The pertinent conflict of interest laws to be considered here are:
(i) Any agreement to which the government is a party; or
(ii) Any agreement on behalf of the government which involves the payment of public funds.(g) 'Governmental' means the state and all political entities thereof, both collectively and separately, including but not limited to:
(i) Counties.(h) 'Governmental entity' means the state, a county, a municipality or any other separate political subdivision authorized by law to exercise a part of the sovereign power of the state.
(i) Any elected or appointed official of the government;
(ii) Any officer, director, commissioner, supervisor, chief, head, agent or employee of the government or any agency thereof, or of any public entity created by or under the laws of the State of Mississippi or created by an agency or governmental entity thereof, any of which is funded by public funds or which expends, authorizes or recommends the use of public funds; or
(iii) Any individual who receives a salary, per diem or expenses paid in whole or in part out of funds authorized to be expended by the government.(q) 'Relative' means the spouse, child or parent." Code Section 25-4-105(1) and (2) states:
Issue 1. The supervisor's district may do business with his brother's company as a brother is not a "relative" under the Ethics in Government laws' definition set forth in the above cited Code ~ above, this issue presented by the requestor also must be viewed as it relates to Code Section 25-4-101, set forth above. This code section sets the tone for the conflict of interest laws as it is the Legislature's "Declaration of Public Policy." This public policy can be summarized as any circumstance having the potential of creating suspicion among the public and reflecting unfavorably upon the state or local government should be closely reviewed by public servants with the intent to reduce or eliminate any suspicion on the part of the public which detracts from the public's trust in state or local government.
Clearly, a supervisor's purchasing of supplies for his district from his brother's company has the potential of creating suspicion among the public and reflecting unfavorably upon the county.
Issue 2. The county may not purchase from the supervisor's
automobile dealership as
such purchases are prohibited by the above cited Constitutional
Section 109 and Code Section 25-4-105(2).
No statutory exceptions, or other exceptions, may limit Constitutional Section 109. In Frazier v. State, 504 So.2d 675 Miss. 1987), the State Supreme Court clearly held that any statutory effort to limit Constitutional Section 109 was unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the state legislature has not provided for any statutory exception to Code Section 25-4-105(2).
Therefore, the fact that the supervisor's automobile dealership is the only one located within the county does not in any way limit or restrict the prohibition resulting from Constitutional Section 109 or Code Section 25-4-105(2).
The requestor is advised that a recusal or an abstention
will not prevent a violation of Constitutional Section 109 or Code Section
25-4-105(2). Even without the requestor's vote, the authorization by the
board of supervisors to purchase from his automobile dealership nonetheless
results in a contract in which the requestor has a prohibited interest.
Ronald E. Crowe Executive Director