With the Cumberland County Commission preparing to vote on the county budget Monday night which includes an across the board pay increase for county General Fund employees, some CNF readers have asked ‘why are county commissioners who are also county employees allowed to vote themselves a pay raise?”.  By our count, there are six Commissioners who are also County employees. This question dates back many decades in Tennessee.  Many feel that it is a conflict of interest.  Actually, it is.  According to CTAS (county technical assistance service) web site:

Countywide officeholders, such as the county mayor, sheriff, trustee, register, county clerk, or assessor of property, are statutorily prohibited from being nominated for or elected to membership in the county legislative body.  T.C.A. § 5‑5‑102.  However, county employees may hold the office of county legislative body member.  Any county employee who is otherwise qualified may serve as a member of the county legislative body, notwithstanding the fact that such person is a county employee.  T.C.A. § 5‑5‑102.  Particular care must be taken to publicly acknowledge interests concerning matters relating to employment for such an employee/county legislative body member.

The Attorney General has opined that, pursuant to T.C.A. § 12-4-101, it is a direct conflict of interest for a county commissioner who is a county employee to vote on the budget that contains his salary.  See Op. Tenn. Atty. Gen. 88-37 (February 23, 1988).

The legislature has amended T.C.A. § 12-4-101 several times since that opinion was rendered.  Pursuant to T.C.A. § 12-4-101(c)(1), a county commissioner who is also an employee of the county and whose employment predates the commissioner’s initial election or appointment to the governing body of the county may vote on matters in which such commissioner has a conflict of interest by reason of such employment,provided the commissioner informs the governing body immediately prior to the vote as follows:

“Because I am an employee of (name of governmental 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.”

For many, Commissioners voting themselves a pay raise may seem inappropriate.  The problem is, if those Commissioners who are also county employees were not allowed to vote on budgetary matters involving salary increases or benefits for themselves, there might not be enough votes among the Commission to qualify for a legal vote.  Secondly, with the County government being the largest employer in the county, especially if the school system is included, the field of qualified candidates and perhaps anyone who actually wishes to run for County Commission is narrowed significantly if those county employees were not allowed to hold office as a Commissioner.   One option for avoiding the conflict of interest vote which may be considered would be, for each district which may have Commission candidates who are also county employees, to allow the runner-up (non-employee) candidate to act as a ‘stand in’ Commissioner only during budget votes.  If all the Commission candidates in any district are county employees or if there is only one candidate running  in a district who is also a county employee, an ‘Alternate Commissioner’ could be added to the ballot; much like alternate jurors in a court trial.  As you may have guessed already, any type of possible solutions to the conflict of interest problem would face several hurdles.  The County would have to adopt a resolution which would have to be sent to the State Legislature for approval if they would even consider the resolution – probably isn’t going to happen anytime soon.