Attorney General Opinions 
Relating to County Government

2012 Conflicts of Interest

• In a county operating under the County Financial Management System of 1981, a school board member who owns an electrical supply company with her parents probably would not have a conflict of interest where the school board and county commission contract with a public building authority and construction manager to remodel a high school, the construction manager then hires a general contractor to perform the work, and the general contractor issues public bids for the project and ultimately awards the bid to the electrical services company owned by the school board member and her parents, because the contract was entered into before T.C.A. § 5-21-121 was amended in 2012 to include contractual services within the prohibited interests.  The contract in question appears to be primarily services, with any materials and supplies being furnished incidentally to the services.  However, after March 20, 2012, this contract would be prohibited under the statute as amended. Opinion No. 12-104 (November 9, 2012).

• Court clerks cannot charge both the $100 fee set forth in T.C.A. § 8-21-401 and the $350 fee set forth in 2012 Public Chapter 1103  for expungement proceedings initiated under Chapter 1103; the fee under Chapter 1103 is $350.  Opinion No. 12-89 (October 20, 2012).

• Under the conflict of interest provision in T.C.A. § 5-14-114(a) of the 1957 purchasing law, the phrase “other officials of the county” would include individuals whose positions are appointed by official action of a legislative body, including non-statutory committees, and who serve a term of office.  That statute prohibits officials during their tenure of office from having any personal beneficial interest in contracts or purchase orders for any department or agency of the county.  It is an absolute prohibition; an official may not recuse himself from the decision making process where a conflict of interest exists and thereby remain on the committee or commission.  Opinion No. 12-65 (June 27, 2012).