Request By:
Mr. Don Edwards
Assistant Superintendent
Webster County Schools
P.O. Box 128 - Main Street
Dixon, Kentucky 42409
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of May 5 in which you raise the following question:
"I am employed as Asst. Supt. of Webster County Schools. My wife is half owner of a flower shop in Webster County. My question is this: Would there be a conflict of interest on my part if my wife and her partner sold flowers to any of the schools in Webster County?"
From the facts presented, we assume that you have reference to contracts between the flower shop and the various schools, made and approved by the county board of education, which, of course, would in no way involve your approval or disapproval of such contracts. Assuming this to be the case, our response to your question would be in the negative. Conflicts of interest arise where the individual officer has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a contract with a public agency of which he is a member, however, such interest would not generally embrace relatives contracting with the public agency.
We initially refer you to the case of Chadwell v. Commonwealth, 288 Ky. 644, 157 S.W.2d 280 (1941). This case involved the question of a possible conflict of interest where a son and daugher of a school board member were employed by the board. The court held that the school board member was not disqualified and concluded as follows:
". . . Nor are we impressed with the argument that the services the daughter renders the board are services in which the defendant was directly or indirectly interested. We are of the opinion the Legislature intended such interest to be confined to monetary considerations and that the consideration must be such as would move directly or indirectly to the board member himself, and not to include mere emotional interest that a member of the board might have in the person rendering the services . . ."
It is a well settled rule of law with respect to the question raised, that the interest of an officer which will render void a contract with a city, must be a present, personal and pecuniary interest, and consequently transactions between the city and the mere relatives of such officers have generally been sustained with certain exceptions not pertinent to your question. See McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Vol. 10, § 29.97.
You will also note the case of Commonwealth v. Withers, 266 Ky. 29, 98 S.W.2d 24 (1936), wherein it was pointed out that in general the disqualifying interest of the municipal officer must be pecuniary or proprietary by which he stands to gain or lose something and falling within these principles are contracts with firms in which the member of the municipal body is a partner, or a corporation of which he is an officer, or in some cases a stockholder or employee.
As the above cited law indicates, the conflict of interest basically arises where the officer in question has a pecuniary interest and we find none in this instance.