Post in Park Board, Wi-Fi, and US Internet

May 26 03:22 UTC

Timothy J. Salo wrote:

> > Interesting concept that the Park Board isn't bound by contracts
> > signed by the City of Minneapolis.

AFAIK the Park Board is a separate legal entity, which enters into
contracts on its own behalf.  The City can't tell USI it can mount an
antenna on your house, or on the Federal Building, or on Hennepin
County property.  Why would one expect it to be able to obligate the
Park Board?

> > These sorts do episodes would seem to make a good case _against_
> > an independent Park Board.

What they actually make a good case against is the City ever again
using whatever parties gave them legal advice in negotiating the
contract.  Perhaps they have a case of legal malpractice, if that
party isn't a City employee.

> >    1.f "'City' means the City of Minneapolis and all of its
> >    departments, agencies, boards, commissions and affiliated
> >    government entities."
> >
> > Was some lawyer was supposed to read this and say: "But, this
> > section doesn't include the Park Board"?

Exactly.  That's precisely the sort of thing one hires lawyers to do.
 The word "its" would seem to be the critical word.

> > Did the City believe that "City Resources" included park
> > property?  Did USI Wireless?

Hard to say, I'd guess they just never thought about it, but again,
that's the sort of thing lawyers are supposed to catch.

> >If the Library Board still existed,
> > would they also have to be a party to this agreement?

Sounds like it.  Note that AFAIK the libraries are not City property,
they now belong to Hennepin County, and I'd doubt that the City has
the power to obligate Hennepin County, either.

> >   6.b.vii "vii) Permits. City shall cooperate with Provider to
> >   obtain any and all Permits from any governmental body, agency,
> >   commission or authorized representative that are required under
> >   any law, regulation, ordinance or rule that are necessary..."
> >
> > I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this is the City's
> > problem, not USI Wireless' problem.

I don't know.  The City is obligated to "cooperate" and presumably to
give it their best effort, but it's hard to see how they can be
expected to guarantee results, since those things may be controlled by
other bodies than the City.  So long as the City doesn't fail "to
cooperate", I'd think it would become USIW's problem.  But IANAL either.

All that said, I think it's unfortunate that the Park Board hasn't
shrugged and said "well, ya shoulda asked us, but it's for a good
cause."  It's not like a utility pole with an attached access point is
significantly more ugly than the same pole is without the access
point.  Of course, I do not know what the Park Board's precise
objections were, and they may have had good cause.