OFFICIAL ADVISORY OPINION NO. 96-120-E
 
 
October 4, 1996

This Advisory Opinion concerns the following issue as formulated from facts and/or circumstances furnished by a requestor. The Commission approved this opinion on October 4, 1996, basing its approval solely on the facts and circumstances stated herein.

May a company that is co-owned by a member of the county board of supervisors sell industrial equipment to an industry located in the county's industrial park?
State law restricts the Mississippi Ethics Commission 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, this opinion does not address the Mississippi laws outside the Commission's jurisdiction nor the governmental entity's internal rules and regulations.

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

"No public officer or member of the legislature shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the state, or any district, county, city, or town thereof, authorized by any law passed or order made by any board of which he may be or may have been a member, during the term for which he shall have been chosen, or within one year after the expiration of such term."
Code Section 25-4-101 states:
"The legislature declares that elective and public office and employment is a public trust and any effort to realize personal gain through official conduct, other than as provided by law, or as a natural consequence of the employment or position, is a violation of that trust. Therefore, public servants shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that they are likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of this trust and which will not reflect unfavorably upon the state and local governments."
"(1) No public servant shall use his official position to obtain pecuniary benefit for himself other than that compensation provided for by law, or to obtain pecuniary benefit for any relative or any business with which he is associated.
(2) No public servant shall be interested, directly or indirectly, during the term for which he shall have been chosen, or within one (1) year after the expiration of such term, in any contract with the state, or any district, county, city or town thereof, authorized by any law passed or order made by any board of which he may be or may have been a member."
Pertinent facts and circumstances in the form of the requestor's letter, absent identifying data, are attached hereto and considered a part of this opinion.

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

Constitutional Section 109 and Code Section 25-4-105(2), cited above, would prohibit the business which the supervisor co-owns from selling industrial equipment to the industry located in the county's industrial park if the industry has a contract authorized by the board of supervisors during the supervisor's term or for one year thereafter. An example of a contract authorized by the board of supervisors would be a purchase or lease agreement with the industry for its property in the industrial park during the supervisor's present term or within one year thereafter.

The requestor is cautioned to advise the board member 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 board member's vote, the authorization by the member's board nonetheless results in a contract in which the board member has a prohibited interest.

Notwithstanding the above, the supervisor's business selling equipment to the industry located within the county's industrial park is not as such a violation of the conflict of interest laws if no contract with the industry has been authorized by the board of supervisors during the supervisor's term or for one year thereafter.

The requestor should advise the member to also remain keenly aware of the above cited Code Section 25-4-105(1) and Code Section 25-4-101.

Code Section 25-4-105(1) prohibits public servants from using their official positions to obtain a pecuniary benefit for themselves, a relative or a business with which they are associated.

In order to avoid violating Code Section 25-4-105(1) by using their official positions to obtain a pecuniary benefit, the public servants must totally and completely recuse themselves from subject matters providing the pecuniary interests. An abstention is a vote with the majority of the governing entity's board and therefore does not qualify as a recusal.

A total and complete recusal requires that the public servant not only avoid debating, discussing or taking action on the subject matter during the official meeting, but also avoid discussing the subject matter with other board members, staff or any other person prior to and after the official meeting. This includes casual comments, as well as detailed discussions, made in person, by telephone or by any other means.

Al so in order to properly recuse oneself from a matter, the public servant must leave the room or area where such discussions, considerations and/or actions take place. The minutes of the governing entity's board should state the public servant left the meeting by showing him or her absent for that matter.

Therefore, the supervisor should recuse himself from any action coming before the board of supervisors concerning the industry. An example of such an action would be a request by the industry for a tax exemption.

The 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 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 business doing business with an industry located in the county's industrial park has the potential of creating suspicion among the public and reflecting unfavorably upon the county.

Ronald E. Crowe Executive Director