2001 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

43. The Ethical Practices Board's current rules state: [S]ubsequent to the filing of a potential conflict of interest notice, or subsequent to oral notice of a potential conflict of interest by a public official, his immediate superior shall assign the matter, if possible, to another employee who does not have a potential conflict of interest. If the public official who has a potential conflict of interest does not have an immediate superior except for notification purposes, the public official shall do one of the following. Where the public official having the potential conflict of interest is not required by law to determine the matter, he shall either assign the matter to a subordinate for disposition or request the appointing authority to designate another to determine the matter. Where the public official having the potential conflict of interest is required by law to determine the matter, he shall so notify by certified mail all affected parties known to him by providing these parties with copies of the potential conflict of interest notice. A public official having the potential conflict of interest shall not chair a meeting, participate in any vote, or offer any motion on the matter giving rise to his potential conflict of interest. Minn. R. 4515.0500, subp. 1 (1991). The revised rules proposed by the board in September 1990 but later withdrawn contained slightly different language which reflected the inclusion of "local officials" within the conflict of interest provisions of Chapter 10A. Cf. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90 -E (Apr. 17, 1978) (a city council member also was a member of the volunteer fire department; no prohibited conflict of interest existed so long as any renewals, extensions, or modifications of the contract between the city and the fire department were approved by unanimous vote of the city council); Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59 -a -29 (Mar. 8, 1976) (property partially owned by a city council member could be acquired by the city through condemnation proceedings if the interested council member did not participate in the proceedings); Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-c -8 (July 14, 1955) (a school district could acquire a parcel of land from a school board member by eminent domain proceedings but the interested board member was advised not to participate in the proceedings). 44. Cf. Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 414 N.W.2d 383, 387- 88 (Minn. 1987) (the public utilities commission could dismiss those portions of the rate case in which the vote of the disqualified commissioner was determinative); Village of Courtland v. Courtland Electric Co., 172 Minn. 392, 215 N.W. 673 (1927) (a contract between an electric company and a village was voided by the court in part because all the officers of the village were stockholders of the electric company; most of the village officers also were officers of the company); Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59a -32 (Sept. 11, 1978) (substantial self - interest by a city council member such as ownership of a particular parcel of property subject to rezoning may disqualify the member from participating in the proceedings; participation by the council member may be cause for invalidating the action). An action or decision of the Council or the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission is not necessarily invalidated if an interested Council or commission member or employee participates in the decision. Cf. Singewald v. Minneapolis Gas Co., 274 Minn. 556, 142 N.W.2d 739, 740 (1966) (the supreme court suggested that an action by a city council need not be "vitiated" if the vote of the council member directly or indirectly interested in the city contract "would not be determinative of the action taken "). In a 1967 case, the Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a decision by a watershed district board should be voided because the petition for drainage channel improvements was requested by the county board. Four of the five county board members owned land affected and benefited by the proposed improvements. The court was asked to determine whether the participation in the proceedings by interested county board members would void the - 17 -