Opinion No. 78-285

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports

Opinion No. 78-285

DecidedDecember 28, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of Opinion No. 78-285 (Opinion No. 78-285) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Opinion No. 78-285, (Okla. Super. Ct. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION — AG — ** CITIES AND TOWNS ** A CITY CHARTER PROVISION THAT PERMITS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF MUSKOGEE AND A MEMBER OF THAT COUNCIL DOES CONFLICT WITH 21 O.S. 1971 355 [21-355], 21 O.S. 1971 357 [21-357], AND DOES NOT SUPERCEDE A STATE WIDE PROHIBITION OF SUCH DEALINGS. A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF A COUNCIL (CITY COUNCIL) MEMBER WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM DEALINGS TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THE MEMBER HIMSELF. ATTEMPTS TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BUSINESS SUBSTANTIALLY OWNED BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE CITY WOULD BE RENDERED BY 21 O.S. 1971 356 [21-356] ABSOLUTELY VOID AND THE MEMBERS ASSENTING TO SAID AGREEMENT, WOULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE THEREFOR. THE COUNCIL MEMBER, WHO UNDER THE CHARTER PROVISION ABSTAINED FROM CONSIDERING THE CONTRACT BETWEEN HIS BUSINESS AND THE CITY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS OF THE 21 O.S. 1971 357 [21-357] AS WOULD THOSE MEMBERS WHO VOTED TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT. CITE: ARTICLE XVIII, SECTION 3(A), 11 O.S. 1977 Supp., 13-109 [11-13-109] 11 O.S. 1971 564 [11-564] (CONFLICT OF INTEREST) (CHARLES S. ROGERS) ** SEE OPINION NO. 90-540 (1990) ** SEE OPINION NO. 87-530 (1987) **

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION — AG — ** CITIES AND TOWNS ** A CITY CHARTER PROVISION THAT PERMITS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF MUSKOGEE AND A MEMBER OF THAT COUNCIL DOES CONFLICT WITH 21 O.S. 1971 355 [21-355], 21 O.S. 1971 357 [21-357], AND DOES NOT SUPERCEDE A STATE WIDE PROHIBITION OF SUCH DEALINGS. A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF A COUNCIL (CITY COUNCIL) MEMBER WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM DEALINGS TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THE MEMBER HIMSELF. ATTEMPTS TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BUSINESS SUBSTANTIALLY OWNED BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE CITY WOULD BE RENDERED BY 21 O.S. 1971 356 [21-356] ABSOLUTELY VOID AND THE MEMBERS ASSENTING TO SAID AGREEMENT, WOULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE THEREFOR. THE COUNCIL MEMBER, WHO UNDER THE CHARTER PROVISION ABSTAINED FROM CONSIDERING THE CONTRACT BETWEEN HIS BUSINESS AND THE CITY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS OF THE 21 O.S. 1971 357 [21-357] AS WOULD THOSE MEMBERS WHO VOTED TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT. CITE: ARTICLE XVIII, SECTION 3(A), 11 O.S. 1977 Supp., 13-109 [11-13-109] 11 O.S. 1971 564 [11-564] (CONFLICT OF INTEREST) (CHARLES S. ROGERS) ** SEE OPINION NO. 90-540 (1990) ** SEE OPINION NO. 87-530 (1987) **

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Opinion No. 78-285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-no-78-285-oklaag-1978.