Alabama Attorney General Opinion 1979-0156

CHARLES A. GRADDICK LEE L. HALE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ALABAMA • OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL tlq-D0/5(r) WILLIAM M. SENORS. JR . EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT WALTER S. TURNER CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JANIE NOBLES ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT APR / 2 197! ADMINISTRATIVE MOISCREIS 114 NORTH UNION STREET . ALABAMA 111110 AREA Well. O{-BIM Industrial Development Board of the Town of Henegar Mr. Brent Barrontine, Chairman Henegar, Alabama 35978 Attention: Mr. David C. Wear, Attorney P. 0. Box 153 Fort Payne, Alabama 35967 Industrial Development Boards - Conflict of interest - Contracts:- Industrial Development Board not , authorized to sell property to chairman. Gentlemen: Your letter of February 6, 1979 presents the following question: "Therefore, the question presented is whether or not the Chairman who serves without compensation of this Municipal Industrial Board can purchase after proper advertisement and bid taking property from the Board when he is the highest bidder." It is the concensus of this office that it would be against public policy for the Chairman of the Industrial Development Board of the Town of Henegar to purchase real property, or any other property, from the Industrial Development Board. To do so would be a conflict of interest. It has been said by the masters of jurisprudence that "no man can serve two masters". It is apparent from the facts submitted by you that the Industrial Development Board would, in all pro- bability, have a monetary gain of $10,000 if the proposed transaction with the Chairman of the Board is completed. How- ever, the basis for the legal determinations concerned in such Industrial Development Board of the Town of Henegar Mr. Brent Barrontine, Chairman Page Two transaction is not the profit or loss to be attained, but the fact that the public official cannot contract with himself. The officer must not be interested in any contract to which he is a party in an official capacity as that interest could interfere with the unbiased discharge of his duty to the public. There are numerous statutes enacted for the purpose of prohibit- ing contracts between individuals or businesses and members of an awarding authority who have an interest in such busi- nesses. Our Supreme Court has stated these statutes were intended to prohibit bidding by any member of a governing body of a municipality and by businesses in which he has an -interest as such member will have a financial interest either directly or indirectly in the award of a contract. He cannot be involved in the decision making procedure. This office has had related questions propounded over the years and the determinations in most instances were based upon individual transactions presenting apparent conflicts. This opinion supersedes all such opinions in an attempt at uniformity and the preservation of moral and ethical standards for the benefit of the public and the establishment of 'public policy' as it applies to transactions in our State at this time. In the event this office can be of any further service to you, please do not hesitate to call on us. Yours very truly, CHARLES A. GRADDICK Attorney General By- RANDOLPH G. LURIE Assistant Attorney General RGL:cd J