Giles Free Speech Zone

The purpose of the "Giles Free Speech Zone" is to identify problems of concern to the people of Giles County, to discuss them in a gentlemanly and civil manner, while referring to the facts and giving evidence to back up whatever claims are made, making logical arguments that avoid any use of fallacy, and, hopefully, to come together in agreement, and find a positive solution to the problem at hand. Help make a difference! Email "mcpeters@usit.net" to suggest topics or make private comments.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

What Is A Conflict Of Interest And Are They Important In Giles County?

State law, Tennessee Code Annotated 5-21-121, has this to say about conflicts of interest for those counties operating under the financial management system of 1981

5-21-121.  Conflicts of interest. 

  (a) The director, purchasing agent, members of the committee, members of the county legislative body, or other officials, employees, or members of the board of education or highway commission shall not be financially interested or have any personal beneficial interest, either directly or indirectly, in the purchase of any supplies, materials, equipment or contractual services for the county.

(b) No firm, corporation, partnership, association or individual furnishing any such supplies, materials, equipment or contractual services, shall give or offer nor shall the director or purchasing agent or any assistant or employee accept or receive directly or indirectly from any person, firm, corporation, partnership or association to whom any contract may be awarded, by rebate, gift or otherwise, any money or other things of value whatsoever, or any promise, obligation or contract for future reward or compensation.

Tennessee Code Annotated  Reference Number: CTAS-911
The County Financial Management System of 1981 contains a broad conflict of interest statute which prohibits the finance director, purchasing agent, members of the financial management committee, members of the county legislative body, or other officials, employees, or members of the board of education or highway commission from being financially interested or having any personal beneficial interest, either directly or indirectly, in the purchase of any supplies, materials,  equipment or contractual services for the county. No firm, corporation, partnership, association or individual furnishing any such supplies, materials, equipment or contractual services, may give or offer, nor may the director or purchasing agent or any assistant or employee accept or receive, directly or indirectly, from any person, firm, corporation, partnership, or association to whom any contract may be awarded, by rebate, gift, or otherwise, any money or other things of value whatsoever, or any promise, obligation, or contract for future reward or compensation (T.C.A § 5-21-121).
This is the statement offered by CTAS for County Commissioners to use in declaring a possible conflict of interest. Notice that the proposed statement leaves a blank space to be filled in by the individual commissioner identifying the specific reason for the possible conflict. Example would be an employee of the school system, the Highway Department, etc. What the County Executive has declared is that commissioners have a possible conflict of interest because they serve as County Commissioners.

“Because I am an employee of (name of government unit), I have a conflict of interest in the proposal about to be voted. However, I declare that my argument and my vote answer only to my conscience and to my obligation to my constituents and the citizens this body represents.”    

Now in light of these requirements I ask the following questions:How can a person holding an appointed office such as to the Power Board, Economic Development, etc do contractual work for the county or city without having a conflict? 


How can someone give a large monetary gift to the school system while receiving no bid contracts to provide services to that system without it being a conflict? 



If conflicts of interest are to be taken seriously how can Commissioners continue to mis-read such a ridiculous statement declaring they have a conflict of interest because they are commissioners instead of stating the name of their employer as cause for a possible conflict? As it is being read now every commissioner must declare a conflict because they are all commissioners.