if it shows tat the ordinance was
<br />adopted in the manner and by the vote prescribed and duly entered
<br />in the minutes as required," even though there are some irregulari-
<br />ties in the record." Failure to sign' or delay in signing" the uta
<br />0
<br />
|