If an elected member of a town or city board has a conflict of interest with respect to a matter before the board
that involves his own financial interest or that of a partner, an immediate family member, a business organization
with which the board member has certain affiliations, or a person or organization with whom the board member
is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning future employment, that member will be disqualified from
participating as a board member in that matter. In some cases, especially when more than one member
is disqualified, a board cannot act because it does not have a quorum or some other number of members
required to take a valid affirmative vote. (If the number for a quorum is not set by law, a quorum is generally
a majority of the board members.) In these circumstances, the board may be able to use the rule of necessity
to permit the participation of the disqualified member(s) in order to allow the board to act. Individual elected
officials, such as the mayor of a municipality or a constitutional officer, also may be able to use the rule of
necessity in order to carry out legally-required actions that would otherwise be barred by the conflict of interest
law.
that involves his own financial interest or that of a partner, an immediate family member, a business organization
with which the board member has certain affiliations, or a person or organization with whom the board member
is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning future employment, that member will be disqualified from
participating as a board member in that matter. In some cases, especially when more than one member
is disqualified, a board cannot act because it does not have a quorum or some other number of members
required to take a valid affirmative vote. (If the number for a quorum is not set by law, a quorum is generally
a majority of the board members.) In these circumstances, the board may be able to use the rule of necessity
to permit the participation of the disqualified member(s) in order to allow the board to act. Individual elected
officials, such as the mayor of a municipality or a constitutional officer, also may be able to use the rule of
necessity in order to carry out legally-required actions that would otherwise be barred by the conflict of interest
law.
The rule of necessity is not a law written and passed by the Legislature. Rather, the rule of necessity was
developed by judges who applied it in their court decisions. The rule of necessity may only be used as a last
resort. The rule should be used only upon prior written advice from town or city counsel because improper
use of the rule could result in a violation of the conflict of interest law.
developed by judges who applied it in their court decisions. The rule of necessity may only be used as a last
resort. The rule should be used only upon prior written advice from town or city counsel because improper
use of the rule could result in a violation of the conflict of interest law.
Near the end of the last selectmen meeting in Templeton, there was a period of time when there were only two
members of the board sitting at the "table" Last time I looked, it is required to have a majority or a quorum to
have a meeting of a public body. I think John Columbus needs to read up on this. A question raised concerning
only 2 members at the table and how the meeting could continue or take place and the words from Mr. Columbus
was the rule of necessity. Which, as anyone can see, does not mean a meeting is able to go on without a
quorum, but rather a member (s) may take part, even with a potential conflict, because of the need or necessity
of those members being present so the board or committee may conduct their business, and in essence, the
business of the taxpayers/residents, whom they represent (or suppose to). Perhaps a small mistake, but one
that deserves clarification and attention by the select board so these small things do not continue to add up to
big cases. More and more, it looks as though Templeton was making real progress on change, only to be back
going in circles and being right back where we started. Making more transfers as if there is not enough money
to cover all expenses and costs of running the town or funds not being applied where needed.
More ignoring the rules, etc., etc.
members of the board sitting at the "table" Last time I looked, it is required to have a majority or a quorum to
have a meeting of a public body. I think John Columbus needs to read up on this. A question raised concerning
only 2 members at the table and how the meeting could continue or take place and the words from Mr. Columbus
was the rule of necessity. Which, as anyone can see, does not mean a meeting is able to go on without a
quorum, but rather a member (s) may take part, even with a potential conflict, because of the need or necessity
of those members being present so the board or committee may conduct their business, and in essence, the
business of the taxpayers/residents, whom they represent (or suppose to). Perhaps a small mistake, but one
that deserves clarification and attention by the select board so these small things do not continue to add up to
big cases. More and more, it looks as though Templeton was making real progress on change, only to be back
going in circles and being right back where we started. Making more transfers as if there is not enough money
to cover all expenses and costs of running the town or funds not being applied where needed.
More ignoring the rules, etc., etc.
Jeff Bennett
No comments:
Post a Comment