Tx Attorney General Opinion No. ~~-171
Re: Whether a member ._ of a city
Giddlngs. Texas council may be employed by a
corporation doing business with
the city
You ask whether a member of the Giddings city council may
continue to serve on the council while he is employed by a corporation
that does business with the city. We conclude that there is no legal
impediment to his serving, but that the contract entered into between
the city and the general contractor would be void as contravening
public policy.
You inform us that a member of the Giddings city council is also
the vice-president of a local corporation which sells, repairs, and
maintains air conditioning units.
He receives a salary from the corporation and participates in its profit sharing program, but he owns no stock in the corporation. The corporation was employed as a subcontractor by a corporation which was itself employed by the city as the general contractor in the construction of the new Giddlngs city
jail..
The corporation’ s employment and the awarding of the general contract to the general contractor were based upon competitive bids.
We must first determine whether the council member would benefit
If the city were to contract directly with the firm of which the
council member is vice-president.
If he would so benefit, we must then determine whether the fact that the firm was a sub-contractor rather than a general contractor, would effectively remove the council
member from the reach of the conflict-of-interest prohibition. We first conclude that, in this instance, the council member would benefit sufficiently were the city to contract directly with the firm of which he is vice-president so ss to bring him within the ambit of the conflict-of-interest prohibition.
It has been suggested that. since the council member Is an officer of a sub-contractor, as opposed to the general contractor, his vote on such a contract affects only the general contractor and not the sub-contractor and that this effectively removes him from anyconflict-of-interest prohibition. In Attorney General Opinion O-2306(1940),
this office concluded that a trustee of a school district could receive compensation from a contractor performing a construction contract for the district g there was no agreement between the contractor and the trustee at the time when the district entered intothe contract with the contractor. This office therein declared:
SUMMARY
A city council, may not contract with a general contractor which has previously contracted with a sub-contractor employing a member of the city council as anofficer, if the firm employing themember acts as a subcontractor on the city job.
The affected member of the city council does not automatically vacate his office in the event that the city council so contracts.
