- Home
- Legal
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Pecuniary Interest
- Pecuniary Interest FAQ 4
Pecuniary Interest FAQ 4
Besides state statutes or local
ethics ordinances, are there any other ethics rules or standards that
relate to the ethical conduct of local public officials?
Yes. A general rule of law, according to
an old Wisconsin supreme court decision, is that members of a
legislative body or municipal board are disqualified to vote on
propositions in which they have a direct pecuniary interest adverse to
the municipality. Board of Supervisors of Oconto County v. Hall,
47 Wis. 208, 2 N.W. 291 (1879). This rule, which is not set forth in
any statute, seems broader than the restrictions in the ethics code for
local government officials found in Wis. Stat. sec. 19.59. If the rule
extends to legislative decisions, it would, for example, prohibit a city
council member who owns a restaurant with a liquor license from voting
on a proposed change in the liquor license fees to be charged. However,
it is not clear whether the rule applies to legislative and
non-legislative actions of a governmental body or board. See 63 Op.
Att’y Gen. 545 (1974), citing 133 A.L.R. 1257; 62 C.J.S., MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS, sec. 402 (rule may not extend to legislative decisions)
and McQuillin MUN. CORP., sec. 13.35 (3d ed) (this municipal law
treatise does not cite any legislative act exception to the Hall rule). It should also be noted that the Hall
rule may have been superceded by the enactment of the state ethics code
for local government officials but that question has not yet been
decided.
Many municipalities have adopted Robert’s
Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed.) Officials should be aware that
section 45 of those rules provides:
No member should vote
on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest
not common to other members of the organization.
. . .
The rule on
abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does
not mean that a member should not vote for himself for an office or
other position to which members generally are eligible, or should not
vote when other members are included with him in a motion.
An earlier version of this rule and the Hall case noted above were cited by the Wisconsin court of appeals in Ballenger v. Door County,
131 Wis. 2d 422, 388 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1986), where the employee of
an entity seeking a rezoning abstained from voting as a county board
supervisor on the matter. The court concluded that had the
employee-supervisor voted, his vote would have been disqualified.