Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-270

Opinion No. 270 Nepotism Act, Construction of- Occasional Work. HEIJD: The Nepotism Act does 1I0t proyide for any exemptions for occa- sional work and therefore the appoint- ment lIy an officer of a relath-e to do occasional mimeograph work is prohih- itp(\ b~' the Act. July 11. 1933. You have submitted the question whether or not the appointment amI emplo~'ment by an officer of a relath'e to do occasiona 1 mimeograph work, is a violation of the Nepotism Act (Chap- ter 12, I~a ws of 1!)3:3). You sta·te tha t the appointment is made on the basis of merit and t,hat no other person in Virginia City is competent to do this work. In opinions 1\0. 117 and 179 (thi~ 1'01.) we advised that we were unaule to addse that an officer who appoints n relath'e on the basis of merit rather than rplationship would not he violat- ing the law. Section 2 of the Act makes it unlaw- ful to apl)oint "to any position of trust or emolument," and Section 3 prescribes the penalty for a public officer who has the "right to make or appoint any person to render services to this state or any subdivision thereof, and who shall make or appoint to such sery- ices * • *." In view of the wording of the act, we are unable to find any \'alid reason for making any distinction between part .time and full time work or between occasional piece work or regular work. While the employment of a relative to do occasional mimeo- graph work amounting to a very smllll sum per month seems relatively harm- less yet the legisla ture did not see fit to make any distinctions or to provide for any exemptions in such cases. More- over, should we attempt to prescribe exemptions, which we have no author- ity to do, it would ue most difficult to find a stopping place. We are therefore unable to addse OPINIONS OF THE ATrORKEY GENERAL 189 that the appointment or employment of a relati,e to do occasional mimeograph work is not ~wered hy the law.