2003_0731.special_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'� „,J1........ -24 -2003 10:51 RATWIK ROSZAK MALONEY 612 339 0036 P.14 m b Kevin J.. Rupp Erin K. Munson December. 5, 2002 Page 4 - supervisor had a conflict of interest; and there was no need for the town supervisor to participate in the decision. The court held that the tern supervisor could not vote because of the direct conflict'and determined that an abstention mould help ensure that the "decision will not be an arbitrary reflection of [the town � ervisor su p 's own selfish interests.” 375 .W-2d at 819■ (quoting Lenz). For similar reasons, the school, board member whose spouse -, is cun`entiy employed by the school dig-trict appears to have a ' direct conflict of interest and would not be pern fitted to vote on the termination of her spouse's employment. QUESTION THREE If a conflict of interest does exist, how mad this conflict be cured? a The conflict may be avoided by having the school board member refrain from participating in the discussions or vote on the termination of her spouse's continued employment. In E.T.O., the Court stated that the remedy for a common law conflict is for the official to abstain from voting. There is no reason to depart from that solution here. By abstaining from p arti ci patiori in the termination process, the official sufficiently avoids the conflict of interest, Very truly yours < 4: � , ":.7 , --z STEVEN rl.--]�ISS Assistant Attorney general AG' 0764387-A 4 Generally,, the alternative to abstention ti on is resi nation of the interested official a v' � s provided ded under section 471.87. See Opinion of Attomey General 95-E-5 (Nov. 13, 1969). Resignation does not appear appropriate here. First, section 471.87 does net apply to these circumstances. Second, in light of Finn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 3, it would .make little sense to require an official to resign before a termination vote when the law permits the same official to participate in the hiring of a spousd. TOTAL P. 14