Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, each member of all boards, commissions, and authorities created by general statute shall:
(Ga. L. 1976, p. 344, § 1.)
Law reviews.- For article, "Conflicts of Interests of Public Officers and Employees," see 13 Ga. St. B.J. 64 (1976). For article, "The Status of Administrative Agencies under the Georgia Constitution," 40 Ga. L. Rev. 1109 (2006).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Evidence is relevant regarding violation of ethical duties.
- Testimony regarding the chief tax assessor's intoxication and conduct while attending certain county-financed activities, the assessor's conduct regarding certain female personnel who were employed in the assessor's office, and the assessor's attempted display of a jar of dog testicles to a female employee, was relevant at a hearing conducted by the board of county commissions to matters reasonably included within the scope of notice for the assessor's discharge hearing because the contested evidence had some relevancy to establish whether the defendant had violated a duty imposed on the assessor by law, and whether the assessor violated certain ethical duties prescribed by law. Parsons v. Chatham County Bd. of Comm'rs, 204 Ga. App. 130, 418 S.E.2d 459 (1992), overruled in part on other grounds, Swafford v. Dade County Bd. of Comm'rs, 266 Ga. 646, 469 S.E.2d 666 (1996).
Laches.
- Appeal by county board of education members of a judgment denying the members' request to reverse the Governor's order removing the members from office under O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 for violating O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3 was not dismissed due to the doctrine of laches; the members were required by O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 to proceed under the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-13-1 et seq., and no delay warranted the imposition of the doctrine of laches; the Governor's order was signed on August 6, 2010, and the members filed the members' petition for judicial review on August 12, 2010. Roberts v. Deal, 290 Ga. 705, 723 S.E.2d 901 (2012).
Appeal dismissed as moot.
- County board of education member's appeal of a judgment denying a request to reverse the Governor's order removing the member from office under O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 for violating O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3 was dismissed because the term to which the member had originally been elected expired. Roberts v. Deal, 290 Ga. 705, 723 S.E.2d 901 (2012).
Removal of county board of education members.
- Superior court erred in denying county board of education members' request to reverse the Governor's order removing the members from office under O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 for violating O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3; O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3 does not embrace entities created by the Constitution of Georgia, and county school boards are creations of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VIII, Sec. V, Para. II. Roberts v. Deal, 290 Ga. 705, 723 S.E.2d 901 (2012).
Must be employee at time of retaliation.
- Grant of summary judgment to the state commission was affirmed because the plaintiff was not an employee at the time the commission's purported retaliatory acts occurred and the Georgia Whistleblower Act, O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4, clearly mandated that its provisions related to retaliation against a person "who is employed" at the time of the alleged retaliation. Murray-Obertein v. Ga. Gov't Transparency & Campaign Fin. Comm'n, 344 Ga. App. 677, 812 S.E.2d 28 (2018).
Cited in Morton v. Gardner, 242 Ga. 852, 252 S.E.2d 413 (1979).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Act containing adverse matters constitutionally defective.
- Ga. Const. 1976, Art. III, Sec. VII, Para. IV (see now Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. III), was designed for the prevention of surreptitious legislation, and the prevention of "omnibus" bills containing many adverse matters; although it is not required that the title of an act contain an exact synopsis of the law itself, it is required that the matter following the enacting clause be definitely related to what is expressed in the title, and have a natural connection to the main object of the legislation; therefore, the courts could rule the Act comprised of O.C.G.A. §§ 45-10-3 through45-10-5, which Act imposes a general code of ethics on members of the Board of Human Resources and purports to take away the rule making authority of all boards, commissions, and authorities of state government, constitutionally defective (but other interpretations may militate against such construction). 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-43.1.
Necessity to avoid appearance of impropriety.
- Even though O.C.G.A. § 45-10-25 potentially could authorize an attorney member of the State Ethics Commission to transact business with the commission, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. I, and O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3 counsel against such a transaction as it could give rise to an appearance of impropriety if not an actual conflict of interest. 2002 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2002-4.
Commission member cannot engage in business with commission.- An attorney member of the State Ethics Commission is prohibited from engaging in any business transaction with the commission, and other members of his or her law firm would be prohibited from engaging in any business transaction with the commission if the member or a member of his or her family owns a substantial interest as defined by statute. 2002 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2002-4.
Contracting with hospital authority.- A conflict of interest exists when any member of a hospital authority, whether the member be a physician, attorney, architect, or member of any other profession, contracts with the authority to render professional services to the authority for or on behalf of the authority on a fee basis or for a stated stipend. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U83-5.
Contracts of members of Board of Offender Rehabilitation.- No conflict of interest would occur by brothers of a member of the Board of Offender Rehabilitation bidding upon and receiving contracts to sell meat to Central State Hospital or any other state agency when each brother's business is completely separate and distinct from the board member's, and that the board member holds no interest in the brothers' businesses. 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 84-18.
A conflict of interest would arise if a member of the Board of Offender Rehabilitation sought to contract with the Department of Human Resources for the supply of meat when a portion of that meat would be used under the contract between the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Offender Rehabilitation for supplying meals to the Department of Offender Rehabilitation's staff and inmates. 1984 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 84-18.
State Transportation Board member.- No conflict of interest exists under current state law if the firm of a member of the State Transportation Board performs work for another governmental entity unless the work is directly or indirectly for the benefit of the Georgia Department of Transportation. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U91-13.
Business acquiring property from state department.- There is no conflict of interest or violation of the applicable Code of Ethics for a member of the Board of Natural Resources to transact business with a corporation which has acquired from the State of Georgia real property previously within the custody and control of the Department of Natural Resources. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-4.
State Ethics Commission acting as a body, or through an individual member of the commission, has no express or implied statutory authority to rule on a motion to recuse one of its members; rather, the member against whom the recusal motion is filed must determine, in light of O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3, whether he or she should voluntarily abstain. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. 89-9.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 63C Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees, § 252 et seq.
ALR.
- Refusal of public officer to answer frankly questions asked him during an investigation as ground for removal or discipline, 77 A.L.R. 616.
Failure of public officer or employee to pay creditors on claims not related to his office or position as ground or justification for his removal or suspension, 127 A.L.R. 495.
What constitutes such discriminatory prosecution or enforcement of laws as to provide valid defense in state criminal proceedings, 95 A.L.R.3d 280.
Validity, construction, and effect of state statutes restricting political activities of public officers or employees, 51 A.L.R.4th 702.