Ethics opinion addresses participation in municipal health vote

Responding to a query from the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, the State Ethics Commission has issued an advisory opinion stating that elected officials who receive health insurance from their community are precluded from participating in the vote to accept the Municipal Health Insurance Reform Act.

The commission cites the conflict-of-interest law (Ch. 268A), which “prohibits municipal employees, including city councilors and selectmen, from participating in particular matters in which they have a direct and immediate, or a reasonably foreseeable, financial interest.”

The opinion, however, points out that a city council or board of selectmen may invoke the “rule of necessity” if it cannot obtain a quorum due to members being excluded because they are subscribers in the municipal health insurance plan. This option provides a pathway to accept the law even if members of the board of selectmen or city council get health insurance from the municipality.

“In municipalities which lack a quorum of councilors or selectmen to approve acceptance of [the Municipal Health Insurance Reform Act (Ch. 69 of the Acts of 2011)] because of conflicts of interest,” the advisory states, “it is my opinion that the rule of necessity may be invoked by one or more of the disqualified members to allow them to participate in deciding whether to accept that Chapter. When this is done, the minutes must reflect that the board lacks a quorum because of conflicts of interest of members and specifically state the facts that give rise to those conflicts, and that the rule of necessity is being used to allow the board to take a valid vote.”

Concerned that this opinion will slow down the acceptance and implementation of the Chapter 69, the MMA is exploring an appeal of the opinion.

• Download Ethics Commission’s advisory opinion (60K PDF)