Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Public Office is a trust!

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Pursuant to § 22-32-109(1)(y), 9 C.R.S. (1988), the board adopted a formal conflict of interest policy in 1984. The policy states: Public office is a trust
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment

      Pursuant to § 22-32-109(1)(y), 9 C.R.S. (1988), the board adopted a formal conflict of interest

      policy in 1984. The policy states: Public office is a trust created in the interest of the common

      good and for benefit of the people. A conflict of interest can arise when a public officer is unable

      to devote himself with complete loyalty and singleness of purpose to the general public interest. It

      is the intent of this policy to protect the public trust placed in directors of this school district. For

      purposes of this policy, the Board declares that conflicts of interest can arise when a Board

      member will personally derive a significant private benefit that is pecuniary in nature from Board

      action. In the event of any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest, the Board member

      shall disclose the conflict of interest in writing to the Board prior to the vote. The written

      disclosure will be attached to the minutes of the meeting at which Board action occurred relating

      to the matter disclosed. The Board will not purchase supplies, equipment or personal services in

      excess of $500.00 from any member of the Board or from a firm or corporation in which a

      Board member has a substantial interest unless such purchases are made on the basis of

      competitive bids or quotations requested through public advertising. Members may submit bids

      when formal bids are requested but should abstain from voting to award contracts under such

      bids. A Board member who discloses a potential conflict of interest on any matter may abstain

      from voting on the matter disclosed. Although the policy does not expressly prohibit board

      members from being employed as teachers within the district, the board maintains, and the record

      does not indicate otherwise, that it has consistently interpreted the policy to preclude persons

      from holding such dual positions. Lambert does not challenge the policy on the basis that it failed

      to provide her with adequate notice of the types of activities that would constitute a conflict of

      interest. Montrose County School District Re-1j and Board of Education for Montrose County School District Re-1j v. Lambert, 826 P.2d 349 (Colo. 02/24/1992)

       

       

      PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

      For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

      BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

      www.legal-research-video.com
      www.legalbears.com
      www.freedivorceforms.net
      www.irs-armory.com

      And, for optimum health:
      www.mannapages.com/barrysmith
      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

    • Don Schwarz
      GARDNER v. BRODERICK, 392 U.S. 273 (1968) Appellant, a police officer, was subpoenaed by and appeared before a grand jury which was investigating alleged
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        GARDNER v. BRODERICK, 392 U.S. 273 (1968)


        Appellant, a police officer, was subpoenaed by and appeared before a grand
        jury which was investigating alleged bribery and corruption of police
        officers, and was advised that the grand jury proposed to examine him
        concerning the performance of his official duties.

        at 279 ---------------------------
        and not solely for the purpose of securing an accounting of his performance
        of his public trust. If the latter had been the only purpose, there would
        have been no reason to seek to compel petitioner to waive his immunity.
        =======================================================================

        When you contact a public servant to have them account for the
        performance of their official duties, they have no immunity
        NOT TO ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


        They MUST account for the performance of their duties
        while under the color of their office.




        At 03:56 PM 9/26/05 -0600, you wrote:

        >Pursuant to § 22-32-109(1)(y), 9 C.R.S. (1988), the board adopted a formal
        >conflict of interest
        >
        >policy in 1984. The policy states: Public office is a trust created in the
        >interest of the common
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.