The dispute could cost Susan Murphy her seat on the school board, even though she won election last November with the second-most votes out of five candidates.
Throughout her campaign Murphy made no attempt to hide the fact that her husband, Martin, is a member of the Service Employees International Union Local 284 bargaining unit that negotiates with Mounds View Schools. She even knocked doors with Martin and other members of Local 284.
Murphy pledged to abstain from voting on her husband\'s contract, and, according to the election results, that was good enough for the citizens of the Mounds View School District.
But it wasn\'t good enough for John Roszak, the district\'s attorney.
According to school board records, Roszak not only advised the school board of Murphy\'s "potential" conflict of interest under state law, but also he warned board members that if they "knowingly participated in board processes or actions … tainted by a direct or indirect conflict of interest," they too would be subject to criminal and civil penalties.
Murphy\'s attorney, Jay Lindgren, called that interpretation of state statute unprecedented and overly narrow.
"The school district\'s attorney has reached the conclusion that the fact that Susan\'s husband is employed by the school district is a conflict of interest, and (Roszak) thinks the only way for her to resolve it is to resign or be removed from office," Lindgren said. "We think that\'s crazy."
The school board has not taken a position regarding the alleged conflict of interest, but Roszak is pushing for an official inquiry into the matter by a retired Hennepin County judge.
Murphy has refused to participate in such an inquiry, which, according to Lindgren, "would examine Ms. Murphy\'s income and household expenses and how she and her husband share money in their household."
Instead, Murphy will continue to act as a member of the Mounds View School Board, abstaining from voting only on matters relating to her husband\'s collective bargaining agreement, while the attorneys, Lindgren said, seek to negotiate an agreement.
Statewide attention
Lindgren\'s law firm, Dorsey and Whitney, is handling Murphy\'s case at the request of the Minnesota American Civil Liberties Union. Her case drew the ACLU\'s attention because of its broad implications regarding election law.
According to Lindgren, the statute regarding an elected official\'s conflict of interest applies not only to school board members, but to city council and county board members as well.
If Mounds View unseats Murphy from its school board, the ripple effect throughout the state\'s web of local governments would be huge.
"We have to keep this from happening," Lindgren said.
Clarifying the statute
The state constitution lays out the qualifications candidates must meet for election to a school board. The candidate must be 21 years old, for example, and must live in the school district he or she seeks to represent.
The constitution says nothing, though, about whether or not the candidate\'s spouse may be an employee of the school district. For that reason, Murphy\'s case could end up challenging the constitutionality of the statute in question.
"Even if (Roszak) is right, that Minnesota law says you cannot be an elected official if your spouse is in a union employed by the public unit of government, then I think there\'s really a good argument that the statute is unconstitutional," Lindgren said.
For that reason, a state legislator who represents the north-metro suburbs served by Mounds View Schools already has drafted legislation that would clarify the conflict-of-interest statute and protect other school board members from criminal and civil penalties.
"My hope is that the counsel for the Mounds View district and the counsel for (Murphy) can come to an agreement as to what the statute actually means," Rep. Paul Gardner of Shoreview said. "But just as a backup I do have some legislation drafted that would essentially remove any potential penalty for the other board members if there was a conflict of interest."
Gardner, who called Roszak\'s interpretation of the statute "kind of overkill," said he has asked the Attorney General\'s Office to look into the statute as well.
"It\'s kind of amazing that we\'ve had to go this far," he said, "but this could have repercussions for city councils and school boards throughout the state."
Reprinted from The Union Advocate, the official newspaper of the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. Used by permission. E-mail The Advocate at: advocate@stpaulunions.org
Share
The dispute could cost Susan Murphy her seat on the school board, even though she won election last November with the second-most votes out of five candidates.
Throughout her campaign Murphy made no attempt to hide the fact that her husband, Martin, is a member of the Service Employees International Union Local 284 bargaining unit that negotiates with Mounds View Schools. She even knocked doors with Martin and other members of Local 284.
Murphy pledged to abstain from voting on her husband\’s contract, and, according to the election results, that was good enough for the citizens of the Mounds View School District.
But it wasn\’t good enough for John Roszak, the district\’s attorney.
According to school board records, Roszak not only advised the school board of Murphy\’s "potential" conflict of interest under state law, but also he warned board members that if they "knowingly participated in board processes or actions … tainted by a direct or indirect conflict of interest," they too would be subject to criminal and civil penalties.
Murphy\’s attorney, Jay Lindgren, called that interpretation of state statute unprecedented and overly narrow.
"The school district\’s attorney has reached the conclusion that the fact that Susan\’s husband is employed by the school district is a conflict of interest, and (Roszak) thinks the only way for her to resolve it is to resign or be removed from office," Lindgren said. "We think that\’s crazy."
The school board has not taken a position regarding the alleged conflict of interest, but Roszak is pushing for an official inquiry into the matter by a retired Hennepin County judge.
Murphy has refused to participate in such an inquiry, which, according to Lindgren, "would examine Ms. Murphy\’s income and household expenses and how she and her husband share money in their household."
Instead, Murphy will continue to act as a member of the Mounds View School Board, abstaining from voting only on matters relating to her husband\’s collective bargaining agreement, while the attorneys, Lindgren said, seek to negotiate an agreement.
Statewide attention
Lindgren\’s law firm, Dorsey and Whitney, is handling Murphy\’s case at the request of the Minnesota American Civil Liberties Union. Her case drew the ACLU\’s attention because of its broad implications regarding election law.
According to Lindgren, the statute regarding an elected official\’s conflict of interest applies not only to school board members, but to city council and county board members as well.
If Mounds View unseats Murphy from its school board, the ripple effect throughout the state\’s web of local governments would be huge.
"We have to keep this from happening," Lindgren said.
Clarifying the statute
The state constitution lays out the qualifications candidates must meet for election to a school board. The candidate must be 21 years old, for example, and must live in the school district he or she seeks to represent.
The constitution says nothing, though, about whether or not the candidate\’s spouse may be an employee of the school district. For that reason, Murphy\’s case could end up challenging the constitutionality of the statute in question.
"Even if (Roszak) is right, that Minnesota law says you cannot be an elected official if your spouse is in a union employed by the public unit of government, then I think there\’s really a good argument that the statute is unconstitutional," Lindgren said.
For that reason, a state legislator who represents the north-metro suburbs served by Mounds View Schools already has drafted legislation that would clarify the conflict-of-interest statute and protect other school board members from criminal and civil penalties.
"My hope is that the counsel for the Mounds View district and the counsel for (Murphy) can come to an agreement as to what the statute actually means," Rep. Paul Gardner of Shoreview said. "But just as a backup I do have some legislation drafted that would essentially remove any potential penalty for the other board members if there was a conflict of interest."
Gardner, who called Roszak\’s interpretation of the statute "kind of overkill," said he has asked the Attorney General\’s Office to look into the statute as well.
"It\’s kind of amazing that we\’ve had to go this far," he said, "but this could have repercussions for city councils and school boards throughout the state."
Reprinted from The Union Advocate, the official newspaper of the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. Used by permission. E-mail The Advocate at: advocate@stpaulunions.org