The Oklahoma Bar Journal December 2024

these land-use decision-makers, holding substantial quasi-judicial power, exercise that power “with strict impartiality.” 24 BEST PRACTICES FOR TRAINING LIAISONS AND NEW BOARD/COMMISSION MEMBERS Understanding potential conflicts of interest can be tricky for new board/commission members, espe cially when they are new to that pub lic role, and “[e]ven people of honest character can deceive themselves about what exactly the public interest requires, especially when personal gain hangs in the balance.” 25 Accordingly, training for new members is imperative, as is updated training for longer-term members. In-person training has many bene fits, but municipalities should also consider having written materials for members to use as a reference later. One strong example of a training handbook for board/ commission members comes from the city of Raleigh, North Carolina. 26 This handbook dis cusses everything from the

purpose and composition of the various boards and commissions to the state laws regarding open meetings and public records. Any training should provide examples of the type of conflicts likely to occur for the specific public body and what relation ships potentially need to be disclosed. Detailed guidance on the municipality’s definitions of financial interest, personal inter est, etc., is helpful. This guidance should clarify the duty to disclose potential conflicts and detail the procedure for such disclosure. The potential consequences for not disclosing a conflict should also be outlined in detail and emphasized. One idea to encourage compli ance with conflict of interest rules is to circulate a form ahead of each meeting where the member has to review the agenda and either check “none” or disclose the con flict of interest. Another best prac tice is to have a standing item at the top of each agenda, prompting the chair to inquire about conflicts of interest before discussion has started on any action items. Transparency is often touted as a sanitizing element for govern ment function, but that is only the first step in addressing conflicts of interest. 27 Once a member of a public body discloses a conflict of interest as to an agenda item, it may be wise to recommend that they physically leave the room when that item is being discussed. There can be pushback here, espe cially when a member is, in fact, the applicant or the applicant’s representative and would like to assist in presenting the relevant information to the public body (Always a risk when you have talented professionals on your boards and commissions!).

Sometimes, a member of a public body might make state ments demonstrating that they have completely prejudged an application and are no longer able to have an open mind on the issue. In that case, the member should be disqualified from participating in the decision-making process. For example, in a 1957 Rhode Island case, a neighbor told a zoning board member that he and his other neighbors planned to object to a proposed zon ing ordinance change. 20 “What difference does it make?” replied the zoning board member, “We are going to shove it down your throats anyway.” 21 The neighbor insisted that the zoning board member would object to it, too, if he lived in the area, and the zoning board member replied, “I don’t live there and I don’t care.” 22 The court found that these statements “destroy[ed] public confidence” in the board member’s impartiality and ordered the board to rehear the application de novo without this member involved. 23 The court emphasized the importance that

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

DECEMBER 2024 | 29

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL