Ethics Commission
1207 Quarrier St.
 Charleston WV 25301
(304) 558-0664
WV toll free: 1-866-558-0664
fax (304) 558-2169
Office hours: 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

An OB-GYN physician has been appointed to serve as a Trustee for the Hospital, which operates its own OB-GYN clinic. The Hospital employs two physicians who are in competition with the Trustee’s private practice and all her deliveries are at a competing hospital.

The Commission ruled that no provision of the Ethics Act disqualified the Trustee from serving on the Hospital’s Board, simply because her private practice is in competition with two of the Hospital’s physicians or because she has a business association with a competing hospital.

The Commission also ruled that her private practice gave her sufficient financial interest in the activities of the Hospital’s OB-GYN practice to require her recusal from official action relating thereto.

A Board Member works approximately 30 hours a week as a clerk in the local store of a national bookseller. The Member is paid by the hour, receives no commission on sales and neither she nor any member of her family have an ownership interest in the business.

The county’s public school teachers and librarians would like to make occasional purchases from the store. Some of the purchases would be approved by the Board and paid for by its central office; others would be paid for by teachers with funds raised by the individual schools through fund-raising activities and vending machines.

The Commission ruled that WV Code 61-10-15 prohibits the Board from purchasing from businesses in which its members have an ownership interest or by which they are employed - even if their employment is only part-time.

"Even where their financial interest in Board business with their employer is negligible, their interest in the financial health of their employer is substantial and confronts Board members with the type of divided loyalty that WV Code 61-10-15 was created to avoid. Those who are responsible for spending public funds should not have to take into account their own financial interests, or those of their employers, when deciding where and how to spend public funds."

Therefore, it would be a violation for the Board to buy books from the part-time employer of one of its members, if the purchases are the type approved by the Board and paid for with public funds. However, the prohibition does not apply to purchases made by teachers with proceeds from fund-raising activities and school vending machines, because the Board does not control the expenditure of those funds. Such purchases would not be a violation.

The Ethics Act prohibits public servants from being a party to or having an interest in a public contract which their public position gives them the authority to award or control. This prevents the Town from contracting with a business owned by a council member, unless the Town obtains a hardship exemption from the Ethics Commission.

The Ethics Commission is authorized to grant an agency an exemption from this prohibition, if the agency demonstrates that the prohibition will cause the agency excessive cost, undue hardship, or other substantial interference with its operation.

The Town advertised for bids to dredge the sludge settlement pond used by the Town’s water treatment facility. The ads appeared in appropriate newspapers on two separate occasions, but despite several phone inquires from potential contractors, the town received only one bid and it came from a business owned by a member of its council. That bid is in line with what the Town paid in the past for dredging services.

The Commission found that the Town had made a reasonable effort to obtain bids for work which is essential to the operation of its water treatment facility and granted the Town an exemption to accept the bid from the business owned by the council member.

The Official and his wife own an office building which is leased to his former business partners. Because the lessees are State vendors who contract with the Official’s agency, he placed ownership of the leased premises in a blind trust and has recused himself from dealing with their contractual relationships with his agency.

An agent of a county Board of Education contacted the Official with a proposal that the Board lease the property, subject to existing leases, with an option to purchase. The Board of Education property surrounds the Official’s property on three sides - the fourth side is bounded by a public street - and the Board is a logical purchaser of the property.

The Official wants to consider the proposal, particularly because it would effectively remove him from any financial connection with his former business partners. He asked if he could, consistent with the requirements of the Ethics Act, negotiate with the Board of Education and if a mutually acceptable agreement is reached, enter into the agreement and remove the property from the blind trust.

The Commission found that the proposal was consistent with the goal of the blind trust mechanism and did not compromise any public interest. The Commission ruled that in this specific case, and this case only, it would not be a violation of the Ethics Act for the Official to negotiate with the Board of Education in regard to property he had placed in a blind trust.