La Paz County District 1 Supervisor David Plunkett didn’t have to back off on the Bouse garage door plant rezoning issue because he had no conflict of interest. Here’s what Chief Deputy Civil County Attorney Jason Mitchell told the La Paz County Board of Supervisors at their Nov. 6 meeting.
Mr. Mitchell gave a presentation on Arizona’s Conflict of Interest Law for Public Officials following the issues raised at the October 17 board meeting. At a hearing on Unique Garage Doors, Inc.’s proposed rezoning, Michael Noeltner demanded that Plunkett surrender himself because he owned nearby property. He said this constitutes a conflict of interest as the property could increase in value.
Plunkett, who declined to speak, said at the Nov. 6 meeting that he felt “ambushed” by the issue, which was raised on Oct. 17, and didn’t know how to respond. rice field.
“I don’t want something like this to happen again,” he said.
Mitchell referred to Chapter 8 of the Arizona Agency Handbook published by the Office of the Arizona Attorney General. He said officials will have to answer three questions he said the AG’s office must answer to determine if there is a conflict of interest.
“Could this decision, positively or negatively, affect the interests of officers or employees or relatives of officers or employees?
Is interest a financial benefit or a property right? Can it affect financial benefit or property rights?
Is the interest not legally designated as remote interest? ”
If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” the Arizona Agency Handbook states that a substantive benefit exists and must be declared by a public official, who must deny himself/herself. I got
“A government official or employee must submit a conflict of interest form that fully discloses their substantive interests with the appropriate agency or government agency and refrain from participating in any way in discussions or decisions related to the matter. must,” says the handbook.
“Remote Interest” is covered by ARS 38-502(10). As a practical example, Mitchell said if Plunkett sold part of the property and the new owner decided to relocate it, it wouldn’t be a conflict. If you agreed to sell it, it would be a dispute.
Plunkett told Mitchell that he owned a property near where Unique Garage Doors wanted to relocate. Mitchell said it would not be a conflict as it was non-interested and speculative.
“You never know if it’s going to go up or down,” says Mitchell.
In summary, Mitchell said Plunkett has no conflict of interest as defined by Arizona law and should not decline.
Plunkett said he appreciated Mitchell’s presentation because he owns the property and acts as a real estate broker to represent property owners across the county.
“It’s silly to say you shouldn’t say anything about real estate,” he said. We were unable to vote on the Sheriff’s Office.”
Irwin told the audience and other supervisors that she refused herself when it came to issues regarding salary and position changes at the sheriff’s office.
Plunkett added that he supports and approves anything that benefits the county.
The District 2 supervisor said there was no point in claiming that Plunkett had a conflict of interest. If there is what he called an “arms length” deal and the new owner decides to rezoning, Plunkett will get nothing out of it.
At the October 17 meeting, following Plunkett’s refusal, the issue of rezoning was put to a vote. Minor filed a motion to approve it, but Irwin rejected his second motion. The motion to approve the motion was completed in less than a second.
Minor said the issue wasn’t really over, as the supervisor didn’t really take any action.
