State laws The two statutes address different aspects of conflict and ethics issues. Act 196 is concerned with individual behavior and Act 317 regulates approval of public contracts in which local officials may have an interest. Each statute has its own peculiarities. Act 196, the State Ethics Act Act 196 prescribes general standards of conduct for public officers and employees. Although originally drafted to exclude local officials, in 1980 local officials were brought within its scope. (Opinion of the Attorney General (OAG) No. 6005 (1981), pp. 440-41). The ethical constraints imposed by Act 196 are mandatory provisions to which local government officials are obliged to adhere. (OAG No. 6005, p. 443). Act 196 establishes seven areas of prohibited conduct. A local government official shall not: 1. divulge confidential information to an unauthorized person in advance of the time set for its public release. 2. represent his or her opinion as that of the local government. 3. use governmental personnel, property or funds for personal gain or benefit or in a manner not in accord with proper procedures. 4. solicit or accept gifts, loans, goods, services or other things of value which tend to influence his or her performance of official duties. 5. engage in a business transaction in which he or she may profit from his or her official position or benefit financially from confidential information. (Instruction done outside of regularly scheduled working hours generally is exempt. Act 196, Sec. 2(5).) 6. engage in or accept employment or render services for a public or private interest which is incompatible or in conflict with the discharge of official duties or which may tend to impair his or her independence of judgment. 7. participate in the negotiation or execution of contracts, making loans, granting subsidies, fixing rates, issuing permits or certificates or other regulation or supervision relating to a business entity in which the public officer has a financial or personal interest. In practice, subparts (6) and (7) created a serious hardship for part-time local officials – such as elected council members and commissioners – who are usually employed full-time at other jobs. The legislature in 1984 thus amended Act 196 to provide narrow exceptions to subparts (6) and (7), enabling the official to participate in and vote on the governmental decision, but only if all of the following occur: a. a quorum is not available because the public officer’s participation would otherwise violate (6) or (7); b. the official is not paid for working more than 25 hours per week for the governmental unit; and c. the officer promptly discloses any interest he or she may have in the matter and the disclosure is made part of the public record of the governmental decision to which it pertains. In addition, if the governmental decision is the award of a contract, the officer’s direct benefit from the contract can not exceed the lesser of $250 or five percent of the contract cost; and the officer must file a sworn affidavit as to the amount of direct benefit, which is made part of the public record. The exceptions are of limited use since they are available only if there otherwise would be a failure to obtain a quorum.
Posted on: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:05:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015