2001 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1018 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (directors of investment companies were , affiliated persons" of the investment companies as that term was defined by the federal Investment Company Act); Minn. R. 1900.0900, subp. 2.B. (1991) (defining State Arts Board advisory panel member conflicts of interest; "Affiliation of an advisory panel member with an applicant includes * * * serving as an employee or governing board member of an applicant organization being reviewed "); Minn. R. 7845.0700, subp. 3 (1991) (members of the public utilities commission are prohibited from becoming directors or advisors of a public utility or telephone company). The conflict of interest provisions of Chapter 10A apply to associated businesses from which an individual receives "compensation in excess of $50 except for actual and reasonable expenses in any month as a director, officer, owner, member, partner, employer or employee, or is a holder of securities worth $2,500 or more at fair market value." Minn. Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 4 (1990). The conflict of interest provisions of Chapter 469 do not define business or organizational affiliations in those minimum dollar amounts. See generally Minn. Stat. § 469.009 (1990). 55. Bylaws of the Metropolitan Council, art. III, § C.3. (June 1990). 56. See Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 414 N.W.2d 383, 386 (Minn. 1987) (even though there was no direct evidence that a member of the public utilities commission who participated in a rate case decision involving a potential employer unduly influenced the commission's decision, "[the commissioner's] mere presence creates the obvious appearance of impropriety and undermines the public confidence in the system "); Deretich v. Office of Administrative 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). 57. 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. See State v. Sandberg, 168 Minn. 363, 209 N.W. 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." Sandberg, 168 Minn. 363, 209 N.W. 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 individual is "motivated by a high sense of responsibility for community affairs ").