ADVISORY OPINION NO. 95-146-E
 
January 5, 1996
 
This advisory Opinion concerns the following issues as formulated from facts and/or circumstances furnished by a requestor. The opinion is based solely on the facts and circumstances as stated in the requestor's letter and was approved by the Commission on January
5, 1996.  The Mississippi Ethics Commission is restricted to interpreting and issuing opinions on
Sections 25-4-101 through 25-4-119, 1972 Mississippi Code Annotated and Article IV, Section 109, Mississippi Constitution of 1890. Therefore, Mississippi laws outside the jurisdiction of the Commission and internal rules and regulations of the governmental entity are not addressed by this opinion.

The pertinent conflict of interest laws to be considered here are:

Based solely on the facts and circumstances presented by the requestor, the Commission's opinion is as follows.

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